Here is part two of the Gish vs Ross debate:
==========================================================
. Continued from previous message.
Dobson: Well, gentlemen as we discussed last time apparently the
existence of the big bang - the explosion of matter that some people
think - I think Hugh identifies with this perspective - that began in
an infinitely small space and sphere of time is at the heart of the
controversy. Did God create the universe that way? Did He start it
with a big bang or did He do it some other way? And, uh, let me share
a couple of scriptures with you that sound to me like He did - that
sound like the big bang was the mechanism by which He created it, and
then you comment on it. Uh, the first is in Psalms 102 beginning with
verse 25 says "Of old did thou lay the foundations of the earth and
the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost
endure. They will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like
raiment and they pass away." So we have a specific beginning point
that he laid them out. Now let me go to Isaiah 42:5: Thus says God the
Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth
the earth and what comes from it. That sounds like it is moving. He
stretched them out, and then there is that scripture that says the
heavens will wax old like a garment and be rolled up like a scroll and
there will be a new heavens and a new earth, which sounds to me like
He exploded it outward and He plans to pull it all in to another
beginning point and to explode it again. Does that not sound like the
context of those scriptures?
Gish: Well, God in His creation may in some way have stretched out
things. We don't know just whether He ... where the stars are now.
I've always assumed where the stars are and the galaxies are that's
where God placed them...
Dobson: That they're not moving apart from each other...
Gish: Well, they may be. I don't know. Even there's a disagreement
among astronomers on that point...
Ross: So you don't believe the universe is expanding?
Gish: I ... don't believe necessarily it is. Of course there are
other astronomers, equally, quite well known who would disagree that
the red shift is necessarily an indication that galaxies are moving
away from us...
Ross: (unintelligible) (probably asking him to name the astronomers
who "would disagree that the red shift is necessarily an indication
that galaxies are moving away from us")
Gish: Anomalies. There's Geoffrey (sp?) Burbage and Hannes Althein
and Halton Arp and many people like that...
Dobson: Good old Halton Arp. Very good friend of mine...
Ross: He *is* a friend of mine...
Dobson: Is that right?
Gish: Certainly not atheists, but they don't accept the current big
bang cosmology. But I want to say that the Bible tells us that on the
first day God created light. Now you take this big bang. And certainly
a big flash. But when these gases expand out into the vast stretches
of the universe I mean it's dark, I mean black, no light anywhere in
the universe at that time, or very little of it, because it expands to
where the temperature is about 100 degrees Kelvin about 100 degrees
above absolute zero and these gases are tremendously expanded and I
don't see that in the scriptures you see. What Hugh believes and what
the big bang cosmologists believe that things started at one point.
The thing exploded, these gases expanded out into the vast stretches
of the universe. That's all there was, there's just hydrogen and
helium there, vastly expanded. There were no stars, no galaxies,
nothing like that. And then somehow from this vastly expanded gas at
low temperatures stars created themselves, and then galaxies created
themselves. Finally our solar system created itself. And then if you
go along with biological evolution then life evolved and went from the
first form...
Dobson: But that's a big step that you wouldn't support, or even the
phrase that they created themselves, Hugh, you wouldn't accept that...
Ross: No, I'm not accepting that
Gish: Well, okay. I just have to know: what is the difference, what is
the difference that Hugh believes. I heard Hugh discuss this subject
with Eric Lerner. Now Eric Lerner does not believe in the big bang.
He is an evolutionist - totally - unbeliever and I heard the
discussion and Dr. Dobson, I couldn't tell who was the Christian and
who was the unbeliever, because they were just discussing two
naturalistic theories, evolutionary theories of the origin of the
universe and Hugh was defending the bib bang cosmology, Eric Lerner
was defending the plasma theory and so forth and so on, back and forth
and I couldn't - I wouldn't have known who...
Ross: Well maybe you missed something, Duane. Eric Lerner supports the
idea of an infinitely old universe cause he believes that with
infinite time he doesn't need a creator, and he says so in his book.
He's driven by his atheistic beliefs, and he's threatened by the big
bang because it only gives him billions of years. Now let me throw
out something that I think would be helpful for the layman. The
universe is big, very big, and when you look at the amount of time it
takes light to come from those distant sources to us, it's consistent
not with infinite time - not with thousands of years, but billions of
years. And that's very simple - just the very vastness of the cosmos.
