| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37161
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, Since you've been following the science on this for almost 20 years, please explain, scientifically, how it is that we are able to directly observe events that occurred in the universe hundreds of thousands of years ago, even millions of years, if the universe did not exist more than 6,000 years ago. You claim "...I do fall into the young earth/universe category, based on almost 20 years of following the scientific research in this area...," as if you are claiming that the scientific research somehow substantiates the idea that the world did not exist more than 6,000 years ago. This is flatly wrong. Scientific observations show conclusively that the world was in existence millions of years ago. Since, for example, you dispute the existence of the supernova SN1987A, present your data that shows that SN1987A does not exist, that SN1987A (along with the rest of astronomy) is some kind of incredible scientific mistake or scientific conspiracy to hide the truth. By the way, the AiG article is the "same old, same old." (Though, like you, Wiley, I recommend it to everyone here as a thorough discussion of the issue from the young earth creationist perspective.) I note here that the authors had nothing to say about the water above the celestial sphere. I wonder why. I close here by noting that while I know you and I completely disagree on this subject, I also know that you and I would never make this a faith issue over which we and other Christians should divide. On this latter point we are in complete agreement.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley Clarkson wrote (post #37157): > Al, > > The following link will take you to an article that was published > in CEN Tech Journal in 1991 dealing with the semantic approach to > translation of the Hebrew word "yom" and how the Jewish population > of that time frame would have undersstood the use of "yom" as it is > used in Genesis. You might want to take a look at it. > > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp > > You, or anyone else who is pro Old Earth can dismiss it if you wish > but it is an excelent article on "yom". > > I have no desire to get into an extended discussion of Creation > Science young vrs Uniformitarian/evolutionary dating. Been there > too many times on discussion lists. However, for clarification, I > do fall into the young earth/universe category, based on almost 20 > years of following the scientific research in this area AND > following the old earth (uniformitarian/evolutionary sciences) at > the same time. > > The amazing grace of the Master, Jesus Christ, the extravagant > love of God, the intimate friendship of the Holy Spirit, > be with all of you. The Message, 2 Corinthians 13:14
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37427
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, I first wish to say to you that what all of us should appreciate about Russell Humphreys' model is that it at least represents an attempt by a young creationist to deal seriously with the fact that in the case of astronomical science we do in fact directly observe the distant past in when we examine the universe. I say this, because so much of young earth creationist argumentation on this matter is nothing more than empty rhetoric intended merely to obscure the facts about this, and Humphreys' model, even though it is a flawed model, at least takes seriously what has been directly observed and attempts to deal with the fact of the antiquity of the universe instead of just ignoring it. On this particular aspect alone, I appreciate it, and appreciate that you in espousing it you too are starting to take the antiquity of the universe seriously. Second, here's another aspect of Humphreys' model that everyone, especially young earth creationists, should understand: Humphreys' model acknowledges the fact that the universe has existed for billions of years, because Humphreys acknowledges that the distant past of the universe is something that we observe directly. Now, just to make sure this is explicitly clear to everyone, because I'm aware that this isn't clear to some people, let me state it again: Humphreys' model acknowledges the fact that the universe has existed for billions of years, because Humphreys acknowledges that the distant past of the universe is something that we observe directly. This point alone thus shows that young earth creationism advocates of Humphreys' model are in direct contradiction against those young earth creationists who go around denying that the antiquity of the universe is a directly observed fact. (So now I shall expect Chad, Keith, and other young earth creationists here who have disputed what I have pointed out about the occurrence of SN1987A approximately 168,000 years ago to 'duke it out' in discussion with you since they have been arguing that anyone who does not accept a young universe interpretation of Genesis is simply rejecting God's Word on this.) Another point that I want to make clear to everyone is that with Humphreys' model we are talking about the fallible speculation of a fallible human being, so I hope everyone realizes that since the Bible does not teach Humphreys' cosmology, when I express criticism of Humphreys' model I am not criticizing God's Word nor by my criticism am I somehow revealing that I don't really believe in the Bible. I state this explicitly here, because some