What do you think?
Rate this book
Starlight & Time
The Bible says the universe is just thousands of years old, and yet we can see stars that are billions of light-years away. Until now, creation scientists have not had a satisfactory answer to this puzzle, but the new cosmology outlined in this book offers a fresh and scientifically sound solution. Though he challenges some traditional creationist theories, Dr. Humphreys takes Scripture very straightforwardly, upholding its inerrancy and the idea of a young universe as he explains days one through four of creation week.
This book not only contains an easy-to-read popular summary of this new cosmology, but also two technical papers which were very well received at the Third International Conference on Creationism. In this enlightening book Dr. Humphreys answers questions such as:
How do you explain distant starlight in a young universe?
How should a creationist answer the challenges that arise when faced with traditional cosmology?
Doesn’t distant starlight prove evolution?
This book not only contains an easy-to-read popular summary of this new cosmology, but also two technical papers which were very well received at the Third International Conference on Creationism. In this enlightening book Dr. Humphreys answers questions such as:
How do you explain distant starlight in a young universe?
How should a creationist answer the challenges that arise when faced with traditional cosmology?
Doesn’t distant starlight prove evolution?
166 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1994
36 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Russell Humphreys
6 books14 followersHe received a BS from Duke University and a PhD in physics from Louisiana State University. He has become widely known for his creationist research and writings. He worked at the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company for six years, designing and inventing equipment and researching high–voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR–100 awards.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
December 5, 2018
Before the first white hole was observed, Humphreys shows in this book how Einstein's theory of relativity predicts that white holes exist. What is interesting is how Dr. Humphreys reconciles a straightforward exposition of Genesis 1 with general relativity. Anyone can take 2 atomic clocks, place one at sea level and another a mile high, and they will begin to differ with the mile high atomic clock running faster. This experiment is repeatable and is time dilation as the result of gravity. So, using gravitational time dilation and gravitational potential energy as an operating principle, Dr. Humphreys discards a big bang in favor of an approximately 2 trillion mile ball of water that due to extreme gravitational forces in proximity begins hydrogen reaction stars and nucleosynthesis that make up the table of elements. The mass of the young universe then begins its expansion, which Dr. Humphreys then makes predictions about that many did eventually test out from experimentation such as the youth of our solar system's planetary gravitational and magnetic fields. So, with time dilation on a grand scale, Dr. Humphreys explains clearly that the Earth and our solar system were near the center of the universal mass in such a way that time slowed down enough on Earth in relation to the cosmos for starlight to travel from the outermost regions. Adam, standing on Earth at night, observes light from the entire cosmos as the Earth emerges out of the white hole and synchronizes to its current frame of reference outside the previous extreme condition. The assumption Dr. Humphreys puts forward is partial Earth geocentricity in relation to the entire cosmos in order to explain how Adam and Eve would not experience the slow passage of time in their frame of reference, but upon white hole emergence brought about by expansion past the event horizon, could then see all the stars in the cosmos on the first evening (Day 6 of creation). This all fits with the general theory of relativity. This allows the sun creation on Day 4 no problem. The first 3 days of creation are of an ordinary day as you and I experience today no problem, however, Dr. Humphreys puts illumination of Days 1-3 to the initiation of massive collocated nucleosynthesis but in Genesis, we have the Spirit descending upon the water. Light from massive collocated nucleosynthesis is quite a different frame of reference than an Earth>Sun frame of reference that introduces some difficult complexities. A better explanation is divine illumination of Days 1-3 that corresponds to divine illumination of the city of God in Revelation. Not a show-stopper because Dr. Humphreys is after all a physicist and both perspectives are reality, however, his model does have a similar problem not unlike cosmic inflation. When the products of nucleosynthesis materialize and there is white hole emergence of Earth and its solar system, mass will have to in some cases exceed the cosmic speed limit of light. That is a significant problem, but Einstein did make inroads into the circumstance of mass exceeding the speed of light with the introduction of the tachyon. I do not see how to get the tachyon to work in the model as presented. Other than the tachyon mystery, Dr. Humphrey's model is in accordance with general relativity and gravitational time dilation remains a valid explanation as one of the few testable scientific derivatives of Genesis. It is a stellar contribution to our scientific understanding of creation, no doubt. Dr. Humphrey's work does add a measure of growing assurance to the joy already experienced in looking into the night sky and giving thanks to God.
