Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,844 Year: 4,101/9,624 Month: 972/974 Week: 299/286 Day: 20/40 Hour: 1/3


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒

Starlight Within a Young Universe

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight Within a Young Universe
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 16 of 57 (366722)
11-29-2006 3:30 AM 		Reply to: Message 13 by Confidence
11-28-2006 11:20 PM

Confidence writes:
​
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
​
Notice that there is a beginning to time itself, probably because it is closely related with matter and space. But remember that in the Humphrey's cosmology there are multiple times of reference, but God uses earth's point of reference for time.
​
Excuse me, but so what?
​
Leaving aside the technical discussion of the ideas at hand (which I will leave to those with strong knowledge of the field), it has yet to be shown that the Bible is in any way a reliable decription of what occured.
​
This is an unfounded assumption on the part of Humphreys and yourself from which all else follows. This makes for very poor science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Confidence, posted 11-28-2006 11:20 PM Confidence has not replied
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 32 of 57 (367025)
11-30-2006 3:53 AM 		Reply to: Message 31 by Neutralmind
11-30-2006 2:40 AM

Neutral Mind writes:
​
This is not a good debate tactic I think. It's the same as a young earth creationist saying that some particular evidence doesn't conclude one way or the other because the bible is so convincing otherwise.
​
I don't see a parallel at all! The bible is not scientific evidence. Findings in other areas such as astronomy as geogology ARE and as such must be also be discounted in order for Humphrey's ideas to hold water.
​
No evidence exists in a vaccuum. Confidence is proposing that a lack of conclusive evidence about the Oort cloud constitutes a refutation of ALL other evidence. I don't see how this can stand.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Neutralmind, posted 11-30-2006 2:40 AM Neutralmind has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 3:24 PM RickJB has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024