Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

[cassini]

Looks like you just cut and paste stuff from the “Geocentrism support group.” I’m not impressed.

I cut and posted an answer to the question asked because I was aware of the arguments and it saved time. As regards your 'not being impressded, well you are the perfect example of the Copernican heretic I described to Mystic banana, so prejudiced you will concede to nothing no matter how true it is.

 

[hecd2]

Sidebar:

The Earth may possibly be at the center of our 13.73 billion years old universe after all.

Indeed, George Ellis is a strong advocate for the possibility that the anomalies in the intensities of SN-1a can be explained by a spherically symmetrical inhomogeneity in the observable universe with the Milky Way galaxy near its centre (as opposed to the mainstream view that the anomaly is explained by dark energy causing a late acceleration of metric expansion in a homogeneous universe). I think we have to take that idea seriously, even though the smart money is on homogeneity and the new physics, because the inhomogeneity can’t currently be ruled out by observation and because dark energy has a rather ad hoc sticking-plaster feel about it. People are developing observational tests to distinguish one scenario from the other. There are two points to consider if the inhomogeneity hypothesis gets observational support - first, it creates new problems that are almost as intractable if not more so as explaining dark energy: the problem becomes explaining the origin of the inhomogeneity which requires a radically different cosmology. Secondly, the models based on inhomogeneity demand a reduced density of matter-energy centred close to us (a ‘void’), but do not exclude the possibility that the void is a variation in local (ie within 13.7 billion light year) density that does not extend beyond the observable universe - being at the centre of a void does not mean necessarily being at the centre of the universe. See George Ellis, Cosmology: Patchy Solutions, *Nature *452, 158 - 161 where he references papers by Buchert, Wiltshire, Mattsson, Rasansen, Celerier, Alexander, Clarkson and Ellis himself, most of which are available free on-line (like most cosmology, relativity and high energy physics papers - oh, when will the biological community follow suit?). I can pass on the references to you or anyone who is interested.

In any case, scientists will go where the evidence leads.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

The Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, within a margin of error of about +/- 1%. The universe is about 13.73 billion years old, within a margin of error of about +/-
0.12 billion years. This has been accurately calculated and confirmed a long time ago.

Who made this calculation? Why do you think it’s reliable? And finally, back to the OP. So-called fundamentalists think the dates are wrong based on anomolies in the earth and fossil life forms still in existence, to name a few things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Indeed, George Ellis is a strong advocate for the possibility that the anomalies in the intensities of SN-1a can be explained by a spherically symmetrical inhomogeneity in the observable universe with the Milky Way galaxy near its centre (as opposed to the mainstream view that the anomaly is explained by dark energy causing a late acceleration of metric expansion in a homogeneous universe). I think we have to take that idea seriously, even though the smart money is on homogeneity and the new physics, because the inhomogeneity can’t currently be ruled out by observation and because dark energy has a rather ad hoc sticking-plaster feel about it. People are developing observational tests to distinguish one scenario from the other. There are two points to consider if the inhomogeneity hypothesis gets observational support - first, it creates new problems that are almost as intractable if not more so as explaining dark energy: the problem becomes explaining the origin of the inhomogeneity which requires a radically different cosmology. Secondly, the models based on inhomogeneity demand a reduced density of matter-energy centred close to us (a ‘void’), but do not exclude the possibility that the void is a variation in local (ie within 13.7 billion light year) density that does not extend beyond the observable universe - being at the centre of a void does not mean necessarily being at the centre of the universe. See George Ellis, Cosmology: Patchy Solutions, *Nature *452, 158 - 161 where he references papers by Buchert, Wiltshire, Mattsson, Rasansen, Celerier, Alexander, Clarkson and Ellis himself, most of which are available free on-line (like most cosmology, relativity and high energy physics papers - oh, when will the biological community follow suit?). I can pass on the references to you or anyone who is interested.

In any case, scientists will go where the evidence leads.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I am definitely interested in any online references you might recommend, especially if they are free.

 

[hecd2]

Who made this calculation? Why do you think it’s reliable?

