Dr Russell Humphreys (1 Viewer)

[David Robbins]

Taurus and blue and many others here. Many years ago I tried talking to y'all about creation. Y'all brought up the big bang. I hadn't studied it at the time but I have now because I wanted to know how y'all looked at things. I now have studied inflation and all the other things that go along with that theory. The math still doesn't add up. Even physists say there are all kinds of problems with the big bang theory. So I propose to you to go and check out physist Russell Humphreys. He has a theory that makes much more sense. He gives the equations to support creation in a timeless environment and how the galaxies could have been formed and then moved out while still allowing for the distance of the light years light would travel.

 

[SystemShock]

Humphreys has been debunked countless times. His starlight and time "theory" is based on an assumption, which still doesn't make much sense in explaining what he's trying to explain.

 

[MLU]

Russell Humphreys only makes sense if what you're looking for is someone to support your previously formed beliefs.

 

[David Robbins]

Russell Humphreys only makes sense if what you're looking for is someone to support your previously formed beliefs.

I disagree. Look at the science fact he expresses. He shows the physics applied and gives the mathematical formulas. He's not some crackpot but a real physisist. I wanted to find one who could dispute through science what I preach. I am trying to show that science is not always cut and dry. There are many theories not just the big bang theory

 

[SystemShock]

I disagree. Look at the science fact he expresses. He shows the physics applied and gives the mathematical formulas. He's not some crackpot but a real physisist. I wanted to find one who could dispute through science what I preach. I am trying to show that science is not always cut and dry. There are many theories not just the big bang theory

But he can't dispute anything with science. He's been debunked countless times. His equations are made up to fit the notion that 6 days in Earth time equals 15 billion years in universe time, yet those equations are based on an apologetic assumption.

 

[David Robbins]

But he can't dispute anything with science. He's been debunked countless times. His equations are made up to fit the notion that 6 days in Earth time equals 15 billion years in universe time, yet those equations are based on an apologetic assumption.

The big bang theory is a guess as well. They can't even get the math to bring them all the way back to the actual event. Then they had to create the theory of inflation inside that theory just to explain how the temperature could be uniform. Even after all of this their theory can't really be proven. Then they came up with the problem of the lack of antimatter. There are so many holes in the big bang theory. God creating the heaven and Earth makes much more sense. Dr Humphreys theory does just as well as the big bang theory.

 

[MLU]

The big bang theory is a guess as well. They can't even get the math to bring them all the way back to the actual event.

That's why it's called a "theory". It hasn't been proven yet, but thus far it hasn't been disproven either. That is why the consensus of the scientific community is working it.

 

[mjcouvi]

The big bang theory is a guess as well. They can't even get the math to bring them all the way back to the actual event. Then they had to create the theory of inflation inside that theory just to explain how the temperature could be uniform. Even after all of this their theory can't really be proven. Then they came up with the problem of the lack of antimatter. There are so many holes in the big bang theory. God creating the heaven and Earth makes much more sense. Dr Humphreys theory does just as well as the big bang theory.

So why is it that God couldn't have created the heavens and Earth through the big bang? I don't think of it that way, but don't see why it'd be much of a stretch when compared to believing this Humphreys fellow.

The big bang doesn't make much sense to me as a beginning of all time -- it makes sense as just a reasonable guess about one event in infinite time that may have created this particular universe. Beyond this universe there is no beginning and no end to time or space. That's what makes to me anyhow.

 

[David Robbins]

So why is it that God couldn't have created the heavens and Earth through the big bang? I don't think of it that way, but don't see why it'd be much of a stretch when compared to believing this Humphreys fellow.

The big bang doesn't make much sense to me as a beginning of all time -- it makes sense as just a reasonable guess about one event in infinite time that may have created this particular universe. Beyond this universe there is no beginning and no end to time or space. That's what makes to me anyhow.

