Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pesky Starlight
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (6882)
03-15-2002 2:39 AM


If only the creationists could make starlight disappear.
If only...
The discovery of quasars, incredibly bright objects billions of light years away, seemed to seal the fate for the Chaos Theory or Static Theory. It also seemed to confirm beliefs that the universe is billions of years old- but not to creationists.
Perhaps a creationist can put forth a theory that would explain this creationist defying principle.
I am aware of the theory put forward by a creationist physicist. Here is a, strangely, creationist rebuttle
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-15-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by doctrbill, posted 03-15-2002 9:47 AM quicksink has replied
 Message 6 by LudvanB, posted 03-15-2002 1:31 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-22-2002 12:02 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2002 4:23 PM quicksink has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2842 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 2 of 37 (6890)
03-15-2002 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-15-2002 2:39 AM


These people are really serious about discrediting Humphrey's book, Starlight and Time. We could have used their argument a while back when someone came in here, or was it another forum, and argued interminably in favor of Humphrey's "theory".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 2:39 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 10:57 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (6897)
03-15-2002 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by doctrbill
03-15-2002 9:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
These people are really serious about discrediting Humphrey's book, Starlight and Time. We could have used their argument a while back when someone came in here, or was it another forum, and argued interminably in favor of Humphrey's "theory".
I cannot describe the excitement I felt when I read these words-
quote:
Reasons to Believe has kept a low public profile on this matter over the past three-plus years in the hope that the young-earth movement would have both the will and the skill to resolve this matter internally and thereby save itself the humiliation of being corrected by outsiders. We also wanted to keep the matter quiet in order to avoid attracting the attention of hostile unbelievers, for whom Starlight and Time would provide a persuasive example of "Christian incompetence" in the natural sciences, evidence which would aid their attempts to exclude Christian thought from the public arena. Such attention would be most harmful to the young-earth movement, but it would by association also harm the entire church and potentially discredit the church's gospel witness.
music to my ears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by doctrbill, posted 03-15-2002 9:47 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-15-2002 11:33 AM quicksink has not replied
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:04 PM quicksink has replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2002 10:02 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 37 (6900)
03-15-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by quicksink
03-15-2002 10:57 AM


I seemed to have not paid much attention to the "Reasons to Believe" site in the past.
As an extension to looking at the above (in message 1) cited, I seem to see a fundimentalist viewpoint, but not(?) a rigid YEC viewpoint.
They believe in Biblical inerrency (sp?), yet they are not locked into a rigid interpretation. The seem to be open to a possibility of Biblical missinterpretation, if the Bible and scientific findings are in conflict.
Going to have to explore "RTB" further.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 10:57 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 05-24-2002 11:39 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 37 (6901)
03-15-2002 12:41 PM


just posting this so i can see the new message...

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 37 (6904)
03-15-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-15-2002 2:39 AM


Well,what they'll usually say about starlight is that...
A: they're to far away to be mesured and anyone who claims that they can are liars trying to promote the devil's agenda.
Or B: It doesn't matter anyway because God created a mature creation,complete with the light of far away stars allready visible here on earth,fully grown animals and trees and people,programmed with the ability to walk,think,sin,ect.
Of course,when you get into the latter part of the argument,it gets real tricky because it becomes impossible to prove that God didn't create us all 5 minutes ago,complete with memories of past actions,documents,cities,families,ect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 2:39 AM quicksink has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (6923)
03-15-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by quicksink
03-15-2002 10:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
music to my ears

John Paul:
Has anyone here read the book? Has anyone here done any research to see if Humphreys has responded to RTB? Oh, no to both.
Let me help you:
Humphreys answers his critics
and
SEVEN YEARS OF STARLIGHT AND TIME
It's actually a pretty cool concept. He also has a video about it.
Starlight & Time: book & video
Is that music still playing?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 10:57 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 03-15-2002 10:49 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 11 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 11:31 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-25-2002 9:40 AM John Paul has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 37 (6947)
03-15-2002 10:38 PM


Of course he can still hear the music.
He's got it on full blast so as to shield away any arguments Creationists have!
(Sorry quicksink, I'm just messin' with ya)

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 37 (6948)
03-15-2002 10:42 PM


