Jump to content


Observable Scientific Evidence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
34 replies to this topic

#21 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:49 AM

Exactly!  Where were you??????  If you, nor anyone else was there, then its not a matter of science.

Terry

View Post

Quite the opposite; science is very much about the things we cannot observe directly.

(just a side remark)

Hans

#22 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 September 2006 - 09:21 PM

To Dr Humphrys I say “welcome to science”.

View Post

That seems rather silly. After 30 years of publishing in peer reviewed journals, only now is he welcomed to science?

Question for other YECs who find his White Hole Cosmology hard to swallow. Why?

#23 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2006 - 02:58 AM

Question for other YECs who find his White Hole Cosmology hard to swallow. Why?

View Post


The problem I have with White Hole Cosmology is the massive time dilation effects it causes. We should still be able to see the remnants of those today, but they have yet to be found.

#24 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:14 PM

The problem I have with White Hole Cosmology is the massive time dilation effects it causes.  We should still be able to see the remnants of those today, but they have yet to be found.

View Post

Considering 6,000 years have elapsed along with numerous other factors covered in this paper an explanantion is plausible for your concerns. There is also much more data that provides solid support for the basis of his cosmology. Like the effects of general relativity(gravitational distortion of time) which has been observed numerous times, as well as indications of a finite universe.
As already discussed, the details presented in his white hole cosmology may need some correction. However, he has developed an excellent starting point for explaining the starlight issue in terms of a young earth.

#25 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:37 AM

Question for other YECs who find his White Hole Cosmology hard to swallow. Why?

View Post


I have problems with it more on theological grounds than scientific grounds. Since I am not very well qualified to speak on the science of White Hole cosmology, I look at that theological side, and IMO it doesn’t fit well. For example, Humphries cosmology seems to imply an old universe, and it relies on some secular ideas (see 1 Cor 3:19). Also, he claims in the paper you cited that there was “a spherical zone around the centre in
which time did not exist”. Nowhere in the Bible will you find a concept where time did not exist, such an idea can only at best be inferred from the Bible. But the Bible seems to contradict this idea. For example. Many Christians believe time does not exist in heaven, yet how do they explain this verse:

“When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.” Rev 8:1

What also needs some explainin’: given the verse above, should we expect to find any women in heaven? :P

Fred

#26 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:55 PM

That seems rather silly. After 30 years of publishing in peer reviewed journals, only now is he welcomed to science?

View Post


I have already been chastised for this remark, to which I clarified in Post 14.

The remark “welcome to science” was not meant to be (sound) derogatory, indeed if one is going to publish articles in mainstream science or creation science, you should expect/encourage critical review.

#27 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 17 September 2006 - 03:38 PM

I have problems with it more on theological grounds than scientific grounds. Since I am not very well qualified to speak on the science of White Hole cosmology, I look at that theological side, and IMO it doesn’t fit well. For example, Humphries cosmology seems to imply an old universe, and it relies on some secular ideas (see 1 Cor 3:19).


Come on Fredward! It's hardly the same context, there is certainly a difference between the "foolishness" mentioned in 1 Corinthians and accepting some components of modern science that have absolutely nothing to do with questioning your faith. Some people take issue with him relying on redshift as an indicator of distance to the stars because that is to similar to the big bang. Seems a little extreme.

Also, he claims in the paper you cited that there was “a spherical zone around the centre in
which time did not exist”.

Where in the paper is that quote? I think the concept, which has been mentioned elsewhere, is that time stands still. Not that the concept of time did not exist.

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still.

How do we see stars in a young universe

Nowhere in the Bible will you find a concept where time did not exist, such an idea can only at best be inferred from the Bible. But the Bible seems to contradict this idea. For example. Many Christians believe time does not exist in heaven, yet how do they explain this verse:

“When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.” Rev 8:1

Again I believe the quote is referring to the concept that time stands still not that it is non-existent. Also the verse is probably putting the events in terms we can understand. "...About half an hour" puts the situation in time for humans. Also, how can heaven be eternal if it is bound by the concept of time?

#28 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 September 2006 - 06:07 AM

Considering 6,000 years have elapsed along with numerous other factors covered in this paper an explanantion is plausible for your concerns. There is also much more data that  provides solid support for the basis of his cosmology. Like the effects of general relativity(gravitational distortion of time) which has been observed numerous times, as well as indications of a finite universe.
As already discussed,  the details presented in his white hole cosmology may need some correction. However,  he has developed an excellent starting point for explaining the starlight issue in terms of a young earth.

View Post


A great read, but still doesn't put to bed any of the problems that have already been cited for this particular model of cosmology. It makes far too many predictions that can be falsified by observation.

Also, he claims in the paper you cited that there was “a spherical zone around the centre in which time did not exist”.


Where in the paper is that quote? I think the concept, which has been mentioned elsewhere, is that time stands still. Not that the concept of time did not exist.