Age of earth:
Claire Patterson, Age of meteorites and the earth, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *10, 230 - 237
Wilde et al, Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, *Nature *409, 175 - 178
Wyche et al, 4350–3130 Ma detrital zircons in the Southern Cross Granite–Greenstone Terrane, Western Australia: implications for the early evolution of the Yilgarn Craton, Australian J Earth Sci 51, 31 - 45
Baker et al, Early planetesimal melting from an age of 4.5662 Gyr for differentiated meteorites, *Nature *436, 1127 - 1131
Manhes et al, U—Th—Pb systematics of the eucrite “Juvinas”: Precise age determination and evidence for exotic lead, *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta *48, 2247 - 2264
Bowringand Williams, Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134, 3-16
Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, which includes references to many more that concur on a date of 4.54 billion years.

Age of universe since Big Bang:
Bennett et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe(WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results
Here
Spergel et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
Here
Tegmark et al, Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

Spergel et al, *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology
*Here

Enough for you?

So-called fundamentalists think the dates are wrong based on anomolies in the earth and fossil life forms still in existence, to name a few things.

What anomalies?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

It changed the hermeneutics of the Catholic Church so that scientific assumptions decide how the Bible is to be interpreted and not the Fathers.

Your statement, I’m sure, will find no historical support. Within the Church, scientific “assumptions” have never determined how the Bible is to be interpreted. On the other hand, what science is certain or relatively certain about has influenced how certain texts are to be interpreted.

For instance, there is no geological or scientific evidence for a global flood. Hence, it is not wise to assume the Deluge account is of the historical genre. This change in interpretation is not a change in what we understand the author to be teaching. That the Deluge account, is rather, a “theological polemic” against the Babylonian flood stories receives support from the undeniable parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh. This understanding is consistent with the sorely lacking physical evidence of a global flood.

Modern scientific cosmology has changed how Genesis 1 and many other passages in Scripture are understood. The OT religious message is set in a pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Near East. Scientifically, we know there is no firmament, or waters above and below the firmament; and the earth is not flat as portrayed in the OT, nor does the earth rest on pillars.

The pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Near East reflected in the Bible, when contrasted with modern cosmology tells us, without any doubts, at least for the open minded, that the biblical writers are not teaching science.

In regard to the Church Fathers, beginning with the Patristic period, every commentator who interpreted Genesis literally, “literally” in the specific sense of believing Genesis 1 teaches the “how” of creation, has produced nothing but a confused exposition.

Genesis 1 commentaries among the Church Fathers have very little to agree on with each other. Some, seeing the difficulties proffered a metaphysical interpretation based on neo-Platonic philosophy. And Origin was very allegorical. St. Augustine wrestled for years with a literal interpretation, and when he could not make a literal interpretation work for a particular passage he used allegorical. In the end Augustine believed interpreting Genesis 1 was a near hopeless task. This was because he came in a long line of interpreters who looked for the “how” of creation in Genesis 1.

The Church Fathers did not decide for the Church how Genesis 1 is to be interpreted because they could not even agree amongst themselves. What is of value in their interpretations are the spiritual lessons many of them drew from the text.

Many Church Fathers attempted a concordist exegesis, attempting to harmonize Genesis 1 with the science of their day. It didn’t work. And it doesn’t work today either.
Try as the literalist today will, concordism still fails as an exegetical method.

Denying scientific facts, on the other hand, in order to accord a direct creation in 6 days does not work either.

Literalists must do mental gymnastics to explain the pillars of the earth in the Psalms, the firmament of beaten bronze, the waters above the firmament, and many other things belonging to a pre-scientific cosmology. Such an approach is fatally retrogressive. It did not work for the early Church, and it did not work for the Church in the Middle Ages.

Only in modern times, has biblical scholarship progressed sufficiently enough, especially with the development of the historic-critical method, to understand the *genus litterarium *of Genesis 1.

A sound approach to studying the Bible as a whole is to rely on the Church Father and modern biblical scholarship. An either/or approach is limiting in one matter or another.

 

[itinerant1]

I cut and posted an answer to the question asked because I was aware of the arguments and it saved time. As regards your 'not being impressded, well you are the perfect example of the Copernican heretic I described to Mystic banana, so prejudiced you will concede to nothing no matter how true it is.

I am a Copernican heretic? Wow! I have never been called that before. I will wear it as a badge of honor, especially since it is the nicest thing retrogressive fundamentalists have ever called me.

BTW, what is it that is so obviously true that I am denying? Tell me in your own words, and not with a copy and paste job.

 

[Robert_Michael]

The Catholic man who converted me to Christianity started out by helping me refute the atheistic evolutionists. There are many Catholic creationists.

