Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 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: 1/0


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

  
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

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


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


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

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


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


123

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024