Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Starlight and Time : Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe based on 0 ratings. 2 reviews.
This is a fantastic book. Humphreys is not only a sincere Christian, he is incredibly accomplished in his field Here, he makes a credible effort at formulating a cosmology consistent with the Bible. His theory is based solidly in Einstein¿s General Theory of Relativity. The only differences are his starting assumptions. The Big Bang starts with the assumption that the universe is infinite and has no center and and no edge. Humphreys (biblical) assumptions are that the universe is finite with a center and an edge. In the recent past, he has made a number of successful scientific predictions based on biblical assumptions, much to the frustration of evolutionists. He also brings a refreshing humility to the field of science that is all too often missing from his secularist counterparts. A previous reviewer wonders why critics ignore the Big Bang; after all there is so much evidence for it. However, this is not quite the case, as there are many intractable scientific problems with the theory. For instance, the present day existence of comets is a problem for the Big Bang. As well as the Big Bang's own light-travel-time issue; the Horizon Problem. Both problems have prompted scientists to propose all manner of fanciful explanations. To explain away the comets, a 'comet nursery' called the 'Oort Cloud' is postulated. Never mind that here is NO observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, it simply MUST exist; because 'we know' the universe is billions of years old. For the Horizon Problem, there are the various far-flung theories with little or no scientific support This is not scientific behavior, it is religious behavior (i.e. faith). The fact that the Big Bang has to be constantly propped up by such ad hoc explanations has lead a multitude secular scientists to condemn it with a public statement published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. Further, secular astronomer Halton Arp¿s books (i.e. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies and others) where he makes a virtually airtight case against the Big Bang. It seems that while evolutionists have been accusing creationists of invoking a 'God of the gaps' to solve problems, they have themselves been invoking a 'Materialism of the gaps' to resolve their own difficulties. One must then ask why is it acceptable for a scientist with an a priori commitment to materialism to engage in such behavior, but if a scientist with an a priori commitment to biblical theism does so (not that Humphreys is), he must be scorned and mocked? For further scientific discussion of his theory, you can follow the vigorous debate that concluded a couple of years ago. As for those who won't believe something until an anti- or non-creationist proposes it, consider that two mainstream scientists recently proposed a White Hole Cosmology similar to Humphreys'. One must ask, `If the evidence in favor of the Big Bang is so compelling, why are secular astronomers proposing alternative theories?
Humphreys ignores all physical consequenses of a white hole near the earth. How would the white hole (much more massive than our galaxy) affect our earth, our sun, other stars, our galaxy, other galaxies gravitationally? How would matter (much hotter than the sun) blasting out of the white hole affect the earth and everything around it? According to Humphyrey's theory, the white hole finally dissipated six thousand years ago. The mass emerging from the white hole could only have gone six thousand light years. Why don't astronomers see that mass, or if they do, where (and what) is it?