 

[itinerant1]

The Catholic man who converted me to Christianity started out by helping me refute the atheistic evolutionists. There are many Catholic creationists.

There are many theistic evolutionists in the Church, as well.

BTW, why are you a closet Catholic? What’s up with that?

 

[edwest2]

Your statement, I’m sure, will find no historical support. Within the Church, scientific “assumptions” have never determined how the Bible is to be interpreted. On the other hand, what science is certain or relatively certain about has influenced how certain texts are to be interpreted.

For instance, there is no geological or scientific evidence for a global flood. Hence, it is not wise to assume the Deluge account is of the historical genre. This change in interpretation is not a change in what we understand the author to be teaching. That the Deluge account, is rather, a “theological polemic” against the Babylonian flood stories receives support from the undeniable parallels with the Epic of Gilgamesh. This understanding is consistent with the sorely lacking physical evidence of a global flood.

Modern scientific cosmology has changed how Genesis 1 and many other passages in Scripture are understood. The OT religious message is set in a pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Near East. Scientifically, we know there is no firmament, or waters above and below the firmament; and the earth is not flat as portrayed in the OT, nor does the earth rest on pillars.

The pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Near East reflected in the Bible, when contrasted with modern cosmology tells us, without any doubts, at least for the open minded, that the biblical writers are not teaching science.

In regard to the Church Fathers, beginning with the Patristic period, every commentator who interpreted Genesis literally, “literally” in the specific sense of believing Genesis 1 teaches the “how” of creation, has produced nothing but a confused exposition.

Genesis 1 commentaries among the Church Fathers have very little to agree on with each other. Some, seeing the difficulties proffered a metaphysical interpretation based on neo-Platonic philosophy. And Origin was very allegorical. St. Augustine wrestled for years with a literal interpretation, and when he could not make a literal interpretation work for a particular passage he used allegorical. In the end Augustine believed interpreting Genesis 1 was a near hopeless task. This was because he came in a long line of interpreters who looked for the “how” of creation in Genesis 1.

The Church Fathers did not decide for the Church how Genesis 1 is to be interpreted because they could not even agree amongst themselves. What is of value in their interpretations are the spiritual lessons many of them drew from the text.

Many Church Fathers attempted a concordist exegesis, attempting to harmonize Genesis 1 with the science of their day. It didn’t work. And it doesn’t work today either.
Try as the literalist today will, concordism still fails as an exegetical method.

Denying scientific facts, on the other hand, in order to accord a direct creation in 6 days does not work either.

Literalists must do mental gymnastics to explain the pillars of the earth in the Psalms, the firmament of beaten bronze, the waters above the firmament, and many other things belonging to a pre-scientific cosmology. Such an approach is fatally retrogressive. It did not work for the early Church, and it did not work for the Church in the Middle Ages.

Only in modern times, has biblical scholarship progressed sufficiently enough, especially with the development of the historic-critical method, to understand the *genus litterarium *of Genesis 1.

A sound approach to studying the Bible as a whole is to rely on the Church Father and modern biblical scholarship. An either/or approach is limiting in one matter or another.

What you have just written has been repeated many times. First, science and God are two different things. Man’s perception and his construction of devices to aid him, like electron microscopes, pale in comparison to the way God demonstrates His abilities in the Bible. Also, the desire to be certain or relatively certain for something so provisional? Why the urgency?

Here is how God as Jesus Christ worked. 5,000 people were fed with a few loaves and fishes, and there were baskets of leftovers. A scientist standing right there, observing everything, would have what explanation?

A man dead for some days, called out alive. The explanation?

Lepers cleansed instantly?

Jesus ordering the wind and seas to be calm, instantly?

Telling His disciples to catch a fish, a coin would be found in its mouth?

Walking across the water?

God did not need technology, as we know it today, to do His work.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

What you have just written has been repeated many times. First, science and God are two different things. Man’s perception and his construction of devices to aid him, like electron microscopes, pale in comparison to the way God demonstrates His abilities in the Bible. Also, the desire to be certain or relatively certain for something so provisional? Why the urgency?

Here is how God as Jesus Christ worked. 5,000 people were fed with a few loaves and fishes, and there were baskets of leftovers. A scientist standing right there, observing everything, would have what explanation?

A man dead for some days, called out alive. The explanation?

