Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GPLindsey · 10-10-2002, 05:14 PM

I have in my hands a book entitled "The Revised and Extended Answers Book," by Ken Ham (founder of "Answers in Genesis") et al. In this book, the authors concede they have a difficulty with explaining how we can see light from stars and galaxies out past 10,000 years, if in fact the universe is only 10,000 years old. The book gave a very sound criticism of the implausibility of God creating the light "on its way." But it also suggests a new cosmology is brewing out there that can answer all this, by a Dr. Russell Humphreys. To quote the book, "It [the new theory] passed peer review, by qualified reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburg International Conference on Creationism" (p.98). I was shocked at my ignorance, that I had never heard about this distinguished conference until I read about it in this book.

Anyway, this new theory, if I understand it, says the universe has a set boundary, resulting in a net gravitational effect towards the center. In the distant past, assuming the universe was only 50 times smaller than it is now (huh?), all the matter in the universe must have passed out of an event horizon. At the time the earth was at the event horizon, billions of years could have passed by, but it would have felt like an ordinary day on earth, because of the interplay of gravity and relativity and light in the expanding universe. The book says that if an observer on earth had looked out in space at that particular time (Adam?) light would appear to be travelling much faster than the speed of light, and galaxies would be spinning faster. The book breathlessly notes: "This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the Big Bang, including progressive red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth." The book referred the reader to Dr. Humphreys book, "Starlight and Time," which offers a layman's description of this new cosmology. [NOTE: Excerpts from the "Answers Book" used in accordance with the disclamer in the inside jacket, allowing brief quotations to be used in articles and reviews]. I think the AIG website also discusses this area as well.

Anybody out there know about this new cosmology in greater detail, or knows what is wrong with it?

theyeti · 10-10-2002, 06:06 PM

There's nothing really new about it. A search for "white hole cosmology" will turn up plenty of stuff.

I found this article which seems like a pretty in-depth debunking: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/steveheiden13.html#post02" target="_blank">Humphreys' Cosmology, Another Wrong Argument.</a>

theyeti

eh · 10-11-2002, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey:
.....To quote the book, "It [the new theory] passed peer review, by qualified reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburg International Conference on Creationism"

I sense a sudden burst of laughter coming on. What does it mean to have a group of magic believers reviewing each others work?

Valentine Pontifex · 10-12-2002, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey:
To quote the book, "It [the new theory] passed peer review, by qualified reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburg International Conference on Creationism" (p.98). I was shocked at my ignorance, that I had never heard about this distinguished conference until I read about it in this book

Lets give everyone a good idea of the quality of work that that 1994 conference produced.

<a href="http://www.creation.on.ca/cdp/articles/snrart.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is a paper from that conference by Keith Davies. It is influential in creationist circles and has been parroted by many YECs including <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/248.asp" target="_blank">AiG's Sarfati</a>.

And yet it uses <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s2-2" target="_blank">some of the most flagrant and clearly intentional misquotes</a> that I have ever seen the evolution deniers use! It also has many other <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/" target="_blank">errors in fact</a>.

This is an example of what passed those specific peer reviewers, whatever reviewers AiG uses for its articles, and indeed what is still being used by the YECs.

Clutch · 10-13-2002, 05:19 AM

Looked at the Davies paper -- oh, flaming dogdish, he's from Ontario. One likes to think that creationist quote-mining is an American career.

A postscript to the paper tells us that he is a distinguished cosmologist. Qualifications: a BA, and something called a "Dip.Ed" (I think I know what "Dip" is short for; wise of them to leave the other word off...)

Valentine Pontifex · 10-13-2002, 09:29 AM

I might add that AiG, ICR, etc. are willing to list Keith Davies as one of their own, cite his articles, and in the case of the ICR and International Conference on Creationism publish his works is evidence that they are not serious about policing their own. Merely attacking nitwit YECs that are unwilling to play ball like Kent Hovind is not suffient.

Valentine Pontifex · 10-13-2002, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
Looked at the Davies paper -- oh, flaming dogdish, he's from Ontario. One likes to think that creationist quote-mining is an American career.

A postscript to the paper tells us that he is a distinguished cosmologist. Qualifications: a BA, and something called a "Dip.Ed" (I think I know what "Dip" is short for; wise of them to leave the other word off...)

Be careful of ad hominems!

But a quick search reviews that Dip.Ed is a diploma in education degree. It appears to be somewhat equivalent to teaching certificates in the United States. Basically a few extra courses beyond the basic bachelors degree for those who wish to go into the job of teaching. Any education professional out there want to illuminate this in more detail since this is not something I know much about.

