Apologetics: The Bible and Science, Part 7 (Quark Confinement and Six Days)

Science and ReligionGerald Schroeder, a Jew, has written a series of books on creation and science, offering perspectives from Jewish history often missed by Christians.

Moreover, Schroeder holds a doctorate in physics from MIT, making him truly qualified to address cosmological issues.

In The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, Schroeder takes up the question of relativity and time. According to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, the speed of light is constant regardless of one’s frame of reference. Because speed is distance divided by time, if distance changes, and the speed of light doesn’t change, then time must change. That is, at very high speeds, close to the speed of light, time slows — and this has been experimentally confirmed countless times.

What few people know is that the same thing is true of gravity. Time slows in the presence of very high mass. And what has more mass than the universe? (Mass distorts the fabric of the universe, so that light has to travel further due to the curvature of space from a very massive object. But since light cannot slow — having a constant speed — time has to slow to keep the speed of light constant.)

In particular, if you were an observer of the Big Bang in the first few moments, you’d be in the presence of a universe 1 trillion times denser than it presently is, because it would be that much smaller.

The universe began from nothing but the Logos, who willed it into existence. And thanks to high energy particle colliders, we’ve been able to see how matter behaves within less than one-second after the Big Bang at these incredible densities. And when the universe was 1 trillionth of its present size, quarks first formed. Quarks are the bricks out of which protons and neutrons are made. They were the first matter.

And time moved much more slowly than it does today — by a factor of 1 trillion.

bigbang_timelineSo try this math.

Assume a universe of 13.82 billion years old. This is the current thinking of cosmologists.

Divide by the change in redshift (how much the frequency of light from the creation has been stretched by the expansion of the universe) since the formation of quarks (a factor of 1 trillion). You get 0.01382 years.

Add 10% to adjust for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’ expansion. This gives 0.015202 years.

Convert to days by multiplying by 365.25 days per year. You get 5.55 days. Round, and you get 6 days! Or as Schroeder points out, the time from quark confinement to the creation of Adam, presumably around midday of the sixth day.

Pretty cool, huh? If you were God, watching the universe be created from nothing but Logos, at the moment matter is first created, the universe would appear to take 6 days for humans to appear.

So who was saying that science contradicts the Bible?

So how can it be that Ancient Near East temple construction stories, in which the god rests in his new temple on the Seventh Day, and modern cosmology, built on the Theory of General Relativity, with data taken from high energy particle colliders, all come together so beautifully? Well, it requires an Intelligence far beyond our own.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Christian Evidences/Apologetics, Scientific Creationism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Apologetics: The Bible and Science, Part 7 (Quark Confinement and Six Days)

  1. Alan says:

    I presume you meant 14.8 billion years. Although the number I’ve seen is 13.8 billion. Can you clarify what numbers are used in your calculations? Thanks.

  2. Skip says:

    Jay, You said the universe is 14.8 million years old. I think you meant billion. In addition quark particles are the smallest we have observed but there may be smaller particles still.

  3. Jay Guin says:

    Thanks to the readers for their corrections. Billion is of course right. As is 13.82 billion. I was working off very old notes and failed to update the age to reflect the latest findings. This actually produces a better fit for Gen 1.

  4. Skip says:

    Genesis and the Big Bang by Schroeder is a great book.

  5. rich constant says:

    now that is some fun stuff.
    coarse that is a compared to what…
    now then
    how did a universe, that could support life come out of a big bang of chaos, a random bunch of stuff, come together.
    IF THE mass of the all elements and the bang was not controlled.
    for instance
    if the mass of hydrogen varied by 10% , our universe, our galaxy, our solar system,would not exist,
    and that is just one of them.
    the variables of the combinations is more than a Google.
    yep
    their is no GOD
    AND YOU JUST CAN’T FIX stupid.
    RICH

  6. rich constant says:

    IF I REMEMBER RIGHT….
    KINDA SORT OF…15 years ago
    if all of the random variables that could a happened,
    are kinda taken into consideration
    it would be akin to,
    a man shooting at a target ON the opposite side of the universe and u guessed it.
    that be random number theory again.
    rich

  7. rich constant says:

    so…
    life started out like my football coach told me that i musta started,,,

    mind ya i was the quarterback, and defensive free safety…

    i was always goofin off doing dumb stuff until it was time to play.

    he catch me. and yell Out.

