Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
59 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Polar reversals how do you fit them in a young earth hypothesis
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005

Message 14 of 16 (709656)
10-29-2013 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Pressie
10-29-2013 12:44 AM

Humphreys is a crank.

Cosmological model

Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, presents an alternative cosmological model to the Big Bang theory in an attempt to solve what Young Earth creationists call the Distant Starlight Problem. Its thesis is that the Earth is about six thousand years old, and the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (when measured from earth). It proposes, using the principles of relativity, to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe's origin.[4] In other words, according to his theory, clocks on earth registered the six days of creation, while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth.[4] The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.[5]

His model has been criticized by other scientists and old earth creationists, such as Hugh Ross and Samuel R. Conner.[6] Humphreys has replied to Ross and Conner's critiques.[7]

In 1998, physicist Dave Thomas wrote that in Humphreys thousands-of-years-old universe, he "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote hypothesized Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."[8]
Sea Salt Issue

Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."[8]
Helium Problems

Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."[9][10] Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[9] Humphreys has replied to Henke's criticisms.[10][11]
Earth Cooling Model

Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."

Firstly, in a classical model for a harmonic oscillator (like a particle oscillating in a crystal), "the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion."
Secondly, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda."
Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility."
Lastly, they criticized it for contradicting the theological foundation that Humphreys uses in another publication. [12]

This is why scientists should stay within their field.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 10-29-2013 12:44 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 10-30-2013 3:12 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021