November 23, 2012
This book is essentially a historical, scientific model of the six days of Creation, particularly in relation to day 4. Ever wonder how the stars were both created and visible, from billions of light years away, on the fourth day of Creation?
Be at ease when reading _Starlight_and_Time_, that atheists don't have any better ideas, even on this particular topic. They have not solved the Horizon Problem. (Feel free to look it up.) Thus, we haven't any reason to feel ashamed for having needed a better model than the one presented in _Starlight_and_Time_, which is Gravitational Time Dilation.
Since last year, we have that model.
See www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/...
Nonetheless, this is still a wonderful, educational book, and it really had been _the_ best scientific explanation of the 4th day of Creation.
This book will help you understand the issue, and not just its well developed hypothesis. It will also help you understand the significance of the ASC model, which now replaces this model. I.e. you'll see much intelligent thought in this model. For it to be dethroned, is truly amazing, and not to have been expected.
_Starlight_and_Time_'s brilliance shouldn't surprise you, reader, because Dr. Russell Humphreys, it's author, is faithful to God and His word, and has made several successful scientific predictions in astronomy.
A great quote from _Starlight_and_Time_:
‘A straightforward approach to scripture is the only one I can think of which can yield surprising new knowledge. Without such an approach, I would tend to re-interpret any passage of scripture which did not fit into what I thought was true at the time, and scripture would lose its power to astonish me. If God intended scripture to inform us of things we would not otherwise know, then He must also have intended it to be understood straightforwardly. “Straightforward” does not necessarily always mean “literal.”
Be at ease when reading _Starlight_and_Time_, that atheists don't have any better ideas, even on this particular topic. They have not solved the Horizon Problem. (Feel free to look it up.) Thus, we haven't any reason to feel ashamed for having needed a better model than the one presented in _Starlight_and_Time_, which is Gravitational Time Dilation.
Since last year, we have that model.
See www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/...
Nonetheless, this is still a wonderful, educational book, and it really had been _the_ best scientific explanation of the 4th day of Creation.
This book will help you understand the issue, and not just its well developed hypothesis. It will also help you understand the significance of the ASC model, which now replaces this model. I.e. you'll see much intelligent thought in this model. For it to be dethroned, is truly amazing, and not to have been expected.
_Starlight_and_Time_'s brilliance shouldn't surprise you, reader, because Dr. Russell Humphreys, it's author, is faithful to God and His word, and has made several successful scientific predictions in astronomy.
A great quote from _Starlight_and_Time_:
‘A straightforward approach to scripture is the only one I can think of which can yield surprising new knowledge. Without such an approach, I would tend to re-interpret any passage of scripture which did not fit into what I thought was true at the time, and scripture would lose its power to astonish me. If God intended scripture to inform us of things we would not otherwise know, then He must also have intended it to be understood straightforwardly. “Straightforward” does not necessarily always mean “literal.”
February 20, 2016
This book might as well have been written by The Onion.
The universe runs on Earth Standard Time because the universe was created out of a white hole, the residue of which is the earth, and which shielded the earth from the passage of time in the rest of the universe, such that the earth is merely 6,000 years old, whereas the rest of the universe is billions of years old. There is consequently no contradiction between young earth creationism and visible stars many thousands of parsecs distant.
Ergo: poo on Darwin! Yay Tetragrammaton!
The universe runs on Earth Standard Time because the universe was created out of a white hole, the residue of which is the earth, and which shielded the earth from the passage of time in the rest of the universe, such that the earth is merely 6,000 years old, whereas the rest of the universe is billions of years old. There is consequently no contradiction between young earth creationism and visible stars many thousands of parsecs distant.
Ergo: poo on Darwin! Yay Tetragrammaton!
