A comment on fundamentalist’s Jason Lisle’ latest
blog post (Research Update 20 August)
caught my eye. It’s from a fellow fundamentalist who is clearly having trouble
with the star light problem:
David Ethell says:*
Dr. Lisle,
I greatly appreciate your work in biblical
apologetics and specifically in astrophysics. I was a Physics major from a
Christian college, yet the college taught theistic evolution and I spent much
of my time there defending a young earth view. Naturally, one of the consistent
hammers used by my professors was the problem of starlight and time.
I read one of your comments recently about
the SDSS [ Sloan Digital Sky Survey] survey and a study from a colleague of
yours about the evidence from super nova remnants for a young age of distant
objects. I’ve been in regular discussions with atheist or agnostic physicists
about the age issue and am myself trying to get my head around using General
Relativity to explain long ages for the distant objects. It sounds from your
recent statements, however, that you are not relying on time dilation to
account for these distances and ages if you are noting that the super novae
remnants, for example, point to < 10,000 year ages of these objects.
Do you have a recent update on your
hypothesis or understanding of the ages of these "distant" objects?
If these novae are truly the same age as our local system then how do we
explain the red shifts?
I have been trying to use a model similar to
Humphries white-hole cosmology but find it falling apart in my discussions due
to the shear forces that would be present on the Earth in such a gravity dense
situation. I can't see the Earth surviving its exit from such a system. So
while in theory that system "protects" the earth from aging while the
rest of the universe goes about the billions of years of expansion, it seems to
fall apart when we look at the shear forces that would tear the Earth apart in
that environment.
Thanks for your time in responding to all
these comments and for your work for Jesus Christ in the exciting realm of
science.
David Ethell
No reply from
Lisle yet. Russ Humphreys' model does at least try to stay true to science by committing
itself to the outcome of physical laws and minimizing special “God did it”
pleading, although of course it miserably fails to account for the distribution
of matter in the heavens (as Ethel hints). Also, Humphreys positing a universe billions of years old (except in the near vicinity of the Earth, of course) contradicts Lisle's "Young" Universe outlook. David Ethell is in for a shock when he realizes
that Lisle’s model by and large goes back to the old in-transit-signal-creation concept, but obfuscates this fact with his coordinate transformation sophistry.
Ethell has come to the wrong guy if he doesn't want to be baffled by casuistry.
Some relevant
links
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/yec-star-light-travel-time-if-at-first.html
* See: www.jasonlisle.com/2014/08/20/research-update/comment-page-2/#comment-39179 and then search for "Ethell"
* See: www.jasonlisle.com/2014/08/20/research-update/comment-page-2/#comment-39179 and then search for "Ethell"
No comments:
Post a Comment