Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    04 May '13 18:15 / 1 edit
    Starlight and Time

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

    Starlight and Time Revisited - Dr. Russell Humphreys

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BYkA6UcVg

    Distant Starlight - Creationist Solutions

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stwvRd0mbg

    Starlight And A Young Earth - Dr. G. Charles Jackson

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xdlmykLI58
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    05 May '13 00:24
    Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

    His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments 63(10):5068–5071, October 1992, ‘Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.’ I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

    Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

    ‘Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams’, (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1–6 October 1990.

    ‘Progress toward a superconducting opening switch’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 – July 1, 1987) pp. 279–282.

    ‘Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II’, (Principal author), Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10–12, 1985) pp. 262–2265.

    ‘Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons’, (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34(1):261–268, 1983.

    ‘The 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials’, (Only author) Nuclear Physics, A182:580–592, 1972.

    Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

    In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

    Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

    On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

    The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphreys’ article in their Impact series [No. 233, 'Bumps in the Big Bang’, November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

    In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

    When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

    Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American’s refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their ‘Amateur Scientist’ columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the ‘Amateur Scientist’ column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discimination. So it’s hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment. See Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

    Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: ‘I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practising scientists who are biblical creationists.’ (‘Creation in the Physics Lab’, Creation 15(3):20–23).

    Additional information on Dr D. Russell Humphreys:

    Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.
  3. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    05 May '13 04:36
    Here's some more intelligent stuff on the subject of Dr Russell Humphreys, assuming you can actually read:

    http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
  4. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    05 May '13 04:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Here's some more intelligent stuff on the subject of Dr Russell Humphreys, assuming you can actually read:

    http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
    Who is this Larry Rogers? And what made him buy a book? Seems like a weak minded person to me.

    Origins - Evidence For a Young World - Part 1 with Dr. Russell Humphreys

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX9eDTNfQHY

    Part 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM
  5. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    05 May '13 04:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Who is this Larry Rogers? And what made him buy a book? Seems like a weak minded person to me.
    You wouldn't recognise a weak minded person even when you look in a mirror.
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    05 May '13 05:02
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    You wouldn't recognise a weak minded person even when you look in a mirror.
    I am not a weak minded person - 20 Years in the Military testifies to that.
    Dr. Russell Humphreys is not likely to be a weak minded person either.
  7. 05 May '13 08:16
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am not a weak minded person - 20 Years in the Military testifies to that.
    LOL!
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    05 May '13 19:37
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    LOL!
    I'am guessing LOL! mean "Lots Of Love!" Is that right?
  9. Standard member menace71
    Can't win a game of
    06 May '13 01:48
    I'm a little skeptical when creationist are selling books and stuff but the flip side is they need to eat just like the rest of us. I perceived that Humphreys was more humble about his works and said that his work is just theory compared to others. Dude is not an intellectual sloutch either.


    Manny
  10. Standard member menace71
    Can't win a game of
    06 May '13 01:50
    Just like Stephen Hawkings. Nobody criticizes him for selling books. Manny
  11. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    06 May '13 02:00
    Originally posted by menace71
    Just like Stephen Hawkings. Nobody criticizes him for selling books. Manny
    That is probably the best way to get all your ideas to the public. You have to condense it all otherwise, like reader's digest or worse.
  12. Standard member menace71
    Can't win a game of
    06 May '13 04:57
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That is probably the best way to get all your ideas to the public. You have to condense it all otherwise, like reader's digest or worse.
    True......



    Manny
  13. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    06 May '13 16:58
    Gentry is another one with an honorary doctorate from a creationist institution.

    Here's one rebuttal of Polonium halos:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

    Gentry is supposedly a physicist, not an earth scientist, but even his physics is awry!
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    07 May '13 02:18
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Gentry is another one with an honorary doctorate from a creationist institution.

    Here's one rebuttal of Polonium halos:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

    Gentry is supposedly a physicist, not an earth scientist, but even his physics is awry!
    This thread is about starlight and time. What does Dr. Gentry's hypothesis on Polonium halos have to do with starlight and time? Also how do we know this website is not an evil-lution supporter?
  15. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    07 May '13 06:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    This thread is about starlight and time. What does Dr. Gentry's hypothesis on Polonium halos have to do with starlight and time? Also how do we know this website is not an evil-lution supporter?
    Perhaps your memory is failing you. Part of that enormous pile of dribble you posted was this:

    "In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously."

    I am responding to one bit of pseudo science at a time.

    And how do we know any of the endless bad videos you link to are not produced by creationist supporters? Oh, look! We know they are posted by creationists because you tell us. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.