123

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2842 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 37 (6949)
03-15-2002 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:04 PM


quote:
From: SEVEN YEARS OF STARLIGHT AND TIME
" ... if the cosmos is indeed as young as the Bible says it is, ...
The Bible does not state the age of the universe. Bible writers apparently did not consider it to be important.
The supposed age, touted by YEC's, is calculated (by debatable methods) based on a list of pre-Hebrew ancestors found in the Book of Genesis. Thus they seek to determine something which the Bible itself does not address. Even if one adjusts for the ancient calendar and customs regarding census, the entire exercise presupposes that Adam was real, and the first human in existence. Creationists are not cohesive on this question.
Bible writers do, however, echo the cosmogenic and cosmological theories of their own time. Namely, that it originated from water and was covered by a solid dome which carried the heavenly bodies.
quote:
John Paul:
"Is that music still playing?"
Sweet isn't it?
PS. (Use of the words Cosmos and Universe in this context may be misleading. The ancients did not imagine these things the way we do today.
-----------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:04 PM John Paul has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (6961)
03-15-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:04 PM


John Paul
We could play reference wars, or we could really get technical.
I like space, time, and the theory of relativity, and maybe I'll venture into some of the basic concepts.
PS- you have not made any responses to "animals on the ark"
It is not a moral obligation to read your books. no one here is obliged to actuallly do intensive research on the concept, as I assume you haven't either.
How do I come to that assumption? There are so many scientific technicals in that book it could make most head's spin (like me). Unless you have a hidden telent for the general theory of realivity, time dilation, and spacial contraction, and understnad the concepts of time and space being relative to the speed of a frame of reference, I seriously doubt you could interpret the technicals of the book. I couldn't, you couldn't, and most creationists couldn't. But all the scientific jargon certainly made him look sophisticated in the eyes of the common man, but in the mind of the world class physicist, the super-mathmetician, etc.
and here is a link to another anti-book site, where 4 incredibly experienced mathmeticians and physicists critiqued the book- their opinion matters a little.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/95q3faf/95q3star.html
From reading that article, it became clear that he is the typical creationist, bending facts, distorting science, and spreading lies.
And here is what is very wonderful, coming from christiananswers.net. It sickened me...
quote:
However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind's "scientific" proposals
Here is another damner
quote:
Despite this rebuttal, the subsequent rejection of Starlight and Time by the ICC, and further rebuttal, this time by a young-earth writer, published in another young-earth publication9, Humphreys has continued to insist that his model is valid. The latest exchange in the controversy occurred recently in the pages of Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10,11.
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12.
As you can see, the ICC, a creationist organization, has rejected the theory put-forward by Mr., oh, I mean, Dr. Humphreys
Is that even heard of- a creationist rejecting a creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 03-15-2002 6:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John Paul, posted 03-17-2002 10:35 AM quicksink has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 37 (7101)
03-17-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by quicksink
03-15-2002 11:31 PM


quote:
qs:
John Paul
We could play reference wars, or we could really get technical.
John Paul:
How can we get technical if you haven’t read what Humphreys has written on the subject? After all it is his baby you’re talking about. Don’t you want to see the baby for yourself before passing judgement on it?
quote:
qs:
I like space, time, and the theory of relativity, and maybe I'll venture into some of the basic concepts.
John Paul:
Anytime you want to start, please procede.
quote:
qs:
PS- you have not made any responses to "animals on the ark"
John Paul:
I was under the impression that your argument was that no Creationist could/ has answered your questions. The book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study does just that.
quote:
qs:
It is not a moral obligation to read your books.
John Paul:
It just stands to reason that you should know what you are arguing against before arguing against it.
quote:
qs:
no one here is obliged to actuallly do intensive research on the concept, as I assume you haven't either.
John Paul:
You assume wrong. Last year I bought a book Volvox- Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation by David Kirk ($110.00) and I have THE HGP copy of Nature. I also get Nature updates daily.
Ya see qs, I WANT to know. And the more I know the more confident I grow that the alleged ‘great transformations’ spewed by the theory of evolution are nothing but ‘just-so’ stories. Right there next to abiogenesis.
quote:
qs:
How do I come to that assumption? There are so many scientific technicals in that book it could make most head's spin (like me).
John Paul:
So you HAVE read Humphreys’ book? Welcome to the wonderful age of 12. Give it time young Skywalker.
quote:
qs:
Unless you have a hidden telent for the general theory of realivity, time dilation, and spacial contraction, and understnad the concepts of time and space being relative to the speed of a frame of reference, I seriously doubt you could interpret the technicals of the book. I couldn't, you couldn't, and most creationists couldn't. But all the scientific jargon certainly made him look sophisticated in the eyes of the common man, but in the mind of the world class physicist, the super-mathmetician, etc.
John Paul:
I have a very good understanding of what he (Humphreys) is talking about. However a concept doesn’t rise or fall on the assurance that 100% of the people will understand the ‘scientific jargon’ put forth in said concept.
[QUOTE]qs:
and here is a link to another anti-book site, where 4 incredibly experienced mathmeticians and physicists critiqued the book- their opinion matters a little.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/95q3faf/95q3star.html
John Paul:
Russell Humphreys challenges Hugh Ross
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_02.asp
Also Humphreys has answered the charges made by Page & Conners
quote:
qs:
From reading that article, it became clear that he is the typical creationist, bending facts, distorting science, and spreading lies.
John Paul:
Who? Hugh Ross? I agree.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 11:31 PM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 4:22 AM John Paul has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (7193)
03-18-2002 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by John Paul
03-17-2002 10:35 AM