Lepers cleansed instantly?

Jesus ordering the wind and seas to be calm, instantly?

Telling His disciples to catch a fish, a coin would be found in its mouth?

Walking across the water?

God did not need technology, as we know it today, to do His work.

Peace,
Ed

You belabor the obvious but to what end? This thread is titled “Re: Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?” Accordingly, how do your comments in any way support your position, which I presume to be a YE literalism?

If scientists were busy in a meeting exploring new possibilities for the treatment of cancer, would you walk in and read to them the true accounts of Jesus healing lepers?

 

[itinerant1]

This thread certainly descended to a low intellectual level…casini gets insulting because I don’t believe in his pet falsehoods, and edwest reverts to his “God is greater than science” post, which is Ed’s usual spiel whenever he can’t defend his indefensible assertions.

So sad.

 

[pzona]

I recently read an interesting book (Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller, I highly recommend it) which details some of the implications of the world, meaning universe, being only ten thousand years old. The one I found most interesting is the observation of supernovae which are more than ten thousand light years away. Such events would not be observable to us, assuming the position that the universe is ten thousand years old, unless God created the photons “from them” in order to give the appearance of a supernova. I’m not sure if I’m explaining this well, but if anyone understands and has a good explanation of this, I look forward to hearing it. Aside, of course, from “God’s will is mysterious,” etc.

 

[itinerant1]

I recently read an interesting book (Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller, I highly recommend it) which details some of the implications of the world, meaning universe, being only ten thousand years old. The one I found most interesting is the observation of supernovae which are more than ten thousand light years away. Such events would not be observable to us, assuming the position that the universe is ten thousand years old, unless God created the photons “from them” in order to give the appearance of a supernova. I’m not sure if I’m explaining this well, but if anyone understands and has a good explanation of this, I look forward to hearing it. Aside, of course, from “God’s will is mysterious,” etc.

Explanation:

God is a trickster and deceiver. He just very recently created the universe but made it look like an old universe, 13 billion years old, in order to fool scientists and lead them astray.

I learned this from a former gnostic creationist who was a trusted member of their inner circle. He knew their code and secret handshake, and was privy to their secret insights about creation.

 

[Magnanimity]

I recently read an interesting book (Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller, I highly recommend it) which details some of the implications of the world, meaning universe, being only ten thousand years old. The one I found most interesting is the observation of supernovae which are more than ten thousand light years away. Such events would not be observable to us, assuming the position that the universe is ten thousand years old, unless God created the photons “from them” in order to give the appearance of a supernova. I’m not sure if I’m explaining this well, but if anyone understands and has a good explanation of this, I look forward to hearing it. Aside, of course, from “God’s will is mysterious,” etc.

A more sophisticated YEC will offer you something like the theory of Russell Humphreys in his book Starlight and Time. Humphreys lays out this elaborate astrophysics argument for how the General Theory of Relativity not only predicts black holes in whose event horizon time actually slows down (b/c relative motion slows down), but also predicts white holes. Guess what happens at the event horizon of the “white hole,” according to Humphreys? You got it! Time (relative motion and change) is sped up in a dramatic way. So, in the beginning, when God was bringing about something like the Big Bang, there was a white hole, etc…

The YEC apologetics machine, as an early poster in this thread noted, is really fascinating. It is filled with some of the most interesting ideas. I have to give groups like AIG and ICR some credit for ingenuity, if nothing else!

 

[itinerant1]

A more sophisticated YEC will offer you something like the theory of Russell Humphreys in his book Starlight and Time. Humphreys lays out this elaborate astrophysics argument for how the General Theory of Relativity not only predicts black holes in whose event horizon time actually slows down (b/c relative motion slows down), but also predicts white holes. Guess what happens at the event horizon of the “white hole,” according to Humphreys? You got it! Time (relative motion and change) is sped up in a dramatic way. So, in the beginning, when God was bringing about something like the Big Bang, there was a white hole, etc…

The YEC apologetics machine, as an early poster in this thread noted, is really fascinating. It is filled with some of the most interesting ideas. I have to give groups like AIG and ICR some credit for ingenuity, if nothing else!

What relation does Big Bang theory have to YEC? After all, the initial singularity occurred over 13 million years ago.

White Holes, if they exist, may possibly be identified with black holes, depending on one’s view, but they are phenomenon within the universe, and not the universe itself, at least in the “traditional” understanding.