people's comments in previous posts related to this general discussion have shown that they are confused about this. It is our responsibility to examine ideas critically and to point out the mistakes in ideas that have been developed by fallible human beings. Our allegiance is to truth, not to human wisdom nor to human tradition. (I know that you understand this, Wiley, but from some of the comments of others against anyone who dares criticize their fallible human theories, this point is apparently not so clear.) However, the only thing I can commend Humphreys' model for is for taking the antiquity of the universe seriously. But it does not go nearly far enough. For example, the manner in which young earth creationists have begun latching onto Humphreys' model shows it to have become just another fad in a long list of fads that have come and gone in the annals of the "scientific" creationism spawned by Henry Morris' movement. Humphreys' model is promoted among young earth creationists as serious scientific research, even though it isn't (and even though it has already been invalidated). Nothing of Humphreys' model has ever been presented to any of the professional science journals of astrophysics, physics, or astronomy. Not a single one! If Humphreys' model is such good science, then why does he refuse to present his model to the professional science journals that are specifically intended for publishing exactly this kind of research? For those who want to take this matter seriously, this fact should raise a distinct warning flag. Humphreys' model should not be presented as serious scientific research, since it isn't. Let's be clear about this. Self-publishing a book, or having a book published by a publisher of religious material, does not constitute serious scientific research, and no one should pretend that it does. In regard to the model itself, it has critical flaws that can be examined in two different areas. The first area is, how do the predictions of the model stack up against actual observations of the universe? In other words, does objective data about the universe confirm Humphreys' model, or does the objective data contradict his model? The second area is, is the mathematics of the model correct? There is objective astronomical data that contradicts Humphreys' model, and the model contains some critical mathematical errors (and misunderstandings). In my discussion here I shall focus on the flaws that exist in the former area. Let's get some astronomical context about this. Our galaxy contains at least hundreds of millions of galaxies, and each galaxy contains at least hundreds of millions of stars. Our own Milky Way galaxy, for example, contains hundreds of billions of stars. (By the way, current estimates of the galactic population of the universe, according to the latest astronomical surveys being conducted, now exceed one billion galaxies.) A general model of the universe is general relativity, which is a mathematical modeling of spacetime based on the dynamic influence of matter and energy on the structure of spacetime. According to relativity, matter and energy can influence, or distort, spacetime (space and time). Humphreys' basic argument is that even though billions of years of events have occurred in the universe, only 6,000 years of events have taken place on earth, because of a relativistic distortion that occurred during the "creation week" of Genesis 1. (This relativistic distortion is why Humphreys' model is frequently referred to by the name "white hole cosmology," the horizon of the relativistic distortion being called a "white hole.") Now this certainly doesn't help to explain such geological features as impact craters on the earth and the moon, but since I'm focusing on the astronomical side of things here I'll postpone discussion of that. Humphreys argues that the earth was at the center of the universe, inside of a region of space outside of which due to the relativistic distortion everything in the universe (outside of the center region) experienced billions of years of time. Thus, Humphreys argues, from the viewpoint of us on the earth (according to our perspective from our earth time), the universe and the earth really were created 6,000 years ago, but when we observe the universe we observe a great antiquity because time in the rest of the universe (unlike the earth) was passing far more quickly. One critical problem with Humphreys' model is that there is not a single astronomical observation that has been made that corroborates the model. Where do we see the effects of this relativistic distortion? The answer is: We don't see the effects of such a relativistic distortion of spacetime anywhere. Please don't misunderstand what I've stated here. I'm not saying that astronomers don't observe relativistic effects in the universe. What I'm pointing out is that astronomers do not observe the relativistic effects, the massive distortion in spacetime between the local region of the universe that the earth is located in and the rest of the universe, that would have to exist if Humphreys' model was correct. What astronomers would have to see is a consistent relativistic distortion between the light spectrum of stars observed from within the local region of the earth (which would be "normal") and the light spectrum of stars observed from outside of the region. Do astronomers observe any such relativistic distortions? No, they don't. There is no such relativistic bubble around the earth. Humphreys' model says there must be one, but there isn't. This shows that Humphreys' model cannot be correct. Astronomers do in fact observe many examples of relativistic distortions of light in the universe, and more are being discovered all of the time. They just don't observe any distortion of the kind that Humphreys' model says there should be. Here are some internet references showing examples of relativistic distortion of light:
