Originally posted by menace71 A young universe which obeys general relativity must exhibit very rapid present decreases in the observed redshifts of distant galaxies and
A young universe which obeys general relativity cannot contain visible objects which are more than a few thousand light years distant.
This was from the argument against Starlight & Time from Humphreys
Apparently Humphreys misunderstands relativity
Manny
Humphreys has a PHD in Physics so it is doubtful that he does not understand relativity.
Originally posted by RJHinds The passing of time in space is still different than on the earth even today, but just not as great as it was at creation because of the gravitational change. So it depends on which clock is being used.
Why don't you simply take it that God put Eden under a 'slow clock' spell then you can resolve all the geology problems as well? Why even bother with supposedly scientific ideas when you can simply call the whole thing a miracle and be done with it.
The fact is, you accept a multi-billion year old universe.
If we take what we observe in the universe however at face value it just does not fit into a 6000 year scale ......Issue is if you believe God created all of the laws of the universe then 6000 year model does not obey these laws that God himself set into motion do you see the problem? So either God is deceptive or there is some other answer that is all that I'm saying and yet I'm not willing to accept Humphreys Model if it has flaws just because it seem a quick and easy answer
Originally posted by twhitehead Why don't you simply take it that God put Eden under a 'slow clock' spell then you can resolve all the geology problems as well? Why even bother with supposedly scientific ideas when you can simply call the whole thing a miracle and be done with it.
The fact is, you accept a multi-billion year old universe.
Well, if I am using the same clock that was being used in Genesis, then I do not have to accept a multi-billion year old universe. And yes of course I have always called the whole thing a miracle of God.
Observational evidence supports a much older universe than 6000 light years across........explain the Milkyway it is over 100,000 lightyears across. In order for Humphreys theories to be correct apparently we have to throw away all other evidences
Originally posted by menace71 Observational evidence supports a much older universe than 6000 light years across........explain the Milkyway it is over 100,000 lightyears across. In order for Humphreys theories to be correct apparently we have to throw away all other evidences
Manny
What other evidences and why must they be thrown away if Humphreys theories are correct? He seems to think it explains the evidences. Do you have a PHD in Physics?
Originally posted by RJHinds Well, if I am using the same clock that was being used in Genesis, then I do not have to accept a multi-billion year old universe. And yes of course I have always called the whole thing a miracle of God.
The Instructor
Humphreys model includes a multi-billion year old universe and you appear to accept it. Saying that you won't use that clock simply shows you don't understand relativity. 🙁
He may understand relativity very well but he is not a scientist. Science does not enter into a subject with the preconceived notion of proving a POV before even starting your research.
That is called bias. You CANNOT have such a pre-conceived notion to prove before starting your research. That is lying. He deliberately, knowingly, distorts all true knowledge of relativity to try to bend people with less mental ability to his POV. That is politics and lying. That is NOT science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys
This article shows some of the counter arguments against Hump.
Originally posted by RJHinds What other evidences and why must they be thrown away if Humphreys theories are correct? He seems to think it explains the evidences. Do you have a PHD in Physics?
The Instructor
My son in law DOES have a Phd in physics and he totally agrees with the idea that a 6000 year old Earth is bonkers.
Originally posted by RJHinds Do you have a PHD in Physics?
You do know that if you use an 'argument from Education' you will lose big time?
It would be trivial to find someone with better than a PhD in Physics that says Humphreys is wrong. Humphreys himself admits that his qualifications are not best suited to his claims.
Originally posted by menace71 If we take what we observe in the universe however at face value it just does not fit into a 6000 year scale ......Issue is if you believe God created all of the laws of the universe then 6000 year model does not obey these laws that God himself set into motion do you see the problem? So either God is deceptive or there is some other answer that is all tha ...[text shortened]... to accept Humphreys Model if it has flaws just because it seem a quick and easy answer
Manny
God does not have to be deceptive for the model to give us readings
that do not reflect reality. If the model was based on something that
was not true, than it is the model not God that is at fault. God did not
fashion our model to lie to us, people took it upon themselves to create
the model.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay God does not have to be deceptive for the model to give us readings
that do not reflect reality. If the model was based on something that
was not true, than it is the model not God that is at fault. God did not
fashion our model to lie to us, people took it upon themselves to create
the model.
Kelly
Why don't you have your god come down and just tell us where and why and when the standard model is so wrong? It could clear up all that mystery in 5 minutes.
Originally posted by KellyJay God does not have to be deceptive for the model to give us readings
that do not reflect reality. If the model was based on something that
was not true, than it is the model not God that is at fault. God did not
fashion our model to lie to us, people took it upon themselves to create
the model.
Kelly
That was an awful lot of waffle just to say 'most of physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology is wrong'.
The great thing about science is we check our models very carefully. So far, they check out remarkably well. In fact the only thing that doesn't match our models is the creation account in Genesis.
Guess which one I think reflects reality?
Originally posted by sonhouse Why don't you have your god come down and just tell us where and why and when the standard model is so wrong? It could clear up all that mystery in 5 minutes.
Originally posted by twhitehead If space is stretched, you get redshift. We do observe some redshift because space is being stretched. And we can measure exactly how much it is stretched.
But see my edit above, Humphreys is not as I first thought claiming that the universe was stretched from a 6000 light year radius to billions of light years across, but rather he is claiming the stre ...[text shortened]... g has caused some weird time effects which make the Earth younger than the rest of the universe.
Except that the earth IS younger than other parts of the universe by some 8 billion years. They estimate the age of the sun at 5 billion years with perhaps 5 billion more years to go. I mean clearly, the earth is not the youngEST thing in the universe, but it's a lot younger than the Big Bang.
I'm not saying this is caused by some weird time effects caused by stretching of spacetime, though.
Starlight
14 Nov '13 07:09
Back to Top