Is starlight from distant stars a problem for a 6,000 year old earth?

[Lustral]

Bet students loved Tbombz in their classroom, bell curve would mean spelling your name right on exam paper would put you in the top few percentiles.

[Necrosis]

"Accordingly, the model says that early on the fourth day, God’s creation of Sun and planets nearby plunges Earth into a zone of timelessness. In the zone all physical processes, including clocks, come to a complete stop. The spherical zone of timelessness expands out from the earth at the speed of light, engulfing the newly-created stars and galaxies. After reaching the most distant galaxies, the timeless zone reverses itself and begins shrinking back toward the earth at the speed of light. As it does so, it uncovers the new galaxies, which immediately begin emitting light again. Some of that light goes toward the center where the earth is, right behind the shrinking sphere of timelessness. Dr Humphreys: “When the sphere reaches zero radius and disappears, Earth emerges, and immediately the light that has been following the sphere will reach Earth, even light that started billions of light-years away. On the fourth day, “An observer on the night side of the earth would see a black sky one instant, and a sky filled with stars the next instant.”


http://creation.com/new-creation-cosmology

This is the same guy who used the saltiness of the ocean to confirm 6k earth. His theory puts the milky way in the center of the galaxy, fail.

it reads like a retard wrote it as well. I beleive he is being purposefully verbose and nebulous, he isn't making any points. Like the night sky comment, why is that integral?

[Necrosis]

Nevermind this guys been debunked.

In 2008 Humphreys published a new but lesser-known cosmological proposal.[9] In it he seeks to challenge a foundational dogma of general relativity and postulates an additional spacetime dimension, one which grants God ample liberty to hold the earth in a “timeless” region of suspended animation while the rest of the universe ages for billions of years, thus allowing very old and distant starlight to bathe a young Earth on creation day four.[10] A critic pointed out that the well-known equation for gravitational redshift/blueshift countermands his model’s efforts to achieve today’s observed redshift from cosmic sources, to which Humphreys countered by terming the gravitational redshift equation a “flawed equation” and became dismissive in his remarks about any potential applicability to his model.[11] Since his new cosmology relies heavily on the observed sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft as a manifestation peculiar to features of his model, his ideas were dealt a significant blow when researchers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California discovered that the apparent anomaly was due to the thermal recoil force acting on the spacecraft.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys

[Lustral]

I mentioned red shift and expanding universe to Tbombz before and got some bullshit reply. Like talking to a fucking tree, but more hollow inside.

[tbombz]

I mentioned red shift and expanding universe to Tbombz before and got some bullshit reply. Like talking to a fucking tree, but more hollow inside.

red shift is proof of what exactly? a red shift.

just like everyone went nuts over the radiation discovered a few months ago, that everyone was told is "proof of the big bang".  and i told everyone then, no, proof of a certain type of radiation is only proof of a certain type of radiation.  and now scientists across the globe are agreeing, and calling that "discovery" nothing of the sort.

these days, we are seeing more scientists starting to reject the big bang model in favor of an infinite, eternal, uncaused universe.  this is mainly because they see no real compelling evidence for the big bang and they do not like the logical consequences of a "beginning".

now, if you want to talk science, understand that i spent the first 20 years of my life an atheist, i spent the first 24 years of my life believing in big bang, and evolution, and ridiculing and mocking The Bible. I spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours studying all the science behind those theories. Although I am not an expert on all the intricacies of all the scientific theories in the world, but i understand the basic evidence and reasoning for the major theories as well as any laymen.

when you boil things down right to it,  the cruz of the issue is this = what is your authority? your own mind, or The Word of God?  

and if your own mind is the choice you choose, well, then that's where intellectual courage comes in. because if you dont have the will to step out, analyze the information for yourself, and be willing to go against the grain of modern dogma, then you are really nothing but a sheep, blowing which ever way popular opinion goes, and your opinion will always be changing, and it will never have integrity, or truth.




and Necrosis, as far as "debunking"  the fundamental idea of Humphries cosmology,  mathematics is impotent to do so.   its like saying "1+1=2, so therefore Mike can not jump over the broom."  