    CONSTANT!!! SHAKING HIS HEAD IN DISBELIEF….

    I KNOW A PELICAN MUST OF shit ON A ROCK AND THE SUN HAD TO OF HATCHED YA.

    ANYWAY

    THAT’S KINDA LIKE THEORY WANTS PEOPLE TO BELIEVE WHERE LIFE STARTED…

    although the pelican is an asteroid that had so stuff on it and the sun hatched it…

    hopefully that makes fun nonsense..

    🙂

  8. alegler says:

    My head is spinning. But it is a cool theory.

  9. Skip says:

    What timing. A cool article came out today:

    “Paleontologists in Argentina say they recently discovered fossils belonging to the largest dinosaur on record. During its lifetime, the new species of titanosaur is believed to have stood 65-feet-tall, was more than 130-feet-long, and weighed 77 tons (155,000 pounds).

    “Given the size of these bones, which surpass any of the previously known giant animals, the new dinosaur is the largest animal known that walked on Earth,” researchers Dr. Jose Luis Carballido and Dr. Diego Pol told the BBC.”

  10. Jay, how did you get into this? I feel your pain? Cp

  11. Jay Guin says:

    Question: why did God make dinosaurs?

    answer: to thrill five year olds … And not a few adults

  12. Larry Cheek says:

    Jay,
    I am missing something in the understanding of the importance implied of the Sixth day and the creation of humans. As I was reading the post I was expecting that there was a time being projected as to when the creation would support life. Plants created on day Three, fowl and sea creatures the Fifth day, land animals and man created on day Six. What created the connection of the calculations to arrive on the Sixth day. Was this the earliest time that land creatures could exist?

  13. Larry Cheek says:

    Jay,
    After my previous post I was re reading the post and encountered your comment. “Pretty cool, huh? If you were God, watching the universe be created from nothing but Logos, at the moment matter is first created, the universe would appear to take 6 days for humans to appear.”

    Are we to assume that God stood back and watched while this Logos (I am assuming to be his Word) designed and created?
    Did he just watch while Jesus (The Word) assembled creation?
    Then humans just appeared?

  14. Jay Guin says:

    Larry,

    In Schroeder’s book, he attempts to equate each day of the Gen 1 account with what would have appeared to be a “day” in relativistic terms.

  15. Jay Guin says:

    Larry,

    “If” means if.

  16. Skip says:

    Even with all the known explanations about the origins of the universe and all the current knowledge of the Bible… there are discoveries yet to be made and in decades from now the explanation today may have to be revised to account for new discoveries in science and in the Biblical text.

  17. R.J. says:

    It is my understanding that the Ancient Near East thought in block logic rather then chronological logic.

  18. Jay Guin says:

    RJ,

    Block Logic is a new term to me, but what it means is very familiar. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3324

    Block Logic
    by DR. Aaron Wilson:

    The biblical authors never argue the existence of God; they only assume it. God is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrews primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving God” (i.e., a God who loves), rather than “God is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture.

    The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was “under the sun” (Eccl. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to oversystematize or force harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what God has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sizes of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand.

    While philosophical and structural divisions of learning obviously have an important role to play in contemporary education, our Western culture–especially on most levels of secular and Christian instruction–has provided little understanding concerning the nature of Hebrew thought. Thus we have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schema-tization. Neither God nor his Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both God and his Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation. The Christian dogmatic tradition has much to learn from the Jewish community at this point.

    The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth–they experienced truth. Truth is as much encounter as it is propositions. This experiential perspective on reality explains, in part, why Judaism never really developed vast systems of thought. It also allows us to understand how Judaism could live with the tensions and paradoxes surrounding block logic. To the Jew, the deed was always more important than the creed. He was not stymied by language that appeared contradictory from a human point of view. Neither did he feel compelled to reconcile what seemed irreconcilable. He believed that God ultimately was greater than any human attempt at systematizing truth. “Walking in the truth” (2 John 4) and “living the truth” (1 John 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth.

    Wilson, Marvin “Our Father Abraham” c. 1989 Eerdmans

Comments are closed.