It's right there under "1. CONNER AND PAGE MISS THE CENTRAL ISSUE"

Also, how can heaven be eternal if it is bound by the concept of time?

How can heaven not be eternal if it isn't bounded by time? I don't want my entire existance in heaven to happen in an instant!

#29 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:31 PM

Come on Fredward! It's hardly the same context, there is certainly a difference between the "foolishness" mentioned in 1 Corinthians and accepting some components of modern science that have absolutely nothing to do with questioning your faith.

View Post


Don’t get me wrong, I am not claiming that discoveries or knowledge from the secular world cannot possibly be valid, I am instead saying that they should be viewed with great caution, especially if it doesn't have a clean fit with scripture (also see Psalms 118:8).

Also, how can heaven be eternal if it is bound by the concept of time?


It depends on what you mean by “time”. What I mean by time is the passing from past, present, to future. BTW, the idea of timelessness in heaven was a teaching in Greek Pagan philosophy, so again 1 Cor 3:19 comes to mind. :P For more on this controversial subject, see this thread:

http://www.evolution...wtopic=489&st=0

Fred

#30 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 19 September 2006 - 08:48 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I am not claiming that discoveries or knowledge from the secular world cannot possibly be valid, I am instead saying that they should be viewed with great caution, especially if it doesn't have a clean fit with scripture  (also see Psalms 118:8).


Very well, but nothing he says disagrees with scripture in my view. Just to follow up on what I said earlier here is a piece from the section you mentioned.
This zone was deep inside the
event horizon and not connected to it. I demonstrate the
existence of the timeless zone in sections 3 through 6 by
analysing the mathematical foundation of my theory, a
space-time metric published in 1961 by theoretical physicist
Oskar Klein.6 According to the Klein metric, as the
expansion proceeded, the timeless zone shrank until it
disappeared at the centre. As section 9 will make clear,
objects at the centre (such as the Earth) emerged from the
timeless zone last of all, thus becoming the youngest things
in the Universe.

He's saying that the effects created by the time dialation would cause time to stand still. There's nohting there that contradicts scripture.

It depends on what you mean by “time”. What I mean by time is the passing from past, present, to future. BTW, the idea of timelessness in heaven was a teaching in Greek Pagan philosophy, so again 1 Cor 3:19 comes to mind. :P For more on this controversial subject, see this thread:

http://www.evolution...wtopic=489&st=0

Fred

View Post

I think I agree if I am understanding you correctly. It is apparent that we will probably live in heaven with a setting of past, present, and future. However, the concept of gauging things by days and months and so on does not exist because heaven is eternal. If time applies to heaven in the context I just referred to (finite periods of time) then heaven is not eternal. Surely you don't accept that idea?

#31 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 September 2006 - 01:12 AM

I'm quite happy to believe in a timeless heaven where time exists. I expect almost everyone that ever lived to be there, and I'm quite looking forward to finding out exactly what it is that immortal souls spend the entire of eternity doing :P

#32 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 22 September 2006 - 07:15 PM

I think I agree if I am understanding you correctly. It is apparent that we will probably live in heaven with a setting of past, present, and future. However, the concept of gauging things by days and months and so on does not exist because heaven is eternal.  If time applies to heaven in the context I just referred to (finite periods of time) then heaven is not eternal. Surely you don't accept that idea?

View Post


I of course agree heaven is eternal. However, I don't agree that having a certain gauge to measure the passing of time, such as days, months, or seconds, somehow invalidates heaven being eternal. I just don't see the connection. Is it wrong for me to say that 100 million years from now we will still be in heaven, maybe still musing about this very thing? :D

Fred

#33 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2006 - 05:17 AM

I of course agree heaven is eternal. However, I don't agree that having a certain gauge to measure the passing of time, such as days, months, or seconds, somehow invalidates heaven being eternal. I just don't see the connection. Is it wrong for me to say that 100 million years from now we will still be in heaven, maybe still musing about this very thing? :D

Fred

View Post


I don't think you'll be looking at your watch, waiting for 5:30 while your in heaven. :)

#34 odinmagick

odinmagick

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • az

Posted 24 September 2006 - 09:43 PM

I don't think you'll be looking at your watch, waiting for 5:30 while your in heaven. :rolleyes:

View Post

Unless you're meeting someone ^_~

#35 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 28 September 2006 - 02:15 PM

I of course agree heaven is eternal. However, I don't agree that having a certain gauge to measure the passing of time, such as days, months, or seconds, somehow invalidates heaven being eternal. I just don't see the connection. Is it wrong for me to say that 100 million years from now we will still be in heaven, maybe still musing about this very thing? :)

Fred

View Post

In 100 million years you're right, you will be. But once there you won't measure it that way. You'll just be there. :)

A great read, but still doesn't put to bed any of the problems that have already been cited for this particular model of cosmology. It makes far too many predictions that can be falsified by observation.

I disagree. There is an entire section on the objection you raised about not seeing the effects of time dialation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users