Of course they are lying about him being distinquished. Anyone here have access to an online science citation index to see how many papers Davies has published and how many times his collegues use his papers?

Heathen Dawn · 10-13-2002, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey:

Anybody out there know about this new cosmology in greater detail, or knows what is wrong with it?

What's wrong with it? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: it's unScriptural! It has no support whatsoever in the Bible. Any cosmological model assuming Outer Space, a spherical earth, and stars as distant suns, is a cave-in to the pagan heresies of the ancient Greek astronomers.

The only creationists I truly respect are firmament-believing flat-earthers. All others are hypocrites.

GPLindsey · 10-13-2002, 10:42 AM

A problem I had with the theory is that it doesn't account for the fact that people around the world have been writing about and making maps of the heavens--carvings, paintings, stone circles, etc.--for thousands of years. If this theory had any truth to it, then eyewitnesses throughout history would have been recording a rapidly changing sky map. I would have thought that the ancient Chinese or Egyptians would have made some mention of the fact that they saw swirling clouds of stars (galaxies) in the night sky, as they receded away quickly each passing night. But of course, this is not the case. How could this obvious fact have gotten past the distinguished Creationist peer review panel that examined the theory?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-10-2002, 05:14 PM	#1
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	Anyone read about the new Creationist cosmology? I have in my hands a book entitled "The Revised and Extended Answers Book," by Ken Ham (founder of "Answers in Genesis") et al. In this book, the authors concede they have a difficulty with explaining how we can see light from stars and galaxies out past 10,000 years, if in fact the universe is only 10,000 years old. The book gave a very sound criticism of the implausibility of God creating the light "on its way." But it also suggests a new cosmology is brewing out there that can answer all this, by a Dr. Russell Humphreys. To quote the book, "It [the new theory] passed peer review, by qualified reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburg International Conference on Creationism" (p.98). I was shocked at my ignorance, that I had never heard about this distinguished conference until I read about it in this book. Anyway, this new theory, if I understand it, says the universe has a set boundary, resulting in a net gravitational effect towards the center. In the distant past, assuming the universe was only 50 times smaller than it is now (huh?), all the matter in the universe must have passed out of an event horizon. At the time the earth was at the event horizon, billions of years could have passed by, but it would have felt like an ordinary day on earth, because of the interplay of gravity and relativity and light in the expanding universe. The book says that if an observer on earth had looked out in space at that particular time (Adam?) light would appear to be travelling much faster than the speed of light, and galaxies would be spinning faster. The book breathlessly notes: "This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the Big Bang, including progressive red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, without compromising the data or the biblical record of a young earth." The book referred the reader to Dr. Humphreys book, "Starlight and Time," which offers a layman's description of this new cosmology. [NOTE: Excerpts from the "Answers Book" used in accordance with the disclamer in the inside jacket, allowing brief quotations to be used in articles and reviews]. I think the AIG website also discusses this area as well. Anybody out there know about this new cosmology in greater detail, or knows what is wrong with it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2002, 06:06 PM	#2
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	There's nothing really new about it. A search for "white hole cosmology" will turn up plenty of stuff. I found this article which seems like a pretty in-depth debunking: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/steveheiden13.html#post02" target="_blank">Humphreys' Cosmology, Another Wrong Argument.</a> theyeti

10-13-2002, 05:19 AM	#5
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Looked at the Davies paper -- oh, flaming dogdish, he's from Ontario. One likes to think that creationist quote-mining is an American career. A postscript to the paper tells us that he is a distinguished cosmologist. Qualifications: a BA, and something called a "Dip.Ed" (I think I know what "Dip" is short for; wise of them to leave the other word off...)

10-13-2002, 09:29 AM	#6
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	I might add that AiG, ICR, etc. are willing to list Keith Davies as one of their own, cite his articles, and in the case of the ICR and International Conference on Creationism publish his works is evidence that they are not serious about policing their own. Merely attacking nitwit YECs that are unwilling to play ball like Kent Hovind is not suffient.

10-13-2002, 10:42 AM	#9
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	A problem I had with the theory is that it doesn't account for the fact that people around the world have been writing about and making maps of the heavens--carvings, paintings, stone circles, etc.--for thousands of years. If this theory had any truth to it, then eyewitnesses throughout history would have been recording a rapidly changing sky map. I would have thought that the ancient Chinese or Egyptians would have made some mention of the fact that they saw swirling clouds of stars (galaxies) in the night sky, as they receded away quickly each passing night. But of course, this is not the case. How could this obvious fact have gotten past the distinguished Creationist peer review panel that examined the theory?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.