[Lustral]

red shift is proof of what exactly? a red shift.

just like everyone went nuts over the radiation discovered a few months ago, that everyone was told is "proof of the big bang".  and i told everyone then, no, proof of a certain type of radiation is only proof of a certain type of radiation.  and now scientists across the globe are agreeing, and calling that "discovery" nothing of the sort.

these days, we are seeing more scientists starting to reject the big bang model in favor of an infinite, eternal, uncaused universe.  this is mainly because they see no real compelling evidence for the big bang and they do not like the logical consequences of a "beginning".

now, if you want to talk science, understand that i spent the first 20 years of my life an atheist, i spent the first 24 years of my life believing in big bang, and evolution, and ridiculing and mocking The Bible. I spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours studying all the science behind those theories. Although I am not an expert on all the intricacies of all the scientific theories in the world, but i understand the basic evidence and reasoning for the major theories as well as any laymen.

when you boil things down right to it,  the cruz of the issue is this = what is your authority? your own mind, or The Word of God?  

and if your own mind is the choice you choose, well, then that's where intellectual courage comes in. because if you dont have the will to step out, analyze the information for yourself, and be willing to go against the grain of modern dogma, then you are really nothing but a sheep, blowing which ever way popular opinion goes, and your opinion will always be changing, and it will never have integrity, or truth.




and Necrosis, as far as "debunking"  the fundamental idea of Humphries cosmology,  mathematics is impotent to do so.   its like saying "1+1=2, so therefore Mike can not jump over the broom."  

I base my opinions on evidence that has been scrutinised. You base your opinion on what suits your agenda. You had a crisis and sought different answers because you hated everything you were before. Your beliefs went out the window when you got AIDS cos you threw science and what you knew in with your drug abuse, gay prostitution and promiscuous lifestyle.

Grow a pair and look at things rationally. You are blanking your old life at the expense of dumping any real knowledge you gained.

[tu_holmes]

I base my opinions on evidence that has been scrutinised. You base your opinion on what suits your agenda. You had a crisis and sought different answers because you hated everything you were before. Your beliefs went out the window when you got AIDS cos you threw science and what you knew in with your drug abuse, gay prostitution and promiscuous lifestyle.

Grow a pair and look at things rationally. You are blanking your old life at the expense of dumping any real knowledge you gained.

Science is why he will be able to live with HIV until he dies of a heart attack as opposed to being in full blown AIDS in the next 10 years.

If he refuses to EVER take anti-virals and survives on his faith, then I'll say he did something. Until then, he's just bullshittin'.

[wes]

Some people will believe and buy into just about anything. 

[Mr. MB]

Can we all agree that it takes light from a star one year to travel 5,878,488,8117 miles? So on the 6th night of Creation in one blink 100 gazillion stars appeared. So every star in the universe is at equal distance from earth in order to be seen at the same time. And they are not really very far away at all. The time it takes light to travel is total science fabricated BS....right?

I get so confused about this argument.

And why did God instruct Noah not to gather the 168 species of dinosaurs? However he gathered up all the critters from the North Pole including Polar bear, Grizzle, Otter, Reindeer, Tundra rabbits,  etc. etc. And Kangaroo, Wallaby, Tasmanian Devils, Wombats, Koala Bears...need I go on?  Not to mention all the freaking deadly snakes and insects.

I am so so confused.

[Knooger]

I am so so confused.

You can not argue against religion with logic and common sense, they will defeat that with one word, "faith".

[Gonuclear]

red shift is proof of what exactly? a red shift.

just like everyone went nuts over the radiation discovered a few months ago, that everyone was told is "proof of the big bang".  and i told everyone then, no, proof of a certain type of radiation is only proof of a certain type of radiation.  and now scientists across the globe are agreeing, and calling that "discovery" nothing of the sort.

these days, we are seeing more scientists starting to reject the big bang model in favor of an infinite, eternal, uncaused universe.  this is mainly because they see no real compelling evidence for the big bang and they do not like the logical consequences of a "beginning".

now, if you want to talk science, understand that i spent the first 20 years of my life an atheist, i spent the first 24 years of my life believing in big bang, and evolution, and ridiculing and mocking The Bible. I spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours studying all the science behind those theories. Although I am not an expert on all the intricacies of all the scientific theories in the world, but i understand the basic evidence and reasoning for the major theories as well as any laymen.

when you boil things down right to it,  the cruz of the issue is this = what is your authority? your own mind, or The Word of God?  

and if your own mind is the choice you choose, well, then that's where intellectual courage comes in. because if you dont have the will to step out, analyze the information for yourself, and be willing to go against the grain of modern dogma, then you are really nothing but a sheep, blowing which ever way popular opinion goes, and your opinion will always be changing, and it will never have integrity, or truth.


and Necrosis, as far as "debunking"  the fundamental idea of Humphries cosmology,  mathematics is impotent to do so.   its like saying "1+1=2, so therefore Mike can not jump over the broom."  