Another kind of relativistic distortion of light that is observed is the well-known "red shift" effect on light due to the overall expansion of the universe. Again, this is an example of astronomers observing relativistic distortions, and again what is observed is consistent with the antiquity of the universe but does not corroborate Humphreys' model. In fact, this particular example of cosmological red-shift does just the opposite, because Humphreys' model implies that the light that we on earth observe from the universe outside of our local region (which in Humphreys' model did not experience the relativistic distortion since the earth is inside of this region) should have been shifted in the opposite direction. In other words, we should observe a cosmological blue-shift, not a cosmological red-shift. So in this case of cosmological blue-shift of light, astronomical observation has directly falsified Humphreys' model by showing just that reality is just the opposite of what the model says it should be. With the particular example of the supernova SN1987A that I've been frequently referring to, we have to ask Humphreys' model: Is SN1987A inside of this local region of the earth that you have hypothesized, or is it outside of this local region? In fact, observations of SN1987A as a supernova and as a star are no fundamentally different than observations of supernovae and stars that are much closer to the earth, such the Crab Nebula or Nova Cygni 1992. With Nova Cygni 1992 ( http://www.seds.org/hst/novacyg.html ), for example, we are observing a star explosion that occurred approximately 10,400 years ago (4,000 years earlier than young earth creationists claim is possible). Our current observations of the Crab Nebula are of how this supernova remnant was about 6,000 years ago. There is no analysis of any kind that shows any fundamental difference in the light between SN1987A (from 168,000 years ago) and stars that are relatively close to the earth. Humphreys' hypothesis has absolutely nothing to substantiate it in this regard. So regardless of what else might be said about Humphreys' model, the fact remains that observations of the real world do not corroborate Humphreys' hypothesis (no relativistic distortions of the kind Humphreys' proposes are observed), and in fact there are observations that contradict the model (cosmological red-shift is observed, not cosmological blue-shift). Wiley, you wrote that "Dr. Humphreys' theory...is still being studied — by both sides!" I must inform you that this is incorrect. While I know that some young earth creationists are still promoting this one (as I intimated in my comment about it becoming a new YEC fads), it is not taken seriously by anyone who is not a young earth creationist, because it has already been conclusively invalidated. In fact, Dr. Danny Faulkner, a young earth creationist himself, announced in 1998 that "the editorial staff of the [International Conference on Creationism]" (all of whom are young earth creationists) has been led "to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper" ( http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm ). Thus, even among young earth creationists there already exists the realization that Humphreys' model contains some serious flaws. You characterize Humphreys' model as being "just as viable a theory as the old Universe theory you prefer." I'm wondering what it is, specifically, that you're referring to. I realize that Humphreys acknowledges the great antiquity of the universe, just like I do. Humphreys accepts that the universe is old, just like I do. In this sense Humphreys is, of course, correct: The universe is ancient, because this antiquity is a factual aspect of the universe that has been directly observed. On the other hand, the features of Humphreys' model regarding this relativistic distortion business are simply incorrect ideas expressed by a fallible human being. Thus, to describe Humphreys' model as "viable" is an incorrect characterization of the matter. You state that Humphreys' "theory does allow for the literal interpretation of Genesis." If you'll take a look at Dr. Danny Faulkner discussion (which I cited above), you'll see where he mentions some areas where a literal interpretation of Genesis contradicts Humphreys' model. You state that Humphreys' model is "not violating present observational knowledge of distance/time/red shift," but this is not correct because the model does, for example, violate the observed red- shift (because, in fact, the model implies that there should be a cosmological blue-shift) and it claims that the light energy from the universe outside of the local region of the earth should be observed to have undergone the relativistic distortions of a radical shift in spacetime (such that billions of years passed in the universe while only 6,000 years passed on earth) even though no such relativistic distortions are observed. So now here we are with astronomers having directly observed that the supernova SN1987A exploded approximately 168,000 years ago, just like I've been pointing out all along. I, along with many other Christians, accept the fact that the universe is ancient, because this is a directly observed fact about the universe, and as Christians it is our responsibility simply to accept the truth on the matter regardless of how we feel about it.