November 26, 2018
One of the arguments against the Genesis 1 account of the creation of the universe is: if the universe is that young and was created in 7 days, then how come light from celestial objects millions of light-years away has managed to reach us.
Dr. Humphreys posits a hypothesis that (as my gross oversimplification) the universe was created not via an explosion, but as a "white hole", where, contrary to a black hole, matter is expelled rather than sucked in, and the event horizon shrinks rather than expands. Then, using Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and the fact that the earth is at or near the universe's center, he explains that it would cause time dilation that translates millons of years of starlight travel into a few days here on earth.
It's hard to review because much of the book was written as an academic abstract, but the parts that weren't were quite lucid.
Dr. Humphreys posits a hypothesis that (as my gross oversimplification) the universe was created not via an explosion, but as a "white hole", where, contrary to a black hole, matter is expelled rather than sucked in, and the event horizon shrinks rather than expands. Then, using Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and the fact that the earth is at or near the universe's center, he explains that it would cause time dilation that translates millons of years of starlight travel into a few days here on earth.
It's hard to review because much of the book was written as an academic abstract, but the parts that weren't were quite lucid.
February 8, 2014
The book was thought provoking and shed light on one major area - that the science is not settled. His hypothesis of gravitational time dilation seems very plausible, especially when you consider that laws of physics such as the law of Entropy demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. I think this book make a good scientific contribution to the philosophical debate on age and the appearance of age in origins.
May 2, 2017
Humphreys uses only about 35 pages on his actual thesis, but it is a provocative one. This is probably the best argument for time dilation and the youth of the universe. It will of course come to be proven true, unless God ends history before that day. I love the fact that the evolutionists all hate this book. They can't prove otherwise, but they love to hate creationism. Go figure: evolutionists don't know how to present empirical science anymore.
June 28, 2009
It was a mix of lay language and astrophysics. He makes an interesting case for proving the 6 day creation scenario; it made sense to me.
May 1, 2013
a fascinating examination of scientific reasons why there could be a young earth with old starlight.
May 28, 2016
I really struggled with the actual book, not so much with the appendices. Maybe there is another author who can explain this more clearly for me. Otherwise s fascinating subject.
August 7, 2018
Excellent explanation of a complex subject, solving a seemingly intractable problem of evidence of earth's youth and the universe's great age.
December 25, 2017
One of the strongest objections young-earth creationism (creation in six days approximately six thousand years ago based on a biblical chronology) is distant starlight. How does starlight travel hundreds of thousands, millions or even billions of light years in only a few thousand years? This is a question that creationists have been grappling with for decades. With this book, published in the mid-1990s, Dr. Humphreys, an astrophysicist who is also a creationist, attempts to resolve this issue in a way that is consistent with the creation account in Genesis.
The book consists a main body of two chapters and three appendices that form the great majority of the book. Appendix A lists a number of previous attempts to explain distant starlight or some aspect of creationism that Dr. Humphreys finds deficient and provides his reasoning. Appendix B is a paper documenting an exegetical review of the creation account in Genesis in which Dr. Humphreys argues that his cosmological solution to the problem is consistent with the Genesis account. Appendix C is a paper documenting the technical details of Dr. Humphreys’ proposed cosmological solution. The main body of the book is essentially a high-level summary of the problem and the solution as described in greater detail in the appendices. For this reason, my review focuses on the appendices.
As noted above, Appendix A discusses why Dr. Humphrey feels that various earlier attempts to explain distant starlight or to interpret the creation account in Genesis fall short. Problems he has with these ideas include failure to account for all the observable evidence and failure to make testable predictions, issues that any scientist worth his sault would have. I will expound further on two failed ideas he discusses. The first is that God created the light waves in transit so we can actually see stars more than a few thousand light years away. The problem with this idea is that the light from distant stars carries information. The light spectra allow us to identify the component elements and include red shifts that allow us to identify their motion relative to us. We have spotted the light from supernovas millions of light years away. To argue that God created all these light waves in transit is to imply that God reveals illusions to us. Dr. Humphreys’ criticism of this idea is just. The second failed idea is the canopy theory. The Genesis account mentions waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse. The canopy theory treats the expanse as the earth’s atmosphere and postulates that there was a layer of water above the troposphere that served as the water source for the Genesis flood and served as a shield protecting the earth from solar and cosmic radiation, reducing the carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere and allowing for the long antediluvian lifespans described in Genesis. I had already seen strong criticism of it. For example, the amount of water vapor necessary to flood the earth would not permit sunlight to reach the earth’s surface. So, Dr. Humphrey’s rejection of this idea is well justified.