Well said.  Now all you need is some brains.  The Master of the Universe so loved idiots, that he made untold millions of them, and you appear to be one of that chosen horde.  Hallelujah.

[MORTALCOIL]

Ta-Ta, why not post this shit directly in your "Most Outlandish" shit thread. Will save everybody some time. I'm glad you're still as fucked up as always. At least, you're reliable.

[Necrosis]

red shift is proof of what exactly? a red shift.

Redshift is not evidence of redshift, it's evidence of a exapanding universe as we have tested it empirically. If you distrust this then you might want to jump out your window because gravity proves gravity, the implications of mass, speeds, planetary orbits all out the window, it doesn't prove anything.



and Necrosis, as far as "debunking"  the fundamental idea of Humphries cosmology,  mathematics is impotent to do so.   its like saying "1+1=2, so therefore Mike can not jump over the broom."  

I honestly am unsure as to what you are saying here. Math is useless, experiment is useless etc. his theory is safe from an established fact called redshift and even mathematics.

Dude, you are lost as always. You can grabbing for something to provide meaning to your life.

[OTHstrong]

You can not argue against religion with logic and common sense, they will defeat that with one word, "faith".

whether God exists or does not, there is nothing logic or common sense about the existence of the Universe either way. Was it always in existence? not logical, was it formed from nothing? wow, real logical, what other options are there? enlighten us.

[Knooger]

whether God exists or does not, there is nothing logic or common sense about the existence of the Universe either way. Was it always in existence? not logical, was it formed from nothing? wow, real logical, what other options are there? enlighten us.

There is nothing you can say that will make me believe in god, there is nothing I can say to make you not believe. So instead we should just have fun calling other posters here homosexuals.

(no homo)

[falco]

This is so wrong man. So wrong...

[OTHstrong]

There is nothing you can say that will make me believe in god, there is nothing I can say to make you not believe. So instead we should just have fun calling other posters here homosexuals.

(no homo)

lol lol ok ok.

but I am not trying to get anyone to believe in God, I just want people to admit that the existence of the universe is not logical or rational in anyway, at one stage ''in the beginning'' (for lack of a better term) something we can not logically comprehend had to have taken place

[falco]

The ruins in Great Zimbabwe are 12000 yo.

[OTHstrong]

The ruins in Great Zimbabwe are 12000 yo.

what did they do? carbon date a stone, lmao 

[Necrosis]

whether God exists or does not, there is nothing logic or common sense about the existence of the Universe either way. Was it always in existence? not logical, was it formed from nothing? wow, real logical, what other options are there? enlighten us.

LOLOLOL.

that's the only options? and the Christian god is the specific god, the thousand other gods are exempt why?

perhaps this is a dream, perhaps a simulation etc etc.. wishful thinking does little, I prefer to  deal in facts.

Also, why does it have to be logical? logics is confined by the mind and language to a greater extent. Math takes off where thought ends, quantum mechanics is not logical at all, yet it works.

[OTHstrong]

LOLOLOL.

that's the only options? and the Christian god is the specific god, the thousand other gods are exempt why?

perhaps this is a dream, perhaps a simulation etc etc.. wishful thinking does little, I prefer to  deal in facts.

Also, why does it have to be logical? logics is confined by the mind and language to a greater extent. Math takes off where thought ends, quantum mechanics is not logical at all, yet it works.

exactly my point, thanks bro, all i wanted to hear from you 

[falco]

what did they do? carbon date a stone, lmao 

That's absurd. They measure radiation/contamination of stones.

[OTHstrong]

That's absurd. They measure radiation/contamination of stones.

how could that produce the date? radiation on a stone could have been there before the people used the stone as a building material

[Necrosis]

what did they do? carbon date a stone, lmao 

seriously though, what is with you are denying reality? we have writings dated older then 6000k it's absurd that a grown man believes the earth is that young.

[OTHstrong]

seriously though, what is with you are denying reality? we have writings dated older then 6000k it's absurd that a grown man believes the earth is that young.

It is absurd that you care so much and spend so much time arguing about what others believe