Ok then, JP
Let's begin... You tell me how wonderful this book is, and you tell me how you understand the concepts presented- obviously you can answer his critics (including nearly every highly-qualified physicist).
Here are a few problems:
1) The first problem and most obvious is that the entire theory is dependent on the presumption that the universe has a limit. Although this is not a proven flasity, it is still an assumption, one that is much debated. This, I should stress, is not a major issue.
However, the doc's argument is that in a bounded universe, the creationist model would work quite well, in relation to an unbounded universe. But is this true? Are these two types of universes really different?
2) Here is one of the first major problems: the Scharzschild clock. This is so important to his argument, that, if I am not mistaken, he called it the essence of his argument.
Prob: the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all on the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe. Basically, using it is irrelevant, and is useless to his argument.
3) Dr. Humphreys alleges that in a bounded universe, the closer you get to the center, the more powerful gravity, and thus the greater the effects of time dilation. He claims that this does not occurr in a universe that is infinite- really?
unfortunately for creationists, there is no difference in the gravitational properties of a bounded and unbounded universe. To make a very long story short, bounded and unbounded universes have the same spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature is directly responsible for time dilation, which Dr. Humphreys holds vital in his theory.
Now remember, the doc is dependent on supposed differences in spacetime curvature between a bounded and unbounded universe. Demonstrate that bounded and unbounded universes possess the same spacetime curvature, and his argument rapidly deteriorates.
4) Another major problem is the effect of event horizons in a bounded universe on time- according to the doc, the earth's clock may be static, while in a more distant area of the universe (where gravity is weaker), billions of years will pass.
But in a bounded universe, the event horizon has no effect on physical clocks in such a universe.
5) The final theory, which is easily dismatled, is the doctor's claim that an unbounded universe does not possess gravitational fields. Wrong.
This assumption is very dangerous. It requires that an unbounded universe expands forever at the same speed. On the other hand, it asserts that a bounded universes, with the prescence of a gravitational field, decelerates over time. Why? Because gravity is the only known force responsible for deceleration- without a gravitational field, there is nothing to restrict infinite universal expansion.
What's wrong with that? It contradicts the general theory of relativity, which in no way states that an unbounded universe would expand infinitely. In actuality, the general theory of relativity predicts the deceleration of an unbounded universe.
This is foolish. Dr. Humphreys has demonstrated that he possesses a measured understanding in cosmolgy and/or the theory of relativity. To make an assumption that contradicts the theory of realtivity is to assert inescapable claim that you possess more knowledge and understanding of the previously mentioned fields, compared to any other individual on earth.
But of course you know gall the above mentioned.
JP- you seem very keen to cling to books, but you fail to quote them, or assert arguments presented in the books. All you can say is "this explains this" or "that explains that". This is a debate, and I will not listen to your rambling- I do not have to read any books to argue my point. All I have to do is understand the concepts presented.
If you want to engage in a productive debate, give me evidence to work with, and not worthless rhetoric.
Please respond to the issues I have brought fourth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John Paul, posted 03-17-2002 10:35 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by quicksink, posted 03-20-2002 5:53 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (7424)
03-20-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by quicksink
03-18-2002 4:22 AM


1-2-3 clear!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by quicksink, posted 03-18-2002 4:22 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 15 of 37 (7626)
03-22-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-15-2002 2:39 AM


Oh this is hysterical. I decided to take a look at the site you posted while I ate lunch. The intro is almost exactly what I could write about Hugh Ross and his feeble forays into biology and biochemistry
"Humphreys? theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians."
Insert "Hugh's" for "Humphrey's" and you have a wonderful correlation with how most people who understand evolution view his ramblings on the idea.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 2:39 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mike Holland, posted 10-17-2002 5:36 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024