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley Clarkson wrote (post #37260): > Hi Steve, > > I trust you are doing well. I have been away from the computer for > 4 digests and still have some catching up to do. Since neither of > us is going to change his mind :>) I'll keep this fairly short. > > "Since, for example, you dispute the existence of the supernova > SN1987A, present your data that shows that SN1987A does not exist, > that SN1987A". > > You want info on time observations of distant objects from the > Creationist point of view. I would suggest studying Dr. Humphrey's > theory of cosmology. It is relatively new (proposed about 10 years > ago or so) and is still being studied — by both sides! However, > it does explain observational time in reference to far away objects > and allows for a "young" earth at the same time. There has been > some really interesting discussion of this theory by both sides in > the journals I read. I am not qualified to comment on the actual > math/physics of the theory — just follow the more simplistic > arguments! — but I do have a young friend who graduated from a > state university who is a young earth creationist and possesses a > BS in Physics, with minors in Math, Chemistry, and English > (graduated cumlade) who has looked at the theory and says it is > promising. It is just as viable a theory as the old Universe > theory that you prefer. Like any theory, Humphreys admits there is > still alot of research work to do on his theory. However, the > theory does allow for the literal interpretation of Genesis, while > not violating present observational knowledge of distance, time, > red shift, etc. > > Well, this is my nutshell answer. > > Good to hear from you.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37461
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, I'm hardly on a crusade. I'm familiar with this general subject, and I'm aware of some relevant details and aware of some of the flaws of some of the standard argument made by young earth creationists. When young earth creationists made arguments that are flawed, I point out why the arguments are flawed. Now, if pointing out flaws in arguments that people make makes me a crusader, then I guess you've got me pegged. I just never thought of it that way myself. I've always thought that it you're interested in digging into the truth of a matter, then you've got to be a stickler for the details, and if an argument is incorrect by being wrong about the information presented or being fallacious in the reasoning being used then it seems to me to be only appropriate to point these things out. Is your opinion on this any different? I don't think so. You ask: "I'm curious as to what your qualifications are to discount his ideas since he is a physicist who has spent quite a few years developing his theory within the bounds of realitivity. I've never once heard you say." I believe you're asking about my academic credentials. Wiley, I don't have any at all. The beauty of the approach I take to digging into the truth of a matter is to be a stickler for the details. I base my approach on the Bible, on the facts, and on correct reasoning. I have found that for purposes of seeking the truth, this approach works quite well and should serve everyone well regardless of whether or not they have any academic credentials. Since I'm not stating any criticisms or expressing any arguments based on my academic credentials, all I have to worry about is whether or not what I state is correct. The statements that I made in my post regarding Humphreys' cosmology are correct statements. That's all I care about. I think that's all you care about. I hope that's all anyone cares about. Is it true or not? That's what matters. All of the rest is just window dressing. By the way, you make reference here to Humphreys' qualifications. I'm not arguing about his academic credentials. All I care about is whether or not Humphreys' model is correct, in which case it would be good science, and I would be promoting it along with you. What I asked previously is "If Humphreys' model is such good science, then why does he refuse to present his model to the professional science journals that are specifically intended for publishing exactly this kind of research?" In fact, Wiley, while I didn't state it explicitly before, there is not a single professional astronomer or astrophysicist who thinks that Humphreys' model even has enough credence to it to merit any attention anymore, because it has already been invalidated. A few years ago, a few astrophysicists examined his model and pointed out several flaws in the math. In my previous post I already cited for you the fact that Dr. Danny Faulkner, himself an astronomer and a young earth creationist, along with other members of the International Conference on Creationism (who are all young earth creationists) were led "to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper" ( http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm ). Click on that link and read the discussion for yourself. I pointed out that the relativistic distortions in light from outside of the earth's local region that Humphreys' model says must be there