Joe Spears MS

One might ask, how were there days, mornings and evenings, before the sun lit up on day 4, according to the Bible? There is a scientific model that can account for that! According to the physics of this model, there would have been light, starting on the first day, from a quasar at the center of the galaxy. This would provide light from a single direction, like the sun does today. See the illustration of a quasar, which make this point obvious.

Quasar Image - from NASA

Agreement with Biblical Chronology

The model agrees with Biblical chronology. We noted in the second article of this series that the actual age of astronomical objects, as well as the actual age of radiometrically-dated objects (rocks), can be calculated using this model. We will look at the calculated age of the universe from the calculations of the model, and compare this with when creation week occurred according to the most ancient available Biblical texts.

One might wonder whether there is any science to support the model described in the earlier articles in the Big Stretch series, especially after seeing how much it agrees with the Bible. In this short article, we take a look at the scientific evidence for this model.

This article is part of a continuing series about a cosmological model that integrates 2 scientific fields, each based on work of multiple Nobel prize winners. The resulting model, referred to here as the Setterfield model or the Setterfield ZPE-plasma model, is not only in agreement with laboratory results and astronomical observations, but is in amazing agreement with the oldest texts of Genesis. Last month we reviewed evidence for the agreement of this model with the Bible. That included the sun forming on day 4 of creation week, light on day 1, and the earth forming before the sun. See part 3 of the series (http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/big-stretch-3) for more Biblical evidence, and part 1 (http://tasc-creationscience.org/article/big-stretch-1) for a general introduction to this model.

There is an expression about not seeing the forest for the trees. Sometimes it is good to step back, and look at the larger picture. With regard to creation science, there are lots of "trees;" we have articles on geology, genetics, chemistry, paleontology, cosmology, botany, etc. But what is the big picture? Let's start at the beginning: the origin of life.