And this is why astronomers say it's easier for them to believe in a
flat earth than a universe only thousands of years old - because they
measure it to be so vast...
Dobson: Duane, you would say that God created the light between us and
those
bodies, right?
Gish: Well, the Bible does tell us this: That God created the sun and
the stars and He created them to be for signs and seasons on the
earth. Obviously we had to see them immediately - we couldn't wait -
we couldn't wait for billions of years for the light to get here...
Dobson: Well, if we weren't here we wouldn't be waiting.
Gish: Well, that's right, if we weren't here. But I believe we were
here, and God created those stars to be for signs and seasons on the
earth. Now if I were God, I don't know how I would do it otherwise to
make those things visible, you'd have to create the light in between.
No atheist or unbeliever is going to accept that explanation obviously
- he doesn't believe in God. But we have a God who is the Creator and
if God wanted to create that stream of photons in place and so forth
He could have done it...
Ross: He could have done it, Duane, but we have measurements to prove
that He didn't do it that way...
Gish: No, I don't think you have measurements to prove anything...
Ross: Well, let me...
Gish: If you follow your cosmological theories, then...
Ross: As a beam of light travels through space it changes as it
travels through space. The spectral lines are broadened consistent
with the amount of space it's traveled through...
Dobson: Is that the Doppler effect?
Ross: No, it's not the Doppler effect...
Dobson: I'm showing my ignorance...
Ross: Well, the lines from these objects are sharp, but because of
intervening material that jostles back and forth in the line of sight,
the lines get broadened out. Also the continuum radiation, which is
the radiation between the spectral lines, becomes progressively redder
and redder because of the intervening dust.
(everyone tries to talk at once. Laughter)
Ross: If you see a forest fire and the smoke from that fire will make
the sun look red, it's the same effect, so if a beam of light
traverses space, the continuum radiation gets redder and redder and
the spectral lines get broader and broader, and as astronomers make
these measurements on the stars and the galaxies, they establish that
the light actually came from the source, not from some intermediate
point.
Dobson: Now Hugh, from my reading as a layman, and before you get
sassy with me, tell me how to discipline a toddler, you know? Come
over into my area! From my recent readings, especially the spring, of
1992, uh, there's a great deal of excitement in the scientific
community, especially among astronomers, about the discoveries by COBE
as related to the big bang. Put that into the simplest terms you can,
and then Duane, I'd like you to give your reaction to it.
Ross: Well, we're featuring a four page article on it in our next
"Facts and Faith" newsletter, it's at the printer right now, and we're
describing not just that discovery, but four others - five discoveries
in the last two months, and these five discoveries are all consistent
with a particular subclass of big bang models. Before these
discoveries we knew it had to be a big bang because of this tremendous
dissipation of heat that we observe in the universe, but we didn't
know exactly what kind of big bang. Now we do, and because of that
exact definition - more exact than we've ever had before, astronomers
and physicists are coming out of the closet and saying we're looking
at God - that the belief in God today is more credible than it's ever
been in the past 100 years.
Dobson: Dr. Steven Hawking, that I've talked about here on the program
before, whom some people consider to be the brightest man on the face
of the earth said, and this isn't a direct quote, but it's very close,
that this may not only be the most important discovery of the century,
but of all time...
Ross: Right, that is the exact quote. You got it right.
Dobson: You obviously don't agree, Duane.
Gish: I certainly challenge the statement by Dr. Ross that there have
been all these observations the last few weeks that's confirmed the
existence of cold dark matter...
Ross: Exotic matter, Duane...
Gish: ...no radiation, and gives off no heat, you can't see it, no
light, no radiation, no way to detect it. I have an article right here
in front of me, "The Race to Detect Dark Matter" and it says how
tremendously difficult - these are particles - if it exists - not
ordinary matter...
Ross: Well let me give you ...
Gish: How do you detect matter that is totally exotic, you don't even
know what it is, you've never seen it, it gives off no radiation, it
doesn't give off any light, it's just been postulated to exist because
as you say in your article in one of your publications, "without cold
dark matter we cannot get the universe we have today with the big bang
cosmology". So what you have done is invent another theory to support
your previous theory. It's like saying this: Santa Clause could not
possibly reach all the points on earth in 24 hours. Now we believe in
Santa Clause, we know he must have done it. Well then we invent
another theory: that his reindeer can move at the speed of light.