simply aren't there. I pointed out that Humphreys' model says we should observe a cosmological blue-shift in light. In fact, we observe cosmological red-shift, which is just the opposite. Humphreys' model is wrong. It is not accepted as good science — it can't be good science — because it has been invalidated. If you think that the points I made in my previous post discussing Humphreys' model are in error, then please explain what you think these errors are. I will be more than happy to accept correction if you have good substantiation for any criticisms you have. I must point out here that in your response you did not present a single criticism of the problems that I pointed out with Humphreys' model. You write that: > I simply state there are opposing views that are more in line > scientifically with Genesis than the present black hole theory, > which is only one of several theories varying from Steady State > to Oscillating, with none being anymore proveable than the "Big > Bang" or the "Big Collapse" of the white hole which is basically > one might call Humphrey's theory. The one thing I am absolutly > against, though, is when someone says absolutley that one theory > is fact when it isn't. The Big Bang has not been proved yet, > neither has evolution, and neither has YE/YU or YE/OU theories, > except in the minds of a few. I'm sorry, Wiley, but I don't know what you are referring to in these sentences. I haven't been discussing Big Bang theories, and I haven't been discussing evolution. You can go through all of the posts that I have ever made to Berean Spirit in the context of this subject, and you will not find where I have discussed those subjects. The supernova SN1987A has nothing to do with the Big Bang, and it has nothing to do with evolution. What kind of argument are you trying to make about this, because it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. On another point, how can any view be "more in line scientifically with Genesis" since Genesis is not a science textbook? The only point where I can seen some potential connection is only at the most general level, where Genesis states that there was a beginning to the heavens and the earth. Yet even this may be ambiguous, because in the Hebrew it cannot be established uneqivocally whether Genesis 1:1 states that God created the heavens and earth from nothing or whether He formed the heavens and earth from a preexisting chaotic mass. Finally, the supernova SN1987A is not an Old Universe "theory." It is a directly observed fact about the universe. Thus, it is a fact that the universe was in existence about 168,000 years ago (in the case of this particular example). You state that this "has not been proved yet,... except in the minds of a few." This is incorrect. This factual aspect of the universe is accepted by almost every scientist on the planet. The only people who refuse to accept such facts as this are those who reject it based on their adherence to the doctrine of young earth creationism. Their rejection of such facts is not based on the objective data, which is why they do not use the objective data to substantiate their view. A few centuries ago, many Christians who were geocentrists also found it too difficult to accept the conclusions derived from the objective data, because in their minds their particular perspective on divine inspiration and biblical hermeneutics had become so strongly wedded to that particular doctrine of geocentrism. Since they couldn't understand how to disconnect the two, they lived to the end of their days railing against the 'worldly philosophers' for 'denying the Word of God.' Yet, now, we consider it rather amusing that all of us 'deny the Word of God' in rejecting geocentrism. We just don't take that seriously, even though in that earlier time, for some it was genuinely considered a matter of life or death! The supernova SN1987A is just one example by which we know for a fact that the universe has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years. Even Russell Humphreys accepts that fact.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley Clarkson wrote (post #37443): > Hi Steve, > > I caught your post on a quick scan of the last digest right before > I had to leave for work. I'm now at work and working from memory > since I have only web based mail out here. > > First — thank you for pointing out something to me I didn't > realize I was doing in regard to Humphrey's theory. I knew what he > theorizes but managed to include it with the short time frame of > the Earth's existance. To say YE/YU is really not correct for his > theory. YE/OU would be more correct. Yes, I agree he does suppose > an old universe in his theory, but he also supposes a young Earth > in his theory. So I guess we are really looking at an Earth with > an actual age of 6000 to 10000 yrs and a universe of however many > billions of years it is up to now (around 16 at last count ? :>). > So, I will be more careful next time. > > And for those who are not aware of the theory, basically it states > that the universe started with the collapse of a "White Hole" with > a boundary X number of light Years across. In the process of the > collapse and formation of what exists now, most of the Universe as > we see it was within the time frame we see and measure by > astronomical measurements. However as the Earth was formed, it > moved through a period of non-time (this is a theorized calculation > from the theory of relativity that was not used