Creation Physicists

Comment

Comment by Luke March on February 7, 2011 at 7:29am

Dr. John Hartnett's theory is similar in some ways to Humphrey's, but has a bit of a different angle. You can find it in his book "Starlight, Time, and the New Physics"

Comment by Luke March on February 5, 2011 at 6:20pm

I'm not sure about a layman's explanation for the alternate time synchrony, but you could try either Humphrey's or Hartnett's books (or both). You might be surprised at how much capacity a teenager really has for understanding things like this. I remember reading Humphrey's book "Starlight and Time" when I was 12, there was a whole lot I didn't understand, but I certainly caught the general gist of what he was trying to say. 

Also, if you could manage to get a copy of the recordings and power point from the International Conference on Creation (ICC) in 2008, Dr. Hartnett gives a pretty good explanation of his theory as well.

 

By the way, I think Gregory is talking about a "light created on its way" theory, which is interesting and may be possible, but has some philosophical problems. Although, since he referenced the AIG distant starlight video, he would be aware of these, so maybe he is referring to something else?

Comment by Alexander Martin on August 4, 2010 at 8:52am

Thanks for your perspective Gregory. This is certainly interesting but what are its physics aplicability? How can physics describe this phenomenon?

Comment by Gregory Scales on July 28, 2010 at 8:18pm

God made the stars first, then he set them in the expanse of the sky.wouldn't setting them in the expanse of the sky be a reference to making the light which would then appear to be the natural product of them.

Comment by Gregory Scales on July 28, 2010 at 8:14pm

Here we find the verb - 'set' at no other point in Genesis 1 does the narrator use the verb - 'set'. Nothing else created or made has to be 'set' after its completion. Everything else is where it needs to be after God's spoken word brings it into existance. Doesn't it seem quite the coincidence that a verb has to be used in conjunction with the origination of the stars and the stars are the one component of the original creation that can't just be made. If they had been we would have never known they were there. The light from the stars would still be way out in space racing at the speed of light towards the earth but not yet incient upon it.

Comment by Gregory Scales on July 28, 2010 at 8:05pm

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, Genesis 1 - 16&17

Comment by Gregory Scales on July 28, 2010 at 8:02pm

Hey sorry it took so long to get back. the question presented but unanswe red was, "if the universe is only about 6 to 10 thousand years old, why can we see stars that are hundreds and even thousands of light years out in space. I mean how did the light from the source (the star) have time to reach the earth?

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 23, 2010 at 7:11pm

I'm not technically a physicist but I'd be more than happy to hear it if you'd like to run it by me. Have you considered creating a post for it in the main forum?

Comment by Gregory Scales on July 20, 2010 at 5:21pm

i'm a EE, Electricla Engineer who has had quite a bit of physics and is interested in it. Has anyone seen the video from AIG on distant starlight. I have an idea as to the resolution to the ongoing problem statement presented at the end and i'd like to run it by some folks and get a opinion on it.

Comment by Dustin Crider on June 3, 2010 at 9:39pm

Sorry, forgot the link.

http://takingeverythoughtcaptive.com/2010/06/01/cosmic-connectivity/

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page