Therefore it's possible that Santa Clause reached all points in 24
hours. Now this cold dark matter is a reindeer that moved at the speed
of light, it's something that is totally imaginary. No one has seen
it, no one can detect it. It's just postulated you say it must be
there....
Ross: Well, let me try to bring you up to date. It has been
detected...
Gish: Well, I, Look...
Dobson: Let him give the answer.
Gish: Those of us at ICR follow these things just as closely as
anybody...
Ross: Are you reading the astrophysical journals?
Gish: Reading, astrophysical journals...[unintelligible]
Ross: I've got papers right here with me. This stuff is newly
published...
Dobson: Is there any evidence that cold dark matter exists?
Ross: Well, we're talking about exotic matter. There's three kinds of
exotic matter: cold dark matter, warm dark matter and hot dark
matter...
Gish: 'Scuse me, what do you mean by, let's define exotic matter, what
do you mean?
Ross: Exotic matter is that kind of matter that does not strongly
interact with radiation. Atoms and molecules, the protons and neutrons
that we're used to - what we call ordinary matter - has the property
that it strongly interacts with radiation. Exotic matter does not, and
there are about 36 different kinds of particles that make up this
exotic matter...
Gish: Excuse me, is this exotic matter - is that hypothetical or is
that something you've got in the laboratory...
Ross: Let me finish, OK?
Gish: Yeah.
Ross: Because it doesn't strongly interact with radiation it's
difficult to detect at electromagnetic wavelengths - using our
telescopes with light observation, you can't detect it directly by the
light. On the other hand exotic matter uh, exerts gravity. There's a
gravitational tug that it exerts. And what the theory of general
relativity tells us is that massive objects have the capacity of
bending light that comes by them. That was the first proof we had of
general relativity when we saw starlight being bent when it passes by
the sun in a solar eclipse. Well it turns out that galaxies and giant,
massive gas clouds will lense light the same way, and so if we look at
the light of quasars that happened to have between them and us one of
these massive objects we get a measure by measuring that bending of
the total mass that's responsible for that bending. That includes the
ordinary plus the exotic. Now those measurements have been made and
coupled with the first accurate ever measurement of the ordinary mass
of the universe - this was published just eight weeks ago - by the
Hubble telescope, through measuring the deuterium line at ultraviolet
wavelengths it gave us an accurate measure of the ordinary mass. So if
you have an accurate measure of the total mass, you subtract the
ordinary mass, that gives you the exotic mass...
Dobson: Now you, you've gotten us off into very deep water...
Ross: That's only one confirmation...
Dobson: Give me the bottom line, the bottom line is that COBE has
identified some radiation that seems to confirm...
Ross: The bottom line is this: by five separate discoveries, all
independent of one another, they're confirming that we're looking at a
universe that has a few times more exotic matter than ordinary matter
- somewhere between 3 to 10 times as much exotic matter as ordinary
matter.
Dobson: And that would have been necessary to have caused the galaxies
and the...
Ross: Well, if you don't get the ripples then you don't get the galaxy
structure. Without that ratio of exotic we don't get the boron and
beryllium in the universe. So that's why they're all so excited.
Dobson: Without that the theory crumbles in your view. Is that right,
Duane?
Gish: Absolutely. Hugh himself has said that. He says that in one of
his articles. He says here, "It is impossible for galaxies to clump
the way they do without some kind and amount of cold dark matter
playing a significant role in the dynamics of galaxy clustering. You
gotta have cold dark matter...
Dobson: I have a tough question for each of you and I would really
like, cause I don't want this to get away from me without dealing with
it. Hugh, my greatest problem with the perspective you come from, and
it's very, uh, well it's almost arrogant for me to even debate you
guys because I have so little information. But from my understanding
of the Bible, my greatest problem is that I understand that sickness
and death and sorrow and pain came into the world with Adam's sin.
