Originally posted by RJHinds He's coming alright. In His own good time. 😏
You won't be around to see it. In fact nobody will. "He' might come back in one billion years when Earth gets fried by the expanding sun. He'll go, oops a bit late.
Originally posted by sonhouse You won't be around to see it. In fact nobody will. "He' might come back in one billion years when Earth gets fried by the expanding sun. He'll go, oops a bit late.
It may be after I die in this body, but i plan to see Him in a resurrected body when He comes for me. 😏
** In defense of Humphreys ** If I look hard enough I can find where Humphreys admits that his ideas are theory and only theory and that there were things that had to be worked out. If I remember correctly one of his theories was that the earth was in a "white hole" mathematical opposite of a black hole during the creation of the universe and that possible millions of years could have past during the 6 days of creation here on the earth. Initially I liked the theory but none of it can be proven.
I remember he said that the galaxies around us were in quantized steps or rings around us and that we appeared to be at the center or best vantage point to see this effect. That the redshifting appeared to be quantized ( in steps) and the further out was more redshifted. I understand that galaxies are indeed in redshift moving away from us ( apparently speeding up even) but can this whole quantized thing be proven?
Originally posted by menace71 ** In defense of Humphreys ** If I look hard enough I can find where Humphreys admits that his ideas are theory and only theory and that there were things that had to be worked out. If I remember correctly one of his theories was that the earth was in a "white hole" mathematical opposite of a black hole during the creation of the universe and that possibl ...[text shortened]... eation here on the earth. Initially I liked the theory but none of it can be proven.
Manny
I don't like the idea of millions of years. I see that as another compromise with the Evilutionists.
Originally posted by menace71 I remember he said that the galaxies around us were in quantized steps or rings around us and that we appeared to be at the center or best vantage point to see this effect. That the redshifting appeared to be quantized ( in steps) and the further out was more redshifted. I understand that galaxies are indeed in redshift moving away from us ( apparently speeding up even) but can this whole quantized thing be proven?
Manny
The whole idea of the quantized redshift has been thoroughly refuted, there is no such thing. When it first appeared, the religious set jumped on that one immediately and started using that to prove the existence of god or some such. The trouble is, the quantized red shift was just an anomaly of the tools used to measure the redshift and was subsequently found to be bogus. That didn't stop the religious idiot video dudes from keeping on that particular bandwagon to tout the proof of the existence of their so-called god.
Originally posted by sonhouse The whole idea of the quantized redshift has been thoroughly refuted, there is no such thing. When it first appeared, the religious set jumped on that one immediately and started using that to prove the existence of god or some such. The trouble is, the quantized red shift was just an anomaly of the tools used to measure the redshift and was subsequently fo ...[text shortened]... keeping on that particular bandwagon to tout the proof of the existence of their so-called god.
The quantized redshift may be bunk but I think Humphries is being legitimate as possible. He wants his theories to be scrutinized
Manny
I do wish creationist would just be honest too many seem to be shucksters
Originally posted by menace71 The quantized redshift may be bunk but I think Humphries is being legitimate as possible. He wants his theories to be scrutinized
Manny
I do wish creationist would just be honest too many seem to be shucksters
24 May '15 21:09
Phd Creationists like Humphreys
Back to Top