Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

JP, can you provide evidence to support your assertion that some materials were dated at 10 billion years old?I don't see great difficulty with a 10 billion year old earth per se, although it means that the sun is a similar age and the theories on the formation and evolution of stars would need to be reviewed in the light of such evidence, if the evidence were valid.

"Ummmm...no one serious has ever addressed his theory."Ibhandli, I beg to differ. Conner and Ross have written a serious rebuttal of Humphreys' hypothesis. It is available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.htmlThe battle for hearts and minds(?) between young earth creationists and old earth creationists continues.

​

[This message has been edited by wj, 01-31-2002]

For those who may not be aware, the author, D. Russell Humphreys has a PhD in physics. Here is a biography at answersingenesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.aspHe does not restrict his creationist science to cosmology. He has also adduced evidence for a young (6,000 year) earth from such diverse sources as cosmology, geology, geophysics and archaeology. See http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.htmlIt appears that you only need a PhD in one area of science to be an expert in all areas of science and be able to point out the errors of the fools who specialise in such fields.Do physicists have a good sense of humour?

Peter, I don't want to send this thread off at a tangent. Let me say that you have padded up to Warnie like Gatting without realising you've been clean bowled. Or, you've scored an own goal.I was simply providing information on Humphreys' background and his other ventures into "evidence" against evolution and an old earth.I've noticed that, as well as engineers and physicists offering gratuitous advice on evolutionary science, there now appears to be a flood of computer scientists. Great to see such interdisciplinary interaction. It seems that biology, genetics, molecular biology, geo;ogy etc. are percieved to be lower on the pecking order and therefore physicists can offer insights which biologists etc. have been too dumb to realise. Or are certain disciplines more prone to egotripping?Back to the white hole thingy.

joz, maybe it should be americanised (in view of its author's nationality) to a silly starlight theory?!

Peter, you misunderstand my position.I give no credence to Humphreys, his white hole thingy postulation or his other arguments and "evidences" for a young earth creation. I simply made available information on the man and instances of other writings or arguments of his, if readers were not aware of the "quality" of his thinking.I commented on the propensity of creationists with one recognised qualification eg. Humphreys in physics, Plaisted in computer science, Gish in biochemistry, to pontificate and offer creationist rebuttal to specialists in other areas. Plaisted, for example, offers "expert" comment on geology and genetics to guide the deluded evolutionist specialists, and to reassure the faithful.I think we're only fighting amongst ourselves because the creationists seem to have left the party early. Was it a strategic withdrawal?

Peter, there doesn't seem to be a specific young earth creation thread current at the moment.Maybe you could use one of Humphreys' "evidences" for a young earth as the start of a new thread and see if it attracts apologists. It you tried to post all of them, the discussion might get very wide-ranging and disconnected.

Mike, just edit your post rather than creating a new post.