Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

The gravity well no longer exists. It started when all the matter in the universe was gathered in one place. A black hole became a white hole. The event horizon of a white hole gets smaller as the matter is ejected. The premise being that as the EH passes through earth billions of years worth of processes are taking place outside of the EH while at the EH time would appear to be normal. Humphreys takes Hawkings principal of watching a spaceman go towards an EH of a black hole (how a person far away looking through a telescope at the spaceman would see the spaceman virtually stop when he reached the EH) and reversed it (what the spaceman would see if he were looking back at the person with the telescope).Every attempt that Hugh Ross has thrown at Humphreys has been rebutted.

Of course none of it has been published by Humphreys in the scientific literature. Scientifically speaking, the idea does not exist.CheersJoe Meert

Meert:
Of course none of it has been published by Humphreys in the scientific literature.John Paul:
I would guess you mean only the journals YOU (and your ilk) consider scientific literature. It has been published in scientific journals that you don't recognize. But your recognition of lack of is very irrelevant.Meert:
Scientifically speaking, the idea does not exist.John Paul:
RotFLMAO!!! Of course it exists- scientifically. If it didn't why are scientists trying to refute and/ or substantiate it?

John Paul:
I would guess you mean only the journals YOU (and your ilk) consider scientific literature. It has been published in scientific journals that you don't recognize. But your recognition of lack of is very irrelevant.JM: Once again, it is useful to point out for the lurkers that Humphreys refusal to submit his work for review in the scientific literature is germane to the issue at hand. It seems that no matter how hard something is pounded into your head, you just don't get it. Humphreys science is invisible to the scientific community and the fact that he is arguing with another biblicist about it does not make it good science.CheersJoe Meert

What's this "scientific community"? If it doesn't include ALL scientists what good is it? I would bet that community is just a community of naturalists. An idea does NOT have to be published in any journal to be scientifically valid.BTW he is also debating it with non-creationists...

The scientific community is made up of members who do research and submit their results for peer-review. I thought you were a scientist? Humphreys has submitted some articles for review and has been puiblished in the scientific literature. It's just that this particular idea has not been subjected to peer review, nor has it been formally introduced into scientific debate.CheersJoe Meert

JM:
The scientific community is made up of members who do research and submit their results for peer-review.John Paul:
And someone isn't a scientist if their work isn't submitted for peer-review? That's hogwash.Humphreys' article HAS been presented for peer-review. Just not ion the journals you recognize. YOUR dislike does NOT disqualify them. And how do you know it hasn't undergone scientific debate? From the responses it has received I would say your assesment is false.

JP:Just not ion the journals you recognize.JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are. Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way. The 'journals' that Humphreys publishes in do not let the data lead the way. AIG and ICR require that the 'scientists' take an oath that all data must support the bible or the data are wrong. When Humphreys conducts his investigations operating under that philosophy, he is not a scientist and his work ceases to be science.CheersJoe Meert

JP:Just not ion the journals you recognize.JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are. Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way. The 'journals' that Humphreys publishes in do not let the data lead the way. AIG and ICR require that the 'scientists' take an oath that all data must support the bible or the data are wrong. When Humphreys conducts his investigations operating under that philosophy, he is not a scientist and his work ceases to be science.CheersJoe Meert

From AIG:By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. From ICR:but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the BibleCheersJoe Meert

JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are.John Paul:
I would say you recognize them for what YOU think they are.JM:
Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way.John Paul:
Again, that would leave the ToE out of the realm of science, as it would most of naturalism.By your (il)logic it is OK to operate under a purely naturalistic PoV, which would leaqd the evidence to that conclusion, but not start out with the acknowledgement that there is some higher intelligence responsible (as Newton, Kepler eta al. did) and go from there. The irony should be fully understood.

Yes, but not for review of the science it supposedly contains; the review is to ensure doctrinal compliance.

The irony should be fully understood. JM: Then why don't you understand it? Science operates without supernatural preconceptions because that makes it open to reproof and verification without prejudice. A Muslim can perform the same experiment that a Christian, an atheist and a Buddhist can perform. The results just are and there is no need to force them to conform to someone's interpretation of an ancient text. In contrast, ICR and AIG would reject the findings of the Muslim, the atheist and the Buddhist if the findings disagreed with their (AIG's and ICR's) interpretation of the Bible. There is no need to put on a theological hat when conducting an experiment because the outcome of the experiment and the observations have no real bearing on the theological beliefs of the experimenter.CheersJoe Meert

How do you acknowledge a higher intelligence in your own field?--Percy

JP,Looking around the net, I found this site entitled "The Unraveling of Starlight and Time." It seems that Humphreys has conceded most of the major arguments from Starlight and Time to the point that the theory is no longer feasible. From the above website: It seems that Humphreys has rebutted his own theory, as have other christian scientists. I would say that Humphrey's theory is untenable at best.