Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pesky Starlight
Peter
Member (Idle past 1586 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 37 (7795)
03-25-2002 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
03-15-2002 6:04 PM


I'm not entirely sure of JP's full position re: YEC,
but even if Humphrey's were right (I've not read his
book yet, although I'll search it out) it poses a problem
for MANY YEC's.
Effectively, if right, Humphrey's hypothesis leads to the
conclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking
the literal truth.
Why ?
Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earth
took 6 days.
The earth itself is created on day 1 ... before light is created,
and three 'days' before any stars are created (on day 4).
How could stars be created AFTER the earth, and yet their light
be millions of years old, when the earth is only thousands
of years old ?
We either have a Young Earth, but the bible is wrong.
OR
A young earth and Humphrey's is wrong.
(OR an old earth, natch
)
I cannot see any way that Humphrey's hypothesis could be compatible
with Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP
(who has?) could answer this one.

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 18 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 4:46 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1586 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 37 (10551)
05-29-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Paul
05-28-2002 4:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Peter:
I'm not entirely sure of JP's full position re: YEC,
but even if Humphrey's were right (I've not read his
book yet, although I'll search it out) it poses a problem
for MANY YEC's.
John Paul:
If you had read the book you would have seen it is exactly what YEC requires.
Peter:
Effectively, if right, Humphrey's hypothesis leads to the
conclusion that the story in Genesis is NOT strictly speaking
the literal truth.
John Paul:
I don't have to book with me so if I have time later I will fill in some points. Regardless the way he writes it goes along with a literal Genesis.
Peter:
Why ?
Genesis says that from nothing to a fully populated Earth
took 6 days.
John Paul:
Fully populated is a stretch. Is today's world fully populated?

Sorry ... using a software engineering definition of populate
there ... meaning all of the objects God wanted to be there
had been 'initialised' ... do that sometimes
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

Peter:
The earth itself is created on day 1 ... before light is created,
and three 'days' before any stars are created (on day 4).
How could stars be created AFTER the earth, and yet their light
be millions of years old, when the earth is only thousands
of years old ?
John Paul:
It all has to do with event horizons, time dilation and relativity.
Peter:
We either have a Young Earth, but the bible is wrong.
OR
A young earth and Humphrey's is wrong.
(OR an old earth, natch )
I cannot see any way that Humphrey's hypothesis could be compatible
with Genesis. Admittedly I haven't read the book ... so perhaps JP
(who has?) could answer this one.
John Paul:
The cool part about the book (now in video) is Humphreys puts down his version on how he believes God Created the cosmos, day by day. If his premise is correct as the event horizon of the white hole reaches earth, although only 24 hours of earth time go by, billions of years of processes take place outside of the event horizon.
He uses Stephen Hawking's idea of an astronaut and a astronomer. That is as the astronomer watches the astronaut fall towards an event horizon of a black hole the astronomer notices the astronauts time piece is moving slower and slower. Once the astronaut gets to the EH the astronomer observes the astronaut's time piece has effectively stopped. What Humphreys does is to turn that around and use the astronaut observing the astronomer. As the astronaut nears the EH he observes the clock on the astronomer's wall speeding up. As the astronaut reaches the EH the astronomer's clock becomes a blur because the hands are moving too fast.
IOW God used relativity to Create the universe in 6 days, earth time.

OK.
Let me get this straight ...
God creates the Earth, then goes 'Oops! Forgot to do the
stars ... I know I'll hold up time on Earth by putting it
in an event horizon while I fill in the rest of the cosmos.'
Well, God moves in mysterious ways, and can do anything. So this
hypothesis basically says 'God can do whatever He wants because
He's omnipotent' (apologies to any feminists who object to God
as He).
That makes this thread a traditional creationist Vs. science
impasse.
If this event horizon had existed ... what evidence of its
passing should we expect ?
There must be some remnants ... after all it's only been gone
for 6000 years, tops. That's peanuts to the cosmos.
Was the whole solar system in this event horizon ... or just earth ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Paul, posted 05-28-2002 4:46 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 05-29-2002 9:21 AM Peter 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