In the beginning God said let there be light. In an explosion the first thing you see is light. I'm not saying that God couldn't have used the big bang theory to create the heavens and the earth. Just that we don't know how he did it and that Dr Humphreys theory is just as reasonable as the big bang theory. Nobody knows. Either could be true or neither. All I know is that God created this universe. Not a coincidental explosion that happened in happenstance. To believe that takes way more faith than believing in an all mighty God. The evidence for God out weighs the evidence against.

 

[SystemShock]

The big bang theory is a guess as well.

The big bang theory is not a "guess". There is physical evidence, testing that back it up.

They can't even get the math to bring them all the way back to the actual event. Then they had to create the theory of inflation inside that theory just to explain how the temperature could be uniform. Even after all of this their theory can't really be proven. Then they came up with the problem of the lack of antimatter. There are so many holes in the big bang theory.

There are many things we don't know, but again, the preponderance of physical evidence makes the big bang theory the best explanation we have as to how the universe came about.

God creating the heaven and Earth makes much more sense.

That actually has a name:The God of the Gaps. Can't see how it is possible, must have been a god. As old as humanity itself.

Dr Humphreys theory does just as well as the big bang theory.

Absolutely not.

Unlike the big bang theory which is based on observation, testing, etc., Humphreys' basically asks, how do I get from 15 billion years to 6000 years? It is totally made up to fit a narrative.

Not a coincidental explosion that happened in happenstance. To believe that takes way more faith than believing in an all mighty God.

Yeah, no... but...

The evidence for God out weighs the evidence against.

And what evidence is that?

 

[rajncajn]

Humphreys has been debunked countless times. His starlight and time "theory" is based on an assumption, which still doesn't make much sense in explaining what he's trying to explain.

If it didn't include certain assumptions then it wouldn't be a theory.

 

[Taurus]

In the beginning God said let there be light. In an explosion the first thing you see is light. I'm not saying that God couldn't have used the big bang theory to create the heavens and the earth. Just that we don't know how he did it and that Dr Humphreys theory is just as reasonable as the big bang theory. Nobody knows. Either could be true or neither. All I know is that God created this universe. Not a coincidental explosion that happened in happenstance. To believe that takes way more faith than believing in an all mighty God. The evidence for God out weighs the evidence against.

You can call the Prime Event "God" if you want, but the series of assumptions and forced conclusions between that and a bearded guy who hates homosexuals and shrimp is ridiculously huge. Not to mention the permutations you have to go through in order for it all to have happened 6,000 years ago.

 

[SystemShock]

If it didn't include certain assumptions then it wouldn't be a theory.

Whatever Humphreys is peddling is not a theory. A hypothesis has to go through a lot of physical evidence, research, testing, and peer reviews before it becomes a theory. He's just trying to shoehorn some convenient equation into the book of Genesis and the 6000 year old Earth, and people who want to believe Earth is 6000 years old just eat it up because it sounds good to them.

And Humphreys doesn't even have a valid hypothesis. He didn't even conduct a study. He is just going with the 6000 year old Earth on faith in what the Bible says.

 

[David Robbins]

You can call the Prime Event "God" if you want, but the series of assumptions and forced conclusions between that and a bearded guy who hates homosexuals and shrimp is ridiculously huge. Not to mention the permutations you have to go through in order for it all to have happened 6,000 years ago.

Can you prove that what he says is false. Can you prove that the big bang theory is true. The fact is that all there is are theories. It takes more faith to believe a theory than to believe in an all powerful God.

 

[SystemShock]

It takes more faith to believe a theory than to believe in an all powerful God.

It doesn't. Matter of fact, it takes no faith at all. No one believes in a scientific theory on faith. There is a chart, but high level, to reach scientific theory status, a question needs to be asked, then an observation made, then a study, then a hypothesis is proposed, then tests are conducted, then results peer reviewed.

And the key element here is this: past the hypothesis, the intent of any test or peer review is to falsify the claim, no to validate it. Kind of innocent (hypothesis premise is false) until proven guilty (hypothesis premise is true). So there is a substantial trail of evidence that leads to a scientific theory .