That was a perfect world, that the Garden of Eden was perfect, without
flaw prior to Adam and Eve's sin, and at that moment sorrow and
suffering came into the world. Well that was obviously very late in
the scheme of things, and the way you describe the earth being
billions of years old, means that that violent world of animals had to
occur for eons prior to Adam's sin - that creates problems for me -
one animal ripping apart and eating another one and all of that
process - I don't understand how that's consistent with our
understanding of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.
Ross: Well, I remember a Bible study at CalTech when we were studying
Revelation 21, and several of us discovered in the text that the laws
of physics radically change with the new creation. You have this
universe removed from existence with its constants and laws of
physics, and replaced by a brand new universe with different laws and
constants of physics. And the question is, why? Well what happens at
that transformation is that God has permanently conquered the problem
of evil, suffering, pain and death, and with the removal of these
things, there's no longer a need for this universe. Back to Romans
8:22: The entire creation groans waiting for the adoption of sons.
Literally the whole universe is groaning. In other words I believe
that God built into this universe those equations of physics and
constants of physics so that once man chose to introduce evil into the
system, God could very quickly, in a matter of just thousands of
years, conquer that problem of evil and then take us into the universe
He had planned for us all along. But He wants to wait until that
problem is permanently conquered before He takes us in there.
Dobson: Duane, the concern that I expressed is...
Gish: I don't think Hugh answered your concern. I... I.... what you
expressed a concern that there was death and pain and suffering before
the sin of Adam, before man rebelled against God, and I don't think
Hugh even attempted to answer that problem - I didn't find the answer
there. There is a problem, of course. If there's always pain and
suffering and you have these hominids, whatever they were, subhuman
and uh, dying and uh, for billions of years or millions of years
before Adam sinned, then death did not come into the world then by
Adam's sin. It was here in abundance before that. Now, maybe, maybe
Hugh would say that human death came in at that time, uh, I don't know
whether he would say something lower than man was dying at that time
and, you know I think...
Ross: That's correct, I believe that that act brought about human
death...
Gish: Well, let me tell you another reason why we're concerned about
this, and I want to bring in another person here - a person we're
concerned about, a person whose views have evolved, I should use that
word objectively, evolved considerably, and that's a man uh, Dr. Davis
Young who's a geologist who started out believing in the Flood - by
the way we haven't mentioned the Flood - Hugh did not mention the
flood. Hugh does not believe in a global Flood. Now there's no way
you can read that Scripture and get anything but a global flood. Now
the Flood, I mean...
Ross: How about a universal flood?
Gish: A global flood...
Ross: I believe in a universal flood...
Gish: But you don't believe in a global flood...
Ross: Well the two terms are not necessarily synonymous... they're
only synonymous to twentieth century readers...
Gish: Don't do it with semantics. Did the flood waters cover the
earth?
Ross: All of mankind was destroyed and all the animals associated with
him...
Gish: Ah, no, no, no...
(everyone tries to talk at once)
Dobson: We'll do well to settle the Young Earth theory without getting
into the ...
Gish: You know, Davis Young, and we're really concerned with this.
Here's an article he published, entitled "Theology and natural
science" and this was in The Reformed Journal, May of 1988, on page
15. Now here's a man who originally believed in the Flood and so forth
and he got into geology and now he more or less believes in evolution
and so forth and so on. He says this, he says, "Human antiquity does
raise some interesting questions, " 'cause he said here that he
believes that humans are possibly hundreds of thousands of years old -
that is, they came on the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. He
says this, "Human antiquity does raise some interesting questions. One
problem concerns the traditional view of the transmission of the
creation, fall and Cain and Abel narratives. The older view is that
these narratives are accounts that were handed down from early times
and that the near eastern myths are corrupted versions of the truth.
The antiquity of the race precludes written accounts dating back to
the first humans, and it strains credulity to accept the idea that
these narratives were transmitted verbally and without corruption for
thousands of years until they were written down."
Ross: But you know, Duane, I don't believe any of that.
Gish: You see what he says? Here's a man...
Ross: I don't believe that...
Gish: ... believe in these old ages and things like that and he says
now, "we got a problem. It really strains credulity to believe that
Cain and Abel, Garden of Eden, the Fall, could really be true.
Ross: I believe they are true.
Gish: Well good. I'm glad for that view - I'm - praise the Lord.
==========================================================
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------