"New" Supernova

[TK]

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/r ... short-time

This article reminds me of Greg Koukl's discussion about stars and super novas and whether they actually exist. I may have posted this here before.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639

TK

[Ian]

I do enjoy your forceful arguments, Steve, but as a young-Earther, I wondered how much thought you had given to TK`s unanswered post on supernovas. I`m not saying an old Earth is a feather in the evolutionist`s cap, but it would be a feather away from the YECer`s cap.

[TK]

Hi Ian--

Not to answer for anyone else-- but YEC's would state that time traveled at a different speed close in time to the creation event; in other words the speed of light is not constant.

They reference a work by Russell Humphrey's called "Starlight and Time" which explains this phenomenon.

But I don't think it adequately addresses Koukl's argument about whether the super nova ever actually existed.

Once again, I am not a "sold out" die hard old-earther. I just feel that overall the evidence is better for an ancient universe.

But if I am wrong I won't cry or anything.

TK

[thrombomodulin]

Tk,

As far as I understand Humphrey's theory, he is saying that in various parts of the universe time does not pass at the same rate. If a clock were located at the position of the supernova, and commenced measuring time at creation, Humphreys affirms that it would report that millions or billions of years have elapsed at that position. However, a clock located at a position near the earth, which commenced measuring time at creation, would have only recorded a few thousand years have elapsed. Thus, Humphrey's would affirm that a supernova's are real events which have taken place, possibly over the course of millions of years. He utilizes the verses which describe God "stretching out the heavens" along with gravitational time dilation above to resolve the light-travel-time dilemma. Koukl's argument doesn't consider this type of cosmology, so I think his argument is not successful in attacking a young earth creation viewpoint.

Pete

[mattrose]

I agree with Pete. Humphrey's theory isn't really anything like the sometimes used "the speed of light has changed" argument. Pete explained it the way it sounded to me when I read the book. And I agree that the link doesn't even touch that cosmological theory. Humphreys believes in an 'old' universe AND a 'young' earth, it just depends on the time 'perspective'

But I also agree with TK that no matter how old a hill, it's not worth dying on

[TK]

Thanks, guys, for clarifying exactly what Humphreys says. Does anyone else say it besides him? For example, a lot of cosmologists talk about time dilation and gravity effects etc, but they still say the earth is ancient.

Matt wrote:

Humphreys believes in an 'old' universe AND a 'young' earth, it just depends on the time 'perspective'

This is where I get a little confused-- per Humphreys, did God create the stars and other planets at the exact same time as the earth, or does he hold that God created the stars billions of years ago and the earth 10 or 15 thousand years ago? Would he say that if you are standing on a planet in another galaxy, that the EARTH would be billions of years old but the planet in this other galaxy is 10 or 15 thousand years old?

TK

[thrombomodulin]

I do not understand this myself, but apparently the concept of simultaneity in the theory of relativity is not as clear cut as in every day experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The above URL seems to be focus on velocity related issues. Humphrey's theory is based on gravitational time dilatation rather then time dilatation due to velocity.

He would not affirm that from the point of view of a distant galaxy the earth is billions of years old.