Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 29 of 84 (3633)
02-07-2002 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:11 PM

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Larry have you read the book? From your post I would have to guess you didn't. First it is when the event horizon reaches Earth and passes through it, that the clocking processes are different. Not when the Earth is behind it.
Next I haven't read anything in his book about the Earth being in a gravity well.

I'm a little confused by the majority of posts in this subject.
I believe the discussion to be about the age of the earth, based
upon the age of the rest of the universe, and this incudes the
time that light takes to travel from distant stars to us here
on earth.
The 6000 year old earth calculation (as I understand it) stems from
the genealogy in Genesis taking us back to the time of Adam, and then
adding the 5 extra days before Adam was created.
Wasn't the rest of the Universe created at the same time as this
according to Genesis ?
if it wasn't then you're saying that you cannot take the account
in Genesis literarlly ... and then your in a whole other discussion
about what objective information CAN you get from Genesis.
It also seems a little strange to be attempting a pseudo-scientific
explanation of divine action, and especially for JP to be advocating
a theory with no evidence when that is his major argument against
abiogenesis and evolutionary theory in other discussion threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:11 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 9:11 AM Peter has replied

Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 31 of 84 (3644)
02-07-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by joz
02-07-2002 9:11 AM

Originally posted by joz:
I think what they are trying to do is postulate that the universe was created 6,000 years ago as measured by a clock on earth.
They then claim that the earth was seperated from the rest of the universe by an event horizon (presumeably the result of sitting in the gravitational field of an extremely massive body) Then under general relativity the rest of the universe would age faster than the earth giving them a 6,000 year old earth and a universe with an age of the order of 10`s of billions....
Which is an interesting exercise in mathmatics but lacks any proof whatsoever.

And creationists say that evolutionists run headlong into convenient
unsubstantiated fantasies!!
For life to survive I would guess that at least the Sun would
have to be in this white whole thingy too then, and that the
orbit of the earth around the sun would have to be maintained,
in an extreme gravitational field ... hmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 9:11 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by lbhandli, posted 02-07-2002 8:25 PM Peter has not replied

Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 35 of 84 (3798)
02-08-2002 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
02-07-2002 9:53 PM

Originally posted by wj:
For those who may not be aware, the author, D. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics. Here is a biography at answersingenesis:
He does not restrict his creationist science to cosmology. He has also adduced evidence for a young (6,000 year) earth from such diverse sources as cosmology, geology, geophysics and archaeology. See
It appears that you only need a PhD in one area of science to be an expert in all areas of science and be able to point out the errors of the fools who specialise in such fields.
Do physicists have a good sense of humour?

11. History is too short
Strange leep in logic here. Just because no written records survive from prior to 5000 years does not mean they did not once exist. The dark age upheavals mean that we have little written from that period,
which is only a few hundred years ago, it's not inconceivable that
6000 year old records have been lost.
There are those who date the pyramids in egypt to more like 10,000 years (I believe based upon astronomical alignments) .. controversial
that though.
10 Agriculture is too recent
African tribes only started farming within the last 300-400 years
after the white settlers forced them to abandon their nomadic life.
African tribes have been about for several thousand years and only
adopted agriculture because it was thrust upon them.
9 Not enough stone age skeletons
A global population of 10 million would be spread pretty thin (the
UK population alone is about 60 million currently I believe), and
w still know very little of funeral practices. Certainly some of
the stone age cultures buried their dead (the graves have been
found), but we have no way of knowing how ALL stone age corpses
were disposed of.
Cremation has been common among cultures and could leave little more
than teeth, burial in lakes or the see is possible and I don't know
of any archealogical digs on the sea/lake beds.
Not having found something does NOT mean it does not exits. The ceolocanth was presumed extinct because we hadn't seen them, then
they turned up alive and well in places we hadn't looked.
American cities are relatively young, European ones aren't. Try
digging deep enough under Rome, London, Paris, Milan, Berlin, etc.
and I'm sure you'd find more stone age burials.
8 Helium in the wrong places
The rate of helium loss from the atmosphere presumably would have
been different when the atmoshpere was different, which it was when
the earth was young (whenever that may have been). Extrapolating
that loss rate back over millions of years is hardly valid.
What about cosmogenic helium contamination ??
7 Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years
I thought young earth theorists discounted radioactive decay as
a method of dating materials.
6 Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
This one's an unsubstantaited assumption. We do not know the exact
conditions under which the Rockys were formed and so cannot
comment in either direction on the likely time it would take
for the sandstone to solidify.
5 Many strata are too tightly bent
I can find nothing in non-creationist literature to suggest that
tight anticilines or synclines cannot be formed by sustained pressure
over time. Please show me where this exists in non-creationist
4 Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
According to research mentioned on this site the polarity of the
earth's magnetic field reverses every few million years, at which
time the dipole field appears to re-energize.
3 Not enough sodium in the sea
For an explanation of why the sodium output considered in creationsist
literature is incorrect.
2 Not enough mud on the sea floor
What about the ocean trenches ? We do not know how deep they are
or how much mud they contain.
1 Comets disintegrate too quickly
I don't really follow the logic of this one for the following reason:
Saying that a comet CANNOT exist for more than 10,000 years pre-supposes a maximum size AND minimum orbital period.
Comets only disintegrate when in proximity to the sun, and have
been observed to split into several seprate comets at times.
I've got a PhD too, but I doubt you will be as quick to accept
my explanations as you were the descriptions of the problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 02-07-2002 9:53 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 8:06 AM Peter has replied

Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 51 of 84 (4090)
02-11-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by wj
02-08-2002 8:06 AM

Originally posted by wj:
Peter, I don't want to send this thread off at a tangent. Let me say that you have padded up to Warnie like Gatting without realising you've been clean bowled. Or, you've scored an own goal.
I was simply providing information on Humphreys' background and his other ventures into "evidence" against evolution and an old earth.
I've noticed that, as well as engineers and physicists offering gratuitous advice on evolutionary science, there now appears to be a flood of computer scientists. Great to see such interdisciplinary interaction. It seems that biology, genetics, molecular biology, geo;ogy etc. are percieved to be lower on the pecking order and therefore physicists can offer insights which biologists etc. have been too dumb to realise. Or are certain disciplines more prone to egotripping?
Back to the white hole thingy.

Not sure where computer scientists come into it, but ...
My intent here was, since it appeared you had pointed out this information in an attempt to support Humphrey's credentials in
the area of young earth 'proof' I felt it relevant to point
out, after having had the courtesy to read his 'evidence for
a young earth', that he is blantantly ignoring the obvious
AND mis-representing/omitting information to make his statements
sound more beleivable.
That being the case it seems reasonable to assume that he is
willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to try to
convince HIMSELF of something that he personally should take
on faith.
BTW how so an own goal ? Is providing refutation of young earth evidence NOT somehow intricately involved in this debate ?
After all, if there is no current evidence for a young earth,
then what's the point of talking about a hypothetical dense
time region ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 8:06 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM Peter has replied

Member (Idle past 1587 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 54 of 84 (4202)
02-12-2002 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by wj
02-11-2002 10:34 PM

Originally posted by wj:
Peter, you misunderstand my position.
I give no credence to Humphreys, his white hole thingy postulation or his other arguments and "evidences" for a young earth creation. I simply made available information on the man and instances of other writings or arguments of his, if readers were not aware of the "quality" of his thinking.

Oh .... sorry
Got the wrong end of the stick there ... is there a young earth forum
I could tackle ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by wj, posted 02-12-2002 7:08 PM 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