Starlight and Time: The Impossibility of White-Hole Cosmology
This week will be a critique of Russell Humphreys’ book “Starlight and Time”, an attempt by Creationists to make the age of the universe compatible with a 6-day, 6000 year old interpretation of the book of Genesis. I will point out the flaws in this idea that ultimately demonstrate that, unless one relies on the arbitrary intervention of God (in which case, we are out of the realm of science), white hole cosmology cannot possibly be an explanation to the origin of the universe — let alone mention that the Big Bang Theory trumps it in regards to verifying the evidence. The Creationist Claims I will address today are five-fold. They come from Kent Hovind’s website drdino.com. They are the first of 26 “Questions for Evolutionists”.
Starlight and Time: The Impossibility of White-Hole Cosmology
Starlight and Time: The Impossibility of White-Hole Cosmology
posted by Lucretius at 4:07 PM
4 Comments:
I think one of the problems that you will face with creationists is that you'll never convince them, no matter how detailed the scientific anlysis. If they are now looking to use relativity to prove their case for the 6000 year old earth, it doesn't matter how much fact you spout at them, it will always be a case of "Well, those may be the facts as you see them, but god made it that way and so the science is either wrong, or has been made to look the way it does for a reason." It all boils down to faith. You must make them question their faith, and just coming out with the science they see as being your equivalent of their "because it says so in the bible."
Hello Country Cottage. I'm a "Bible thumper" who does not totally buy into the "new earth" point of view. I am willing to accept that the visible scientific evidence seems to suggest the earth is "old". But that in no way shakes my faith that God did. The details are debatable among believers. The Bible does not offer enough on this subject to be certain of many details. I know there are many thumpers like myself who would find common ground with you on the old earth science.
Are you an Old Earth Creationist then, or a Theistic Evolutionist, if you don't mind my asking and butting into the conversation.
Sorry for the slow response. There are many reasonable people, who are open for ratoonal discussion. I think of myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist. A friend of mine described me as a "Cowardly atheist". I'm quite prepared to accept the possibility of God - even to the extent of creation - I just reckon his time scale isn't ours, and he (I'm assuming God is male) wouldn't have a problem with evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home