Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #500264 in Books
• Published on: 1994-10
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 137 pages

From the Author
The critic is using a bad mathematical foundation
I'm glad three of the four reviewers like my book --- that's not a bad batting average for a new cosmology! The only critic, Mr. Conner, is a supporter of the "big-bang" theology of Dr. Hugh Ross. Though my cosmology first appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, none of Mr. Conner's criticisms (the 6/97 critique not being his) has yet done so. Mr. Conner also neglected to mention my replies, which appeared in the same issue of each publication. Now Mr. Conner has finally submitted his criticisms to the peer review process of a scientific journal. If all goes well, both his critique and my rejoinder will appear in this summer's issue of the *Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal* (CENTJ). For information on that journal, call *Answers in Genesis* toll-free at 1 (800) 350-3232 .

In his CENTJ critique, Mr. Conner did not use the argument he uses above, that "velocity" time dilation would cancel out gravitational time dilation. The more technical readers of that journal might realize that a galaxy moving along with the expansion of space experiences no velocity time dilation. As my book (pp. 98-99, 120-121) and some graduate-level relativity texts clarify, galaxy red shifts are caused by the expansion of the intervening space, not by Doppler shifts (contrary to some undergraduate texts) and not by velocity time dilation.

My CENTJ rejoinder cuts to the root of Mr. Conner's criticisms --- the "metric" equation on which he bases all his arguments, as he admits above. Recent articles in general relativity journals show that his metric is inadequate for the black-hole / white-hole situation of my cosmology. Being based on a bad mathematical foundation, his criticisms are wrong. On the other hand, the recent developments give strong support to my cosmology and the metric I used.

Customer Reviews

God-honouring, Good Exegesis, Great Astro-Physics, a Fine Example for Modern Science, yet Preserving the Integrity of The Faith.
This book is well-written. Simple enough for the layman, and yet plenty of meat for the well-informed astro-physicist. At the same time the book is God-honouring. Dr Humprey's takes the scripture in a straight-forward manner, being careful to consider the context of the passages under consideration, and being careful not to twist the scriptures in the way he wishes to go. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for our dear brother Dr. Hugh Ross who I believe has capitulated to the views of secular scientists (who have invented cosmologies to try to do away with God) and has tried to "Christianize" their models (I own plenty of his materials). Dr Russel Humpreys is a brilliant scientist who has presented a fresh cosmology - Christian from the ground up. Starlight and Time provides a fascinating read. I believe this book is the beginning of many more solid creationist cosmologies that makes much more sense of the universe we live in. Keep Going, Dr. Humprey's. May God continue to bless your efforts as you seek to glorify Him.

Being Intellectually Honest
Having always been interested in the night sky from a very early age, reconciling what you see there to the Genesis account of creation has always been a challenge to me. Attempts by Dr. Ross to do so distort the scriptural words to beyond breaking point and have other profound theological consequences. Russel Humphreys here presents a paradigm which works logically and which fits scripture (exceedingly well as can be seen from all the references). Support for the physics is also given for those who can follow mathematics at that level, although this is not essential to be able to read and understand the book. Russel Humphreys is very well qualified in this field and has defended his paradigm well against criticism from the 'Big Bang' community (both secular and Christian). I vey much doubt that the 'technical' criticisms on this page are written by those with superior qualifications in this field so should not be taken too seriously. In regard to the 'God of the Gaps' criticism, Humphreys only actually uses two supernatural acts, the creation of the original matter and the stretching of space. It has to be remembered that the 'Big Bang' and all other cosmological paradigms require an appearance of energy/matter somewhere. You then have to change the state of where you were into the start of the 'Big Bang' itself and then of course as this process is effectively running contra to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (you are making distinction and order out of what before the process was more uniform), you have at some point to reverse this so that the second law as we know it today (with increasing entropy) applies. By my count that's at least three pretty big miracles to start with (and if you do not have God involved - all by chance too!). We shall never know in our earthly life the absolute truth in these matters but we need to be intellectually honest and if we are Christians scripturally honest too and chose a paradigm that we think best fits the facts. This is by far the best I have ever found.

Lots of equations, jargon and nonsense
I read this hoping to find a plausible explanation reconciling the age of the Universe with the Bible, I was disappointed. While Humphreys throws out some buzzwords from Hawkins and has done some undergraduate level relativity equations his theory is all just "God of the Gaps". Even without a dgree in Physics I reckon the flaws are obvious but maybe they are harder to spot as the reader will have been bamboozled by the jargon. Humphrys' argument is that God starts with a sphere containg all the matter in the known universe in the form of water. This is allowed to collapse and nuclear fusion in the sphere produces the elements we see today. The problem with this is that water would not give the elemental abundances we see today, notably there would be very little Hydrogen... His biggest gaff is to miss the fact that by changing the curvature of space-time in the universal black hole he destroys the black hole. Other dificulties with his theory which he misses are the size of the white hole when the Earth emerges (It needs to be bigger than our galaxy when the earth pops out otherwise our galaxy would be disrupted by tidal forces.) This completely ruind the point of his argument that the rest of the universe apears old but the earth is only 6000 years or so. Difficulties the author does see are explained by miracles or avoided by his not having got round to working on them.