by Einstine but is > still technically correct within the theory). The actual time > period that the earth has existed within the boundaries of time on > Earth is less than 10,000 years but the Universe as we view it and > can measure it is within the standard time frame of the 16 billion > year old universe. > > Second. I read rather hastely because I was already 10 minutes > later than I should have been leaving for work, but I got the > feeling you were basically calling his ideas rubbish. I'm curious > as to what your qualifications are to discount his ideas since he > is a physicist who has spent quite a few years developing his > theory within the bounds of realitivity. I've never once heard you > say. I don't make any pretense that I don't have the background to > analyze his theory to prove it or disprove it or the same for the > other theory for that matter, but on the surface, it makes more > sense that the dumb luck theories of the Big Bang from a single > black hole expanding and then going from mass disorder to a point > of almost unimaginable order, followed by the evolution of all life > from a puddle of chemicals on a beach several billion years ago > unbelievably complex organisms that we will be along time totally > understanding. Then, Steve, I am also not on a crusade as you > seem to be and have basically admitted to in other posts. I simply > state there are opposing views that are more in line scientifically > with Genesis than the present black hole theory, which is only one > of several theories varying from Steady State to Oscillating, with > none being anymore proveable than the "Big Bang" or the "Big > Collapse" of the white hole which is basically one might call > Humphrey's theory. The one thing I am absolutly against, though, is > when someone says absolutly that one theory is fact when it isn't. > The Big Bang has not been proved yet, neither has evolution, and > neither has YE/YU or YE/OU theories, except in the minds of a few. > I personally read and try to keep up with the scientific/technical > of all of them and keep an open mind. > > God bless, my friend!
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37609
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, I'm sorry to hear about the terrorist activities impacting you. I hope justice is visited to these men, as soon as can be done. There are some distinct problems with what you have stated in your response. I wrote: >> I haven't been >> discussing Big Bang theories, and I haven't been discussing >> evolution. You can go through all of the posts that I have ever >> made to Berean Spirit in the context of this subject, and you >> will not find where I have discussed those subjects. The >> supernova SN1987A has nothing to do with the Big Bang, and it >> has nothing to do with evolution. What kind of argument are you >> trying to make about this, because it certainly doesn't make any >> sense to me. You responded: > We have been discussing the old age of the universe verses the > young age. Humphreys theory is a part of that. You are convinced > that the right theory is the present one of the BB from a black > hole to explain the old age of the universe because it explains > the Super Nova. Humphreys theory is just the opposite of the BB > but still allows for a viewably young Earth while having a > viewably old universe, which would include SN1987A at x number > of light years distance. You say we are not discussing it but in > reality we are because of what Humphrey's theory states. It has > everything to do with perceived ages of the universe and how the > universe began. His theory being 180 degrees the other direction > from the black hole/big bang theory. First of all, Humphreys' model has been invalidated. Since it has been invalidated, Wiley, I wish you would explain to me why it is that we are supposed to take an invalidated model into account. This is like say that the path that was computed for the recent Mars probe (which, by the way, got it to Mars successfully; isn't it nice when you don't confuse English and metric units?) to get it from Earth to Mars was all wrong, because the path wasn't computed according to the geocentric model of the solar system. Well, yes, this is absolutely correct, that the path was not computed according to the geocentric model. So what? The geocentric model is invalid. Therefore, the geocentric model is irrelevant. Humphreys' model is invalid. Humphreys' model doesn't have anything to do with the supernova SN1987A, because it is a model that is irrelevant to anything (including the price of tea in China), because it is an incorrect model. Second, I reiterate to you, and to everyone else to whom this is not crystal clear, that not once have I discussed the age of universe at any time at any point in my discussion of this general subject. Contrary to what you state, I am not convinced that the Big Bang theory is correct. While I think it is a decent model, I am not convinced that it is the correct one. Again, regardless of what I think about the Big Bang, the fact is that I have not discussed the Big Bang at any time at any point in my discussion of this subject. Were you to parse through all of the posts that I have ever made to the BereanSpirit list (and, no, I'm not saying that you should do this; I'm just informing you of what you would find if you did), you would not find anywhere where I have discussed the age of the universe or the Big Bang. What I have pointed out to everyone, using