I need reliable sources on the beginning of the universe...

Wasn't that what I provided early in the discussion? A reliable source!

Most of the sites deal with creation theory rather than what he asked for, information on creation ex nihilo

I still suggest going to Hebrews 11 and searching modern commentaries.

It will focus your response towards a biblical conclusion rather than toward a particular theory of man.

Rob

 

Dr. Bob first.

 

Creation ex nihilo [Latin] = Creation out of nothing

• Pantheists identify God with creation, God is contained in everything.
• Theists identify God as the originator of all creation, God is above his creation and is revealed by it.

The following list is almost doing your homework.

1. Examine the Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 4)
2. Look for A.A. Hodge’s commentary on it for some excellent ideas and abundant references.
3. Find a Modern Systematic Theology Text – Erickson, Grudem, Geisler(!).
4. Bible Dictionaries may help too.
5. Referencing Augustine of Hippo would probably give you extra credit.

Rob

 

Most of those links are pretty decent. I'd stay away from the Setterfield link. It is my belief that the influence of Barry's wife has made his work untrustworthy. God seems taken out of the equation when convenient, put in when it fits, the work seems almost exclusively self-promoted and published, and some of the scriptural teachings and beliefs border on cultic, in my opinion. There are some good ideas and links you can use for reference...other than that, I'd urge you to approach everything presented by that couple with extreme caution, although there was a paper published before Barry's marriage that is pretty decent.

If you want to write a credible paper for your class, stick with those who have actually studied, obtained degrees in their field, have remained on a good path spiritually, and who have earned the right to be respected enough for publication in their field.

 

Where were you when I was in college??:laugh:

 

We're just jealous, didn't you get that?? :laugh: Just get an A and make us all proud of you, ok?!

 

Check out the following: (Dont know your position with regard to creation) the following are from respected scientists and thinkers and who have either a Christian or Jewish background

Dr. Gerald Schroeder (The Science of God, and Genisis and the Big Bang)
Dr. Hugh Ross (Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, More than a Theory: A Testable Model of Creation... other books0
Dr. Stephen Barr (Modern Physics, Ancient Faith)
Dr. William Lane Craig (The Existance of God and the beginning of the Universe)

 

zrs6v4

I like Barry Setterfield, he has all sorts of articles on this subject. Most are complex and difficult to understand, but he has easier articles for the layman.

http://www.setterfield.org/plasmamodelintroduction.html

He will answer questions if you send him e-mail too!

 

Setterfield is a pseudoscientist. One page of links to critical examination of his ideas is HERE.

His proponents are grasping at straws in an attempt to harmonize a young earth view with observable, verifiable empirical data.

HERE is an Intelligent Design site that warns about Setterfield's ideas, among others, lest evangelicals look foolish by embracing them.

 

You might try the Discovery Institute of Seattle @ http://www.discovery.org/.

I have found some interesting articles there. Their general approach on creation is intelligent design. Their studies are not limited to science.

Also I would not rule out Setterfield. There is also a book Starlight and Time written by a scientist at Los Alamos [I believe]. I have read it but misplaced it. Could understand the textual material okay but the mathematics was over my head.

 

Google or Yahoo Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys. Also found the following by Humphreys so don't believe all the crap about Setterfield being a pseudo scientist.

SEVEN YEARS OF STARLIGHT AND TIME
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
*Additional resources are available at the bottom of this article.
Seven years ago this month I sent Master Books the manuscript of a small book on creationist cosmology called Starlight and Time.1 Without much publicity it has proved surprisingly popular, being well into its sixth printing and recently made into a video.2 Apparently many Christians have been concerned about the problem suggested by the book's subtitle, Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. That is, if the cosmos is indeed as young as the Bible says it is, how could the light from very distant stars have had time to get here? Consequently, the book has had quite an impact, both favorable and vitriolic.

A 1987 monograph by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield3 had stimulated me to examine this problem. He suggested that the speed of light, c, was much faster in the past. His particular "c-decay" model turned out to have problems with both data and physics theory, problems I outlined in appendix A of my book. But he deserves credit for focusing creationist attention on cosmology and for setting the example of offering a very creative solution to the problem.

The monograph revived my interest in Einstein's general theory of relativity, which I had neglected since graduate school. Physicists like me often use Einstein's special theory of relativity dealing with the effects of high speeds and have found it indispensable. Few of us have occasion to use general relativity, which deals with effects of gravity and acceleration not easily attainable in the laboratory. But it is an essential tool for astrophysics and cosmology.

Until the last decade many young-earth creationists had avoided relativity, and consequently astrophysics and cosmology. The main reason was a dislike of some of the philosophical implications and logical paradoxes associated with the theory. However, I found that the bad philosophy and paradoxes come not from the mathematics of relativity itself, but rather from a bad interpretation of the mathematics. A better interpretation is possible which resolves the philosophical and logical problems as my book briefly explains.4 I've been pleased to see that in recent years creationist scientists are no longer avoiding relativity, but rather studying it seriously and deriving better applications.

http://www.genesisfiles.com/Guest_Articles/Seven Years of Starlight and Time - Russell Humphreys.htm

 

Although some of Dr. Humphrey's may be "interesting", to be fair, their exist a multitude of credible criticisms of his work. (Scientific criticisms, that is).

 

I'm not familiar with any credible scientific criticisms of his work in Starlight and Time.

 

Surprise! Surprise! The creationist viewpoint was criticized by atheists!

 

quantum: In physics the smallest quantity of radiant energy.

 

Time to update yourself then :tongue3:

Personally I don't know enough about physics to bat my way out of a paper bag so it's not a battle I'll fight.

Rob

 

OK, well, you said "credible criticisms" and then specified "Scientific criticisms, that is," so I thought that's what you were talking about.

The Unraveling of Starlight and Time is a newsletter article, not a peer-reviewed critique in a scientific journal. It's basically like if I put up a critique on my own website -- without the peer-review process there's no way to judge its scientific value, much less its credibility.

Ross and Connor have certainly carried out plan to discredit Humphreys' theory in newsletters and radio programs, but that's not "credible scientific criticism." It's a smear campaign.

Even Connor's peer-reviewed papers (I'm aware of two) contain sophomoric errors concerning obvious features of simple Newtonian physics (for example, failing to account for the fact that if matter were evenly dispersed through an infinite space, it would have no center of mass), which lead to compounded errors in his relativistic analysis. Worse, Connor completely ignores research confirming Humphreys' theory. A credible scientific critique would acknowledge it and at least attempt to distinguish the results.

Now, I couldn't solve a Klein metric if you held a gun to my head, but I do know what constitutes a "credible scientific critique."