Is the relative time increase due to the emissions of a white hole supposed to be an argument in favor of YEC? If so, I completely fail to see how that can be so.

Furthermore, the increased radiation output from a white hole is, of course, within the speed of light, but more importantly, it would suggest a short life span for the white hole.

If the white hole is hypothetically conceived as something not localized, but as the cosmological event horizon, then we are very highly speculative grounds.

In either case, the most you have presented are innuendos, and no real argument in support of YEC.

 

[cassini]

This thread certainly descended to a low intellectual level…casini gets insulting because I don’t believe in his pet falsehoods, and edwest reverts to his “God is greater than science” post, which is Ed’s usual spiel whenever he can’t defend his indefensible assertions.

So sad.

Now hold on a minute Itinerent, if anyone has lowered the intellectual level of this debate it is you.
I had two posts up, one regarding the Copernican heresy that I said was the Devil’s greatest heresy in that it caused man to deny the evidence of his own senses in exchange for a mathematical hypotheses.
In other words, if you see the sun with its planets] and stars move daily and yearly, why deny it could not be that way. I think I could convince the dogs in the street that if they can see something real happening then it has all the credibility it needs…

This same heresy (It was not me who branded Copernicans heretics, but the Church) caused churchmen, popes and all, to deny a papal decree and the biblical interpretation of the Fathers of many passages that HAVE a salvation value. The Salvation value is that without the literal the DOGMAS and doctrines of the Church lose credibility. Proof of this is that scientific theories HAVE LED THE WAY TO APOSTASY and ATHEISM. How in God’s name can anyone chose a science that fits the atheistic principle perfectly and apply it to the Catholic faith.

What do you think Atheists say about a Church and its books of revelation that reveal global floods that are denied now by popes, a papal decree defining a fixed sun as heresy, as inferring the world was created in its entirity 6-10,000 years ago, as depicting a Virgin Birth, as recording miracles, etc. Who do you say gives the ATHEIST the SECURITY he or she never expected, why the Copernicans of course, the 14.5 Billion years old advocats. This gives them the time to deny the divine fiat of direct creation and put theistic-evolution into the time-frame it needs.

Finally a poster put up a silly argument that men on the moon could determine a heliocentric solar system and thus deny the revelations of Scripture. Then came Albert’s heliocentric necessary to get spaceships up into deep space.
I replied by quoting TWO MEN WHO ACTUALLY WORKED AT THIS VERY JOB. THEY BOTH ATTESTED THAT A GEOCENTRIC FRAMEWORK IS HOW ITS DONE.

And Itenerant comes in with ‘I AM NOT IMPRESSED’ --That lowers this debate to absurdity.

I retorted by saying that is EXACTLY what I meant by the Copernican heresy, total denial and dismissal of perfectly accurate evidence. In other words the Copernican heretic sees NOTHING but the heresy. 'Oh and by the way, the heresy is at the moment in Limbo, otherwise known as material heresy, without culpability or intent. My reference to Copernican heretics is by way of trying to get people to realise that was once and will become again a VERY VERY SERIOUS MATTER.

 

[hecd2]

I am definitely interested in any online references you might recommend, especially if they are free.

Ok, here we go with links to papers on cosmic inhomogeneity as an explanation for the observed anomaly in SN-1a luminosities:

David Wiltshire, Cosmic clocks, cosmic variance and cosmic averages, New J Phys 9, 377, available here
David Wiltshire, Viable inhomogeneous model universe without Dark Energy from primordial inflation, available here
Leith, Ng and Wiltshire, Gravitational energy as Dark Energy: Concordance of Cosmological Tests, ApJ 672, L91 - L94; available here.
David Wiltshire, Dark energy without Dark Energy, available here is a good overview paper of Wiltshire’s model. (Note that Wiltshire’s model depends on a local void with a radius of about 170Mpc, much smaller than the observable universe - he calls it the Fractal Bubble model. The model yields an age for the universe significantly greater than the concordance FRW model)
David Wiltshire, Gravitational energy as dark energy: Average observational quantities, available here, discusses possible observational tests for his model.

