Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  Nicolaou,

  Fortunately, concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons etc.; Are all mainstream scientific thought, and not considered Creationist concepts.

  Punkofnice,

  I'm fine thank you. How are you doing? (Besides being sleepy in Europe?)

  Get some rest. Try counting sheep jumping over event horizons.

  Island Man,

  Both are assumptions.

  I assumed that God manifested himself in the person of Jesus Christ.I made a willful decision to trust him alone, and see what would happen.

  Over the past 10 years, I have gathered tremendous evidence and victories that prove this to be a true statement.

  Materialists assume that the universe created itself. They too get to see what happens after willfully acting upon that assumption.

  I love science.
  

  hy·poth·e·sis

  noun
  

  1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

     
     
• 

  juandefiero

  Over the past 10 years, I have gathered tremendous evidence and victories that prove this to be a true statement.

  Anecdotal or empirical evidence? There is a difference.

  For instance, if Science went by anecdotal evidence, our drug stores would be filled with snake oil.

  Religion == Snake Oil.
• 

  freemindfade

  Hey perry.

  Hypothesis is not equal to belief. It may be a suggestion that is tested but in science belief should come after facts and in religion belief comes without facts.

  Hypothesis and beliefs don't change facts, but if you are rational facts should change beliefs and hypothesis.
• 

  prologos

  The articles underpinning is that the bible is inspired and infallible, Humphreys' new cosmology is shaped to prove that, using the work of scientists committed to the strict materialism concept. An interesting feature in the text was the debunking of the idea, that the passage "--created light--" meant that "god" put the picture of the past we see today into the light that we see now.

  The starlight we are interested in is the Sun's and it is 8 minutes old when we see it, and took millions of years to get out of the sun's center fuser, but the sun and Earth did not exist in the young universe, near it's beginning, the universe is 4 times older than the Sun, so, when the bible says "--in the beginning god created Heaven and the Earth--" the basic premise is already proven wrong. That is so whether "c" varies over time or not, or a "time stands still"- zone existed around the big bang white hole.
• 

  Heartsafire

  Perry,

  Interesting post especially about time and gravity. I understand you are a creationist, and I respect that stance. I think materialists work within the constricts of the material world around them to explain the material world, therefore any appeal to something beyond what can physically be proven is not only illogical but unacceptable to them. Notably, I respect that stance as well, although I cannot say I personally am 100% convinced that a realm beyond what we physically understand does not exist. Anyway, interesting post, and I predict you'll receive some downvotes:-)
• 

  paul from cleveland

  Perry, thank you for sharing. I found that very interesting.
• 

  Vidiot

  "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..."

  ...however, the constructs that attempt to use science to prove the Bible "true" aren't absurd at all...
• 

  Vidiot

  Perry - "I love science."

  Even when it proves you wrong?
• 

  Perry

  near it's beginning, the universe is 4 times older than the Sun

  
  

  Prologos,

  The whole implication of gravitational time dilation, which much evidence supports, renders the rate of time

  as fluid and highly subject to your point of reference by which you measure it. From the standpoint of an observer on earth on the fourth creative day, the sun, moon, stars and other objects of the universe appeared in one day.

  From the standpoint of someone standing on one of the objects of heaven, the time would have been perhaps

  billions of years as they were "stretched out" in one day.

  Long before we had conceived concepts such as time dilation, the bible accurately describes this phenomenon in the axiom "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years"; quite a pronouncement on the fluidity of time that is dependent on your point of view....... from a "stone age" people.
• 

  kepler

  Perry,

  Reading over your first post, I am not sure what your bottom line is. Is it that some things that are posited by science are so strange or contrary to common sense that they can't be taken seriously? But yet again, you mention several Bible quotes suggestingt the Lord's creation stretched the fabric of space. And then later you say that your faith in Jesus causes you to triumph over scientific hypotheses that seem absurd.

  And then there was mention of "Starlight in an early universe." What about it?

  It sound a little like how much sugar and cream for one's coffee: just this much. And anyone else's version is absolutely wrong.

  Do you use GPS? It's accuracy is based on general relativity corrections. Are there not also devices that are based on quantum mechanics? Does uranium have a natural decay rate and half life that will assure that half of it will be lead in 4.5 billion years? There are other things that can be named to support the case for a science and nature that seems to have properties that defy common sense, but what's the use? What is the straw man that they are being measured against? A creation culminating with Adam and Eve in a garden 6000 years ago? Ten thousand? Which sect's interpretation of scripture?

  Since most scientific hypotheses are submitted to explain existing natural phenomena and to predict more, the ones that are unsuccessful are discarded or the theories that they support are modified. Hence the Scientific Method. Now assuming one of these hypotheses fails, there might be an opportunity for submitting another hypothesis. But in the case of lot of the supposedly "religious" critique is to reconcile observation with what was already written in the Bible, it gets hard sometimes: The sun stops in its passage above the Earth to assist Joshua in battle. Or that the Earth is set immovable on its foundations. Those are the straight-forward ones. Implicit controversies such dinosaurs and men in a pre-deluge world - you have to really like to stack up houses of cards. One could put together a hypothesis to explain such glaring discrepancies between observations and scriptural text, but how would they serve to predict any other NATURAL phenomena? Unless it's not the point...