only one particular example so that people can easily focus down on dealing with the details of this one specific case, is that with this supernova SN1987A we have a direct observation of the fact that the universe has existed about 168,000 years. This proves that the doctrine of young earth creationism is incorrect. How old is the universe, Wiley? Well, I don't know. Maybe it's 10 billion years old. Maybe it's 100 billion years old. Maybe our universe has been around for 6.428 x 10^15 years. I don't know. And whatever the age of the universe, this has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. What we have been discussing is whether or not the universe has been in existence longer than 6,000 years, and in connection with this there has been discussion of the related question of whether or not the Bible really teaches that idea. What I have pointed out is that we know for a fact, by direct observation of things in the universe, that the universe has been in existence for a lot longer than just 6,000 years. There are many direct observations that we could discuss, and SN1987A only happens to be one of them, though it is a particularly clear one. I have pointed out a few others in my discussion (such as the Andromeda galaxy from about 2.4 millions years in the past, and Nova Cygni 1992 from about 10,400 years in the past). You presented the Humphreys' model. I pointed out that, first and foremost, Humphreys' model agrees with the fact that the universe is ancient. So in regard to my showing that the universe has been in existence far longer than 6,000 years, Russel Humphreys, in his model, already acknowledges this fact about the universe. Therefore, there is no disagreement on this point. The only point of disagreement is that Humphreys' is using his model to try to say that even though the universe has been around for billions of years, this doesn't mean that the earth has been around longer than 6,000 years, because, according to his model, time in the universe is different than time in the local region of the earth. Second, I pointed out some flaws in Humphreys' model, just to present you with a couple examples showing why his model has been invalidated. I also pointed out that, contrary to your stated assessment of Humphreys' model as being promising scientific research, that Humphreys' has refused to submit his research to any of the professional science journals that deal with astrophysics and cosmology, and that even young earth creationists acknowledge that Humphreys' model has critical flaws. Thus, in regard to Humphreys' model, there's nothing more to discuss, because Humphreys' model is an invalid model, and, in any case, his model does not dispute the antiquity of the universe. So why are we supposed to consider it any further? I do not understand this approach you are taking.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley Clarkson wrote (post #37510): > Hi Steve, > > Due to announcements that were made yesterday by our governmen (FBI > and Attny. General) regarding possible events this week, I will be > away from the computer for awhile until we get through this > particular warning. This will have to be my final post for a few > days. > > Steve wrote: I'm sorry, Wiley, but I don't know what you are > referring to in these sentences. I haven't been discussing Big Bang > theories, and I haven't been discussing evolution. You can go > through all of the posts that I have ever made to Berean Spirit in > the context of this subject, and you will not find where I have > discussed those subjects. The supernova SN1987A has nothing to do > with the Big Bang, and it has nothing to do with evolution. What > kind of argument are you trying to make about this, because it > certainly doesn't make any sense to me. > > We have been discussing the old age of the universe verses the > young age. Humphreys theory is a part of that. You are convinced > that the right theory is the present one of the BB from a black > hole to explain the old age of the universe because it explains the > Super Nova. Humphreys theory is just the opposite of the BB but > still allows for a viewably young Earth while having a viewably old > universe, which would include SN1987A at x number of light years > distance. You say we are not discussing it but in reality we are > because of what Humphrey's theory states. It has everything to do > with perceived ages of the universe and how the universe began. His > theory being 180 degrees the other direction from the black hole/ > big bang theory. > > You mentioned a link to the ICR site with Falkner. Here are some > updates in TJ you might want to read. I don't think Faulkner wrote > any of them, but you may recognize some of the other names. They > are letters between Humphreys and several others concerning his > theories and possible flaws and rebuttals and comments on White > Hole cosmology. Vol 15(1), Vol 14(2) 2000, Vol 14(1), vol 15(2). > Also, Humphreys has a rather simplistic book called "Starlight and > Time" that describes his theory in rather simple terms but > interesting reading, nevertheless. I don't know if any of this > info is posted to the web since TJ is subscription only at around > $12.50 per issue of the magazine/journal (three issues/year). Some > of the articles in TJ are posted to the web site. > > At this point I must leave for work. We will have to just agree to > disagree on the universe age issue and Earth age issue. > > God bless and have a very good week!
|