Mattsson, Dark Energy as a Mirage, available here, is a model that depends on local inhomogeneities and which maintains the large scale homogeneity of the universe (as does Wiltshire’s)

Syksy Rasanen, Evaluating backreaction with the peak model of structure formation, *JCAP *0804:026, available here
Syksy Rasanen, On the relationship between the isotropy of the CMB and the geometry of the universe, available here
Sysky Rasanen, Structure Formation as an alternative to Dark Energy and modified gravity, available here who uses non-linear effects in structure formation to generate the apparent late epoch acceleration

Marie-Noelle Celerier, The Accelerated expansion of the Universe challenged by an effect of the inhomogeneities, New Adv Phys 1, 29, available here is a detailed review paper with enough additional references to other inhomogeneous models to keep you busy for weeks - one major conclusion is that she derives a strong argument (and references other arguments) that inhomogeneities must be on a subhorizon scale, ie smaller than the observable universe, in order to predict what we see. The following paper concurs:
Kolb et al, On cosmic acceleration without Dark Energy, New J.Phys 8, 322, available here

Alexander et al, Local void versus Dark Energy:Confrontation with WMAP and Type 1A supernovae, JCAP 0909, 025, available here also derive a subhorizon sized void of the order of 300 Mpc

Clarkson et al, A general test of the Copernican Principle, Phys Rev Lett 101, 011301available here propose a test for large scale homogeneity in the universe.

You’ll note that most of these models rely on inhomogeneities that are smaller in scale than the observable universe, although there are some proposals that make the void about the Hubble scale. The following papers propose superhorizon inhomogeneity:
Kolb et al, Primordial inflation explains why the Universe is accelerating today, available here
Barausee et al, The Effect of Inhomogeneities on the Luminosity Distance–Redshift Relation:is Dark Energy Necessary in a Perturbed Universe?, available here
However this paper shows (as does Celerier above), that the inhomogeneity scale must be sub-horizon:
Hirata and Seljak, Can superhorizon cosmological perturbations explain the acceleration of the universe, Phys Rev D 72:083501, available here

As you can see, there is a lot of work going on here looking at possible inhomogeneities to explain the supernovae data without the need for Dark Energy - actually there is a lot more than I referenced here. There is an equal amount of energy going into hypotheses that depend on modified gravity and variances of GR.

Enjoy.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Magnanimity]

What relation does Big Bang theory have to YEC? After all, the initial singularity occurred over 13 million years ago.

Humphreys would say that’s question-begging vis-a-vis his theory. Specifically, he’s trying to show how you would have a Big Bang like event, yet still see stars from such a distance away.

White Holes, if they exist, may possibly be identified with black holes, depending on one’s view, but they are phenomenon within the universe, and not the universe itself, at least in the “traditional” understanding.

I think Humphreys would agree.

Is the relative time increase due to the emissions of a white hole supposed to be an argument in favor of YEC? If so, I completely fail to see how that can be so.

Yes, he thinks so. The event horizon of a white hole would run exactly counter to that of a black hole. Time would speed-up, as it were, in relativistic terms at the event horizon. So, Humphreys model does require the Earth be at or near the center of the universe. And, “light years” is a measure of distance, not time transpired, right? We infer that it serves a double duty of giving us an age of the universe too, but that’s because we haven’t considered his view, he would say.

Furthermore, the increased radiation output from a white hole is, of course, within the speed of light, but more importantly, it would suggest a short life span for the white hole.

Humphreys would agree. He’s a YEC.

If the white hole is hypothetically conceived as something not localized, but as the cosmological event horizon, then we are very highly speculative grounds.

Sure, why not? Any cosmogony would be highly speculative.

In either case, the most you have presented are innuendos, and no real argument in support of YEC.

hey, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with Humphreys. I think I can fairly represent his view though, if you have any more questions. And, to be fair, his actual theory is more than just wild speculation. He’s a nuclear physicist by trade and trained in his graduate studies in relativity theory.

 

[tjm190]

Now hold on a minute Itinerent, if anyone has lowered the intellectual level of this debate it is you.
I had two posts up, one regarding the Copernican heresy that I said was the Devil’s greatest heresy in that it caused man to deny the evidence of his own senses in exchange for a mathematical hypotheses.
In other words, if you see the sun with its planets] and stars move daily and yearly, why deny it could not be that way. I think I could convince the dogs in the street that if they can see something real happening then it has all the credibility it needs.

Ah, so the men who were on the Moon should have concluded that the moon was the center of the universe? After all, that’s what their sense told them.