Dr. Humphreys faces a two-fold challenged in that he has to develop a cosmology of origins that is consistent with the creation account of Genesis and explains the observable data. He uses Appendix B, an exegesis of the creation account in Genesis, to justify the consistency of his proposed cosmology with Genesis. His exegesis considers both the chronology and certain Hebrew words in the text, such as that translated “expanse.” Because of uncertainty in the translation of some Hebrew words, Dr. Humphreys also gives consideration to their Greek counterparts in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made by native speakers during the time of the Ptolemies.
Finally, Dr. Humphreys describes the technical details of his proposed cosmology in Appendix C, delving deeply into general relativity and gravitational time dilation effects, as opposed to the velocity time dilation effects of special relativity. His cosmology includes the following features:
• Consistent with the Genesis account, there is initially a mass of water that collapses under its own gravity into a singularity, tearing apart the molecules, atoms, nuclei and subatomic particles in the interior of the mass. Possibly a result of God adjusting the cosmological constant, the singularity is converted into a white hole, which ejects the matter of the universe outward in all directions, causing the white hole to shrink due to its steady reduction in mass. As the earth clears the shrinking event horizon, earth time passes much more slowly near the event horizon than does time in the rest of the universe. As a result, billions of years of cosmological time take place during a very brief period of earth time, allowing for star and galaxy formation and billions of light years of starlight travel. The white hole dissipated during the creation week and no longer exists. As with the Big Bang singularity, which likewise no longer exists, there are testable predictions to validate the theory.
• The waters above the expanse form a bound on the universe. In modeling the Big Bang, cosmologists can assume a bounded universe or an unbounded universe. This choice has major ramifications with regards to the nature of cosmological expansion. Astronomers have known for decades that the universe is expanding on account of red shifts in starlight. A bounded universe has a center, and expansion is away from that center. An observer at the center of a bounded universe will see the same red shift behavior in all directions, and an observer away from the center will not. An unbounded universe does not have a center and expansion is the same in all directions. In other words, no matter where the observer is, the red shift behavior will be the same. Modern cosmologists assume that the universe is unbounded and argue from the resulting cosmological implications that Earth is not at the center of the universe and that there is nothing special about it. Two words. Petitio principii. They assume their conclusions. Given that Dr. Humphreys’ proposed cosmology places the earth at or near the center of the universe, an observer on earth will see the exact same red shift behavior whether the universe is bounded or unbounded. The only way to determine which is correct is to travel to a galaxy far far away and check the red shift behavior there. In other words, a major tenet of modern cosmology that Dr. Humphreys challenges is both unverified and unverifiable.
In the two decades since Dr. Humphreys wrote this book, I am sure that there have been many more developments. In fact, he acknowledged future work he needed to do to make his cosmology more complete. Developments since then may have debunked his ideas or given them further validation. I am looking forward to seeing more of his work and that of other creationists in order to find out. I can easily imagine non-creationists calling him anti-science because he has adopted a view contrary to the majority view. If that is the definition of anti-science, he is in good company. For example, when Copernicus proposed that the earth orbited the sun, that was a minority view. Most men of science of his day believed that the sun orbited the earth. Even worse, because he proposed circular orbits, his astronomical model underperformed the prevailing geocentric model in predicting the motions of the planets. It wasn’t until Kepler incorporated elliptical orbits into the Copernican model that it truly outperformed the geocentric Ptolemaic model. So, if Dr. Humphreys is anti-science because of his minority view, so was Copernicus. Let the theory be tested against the available observable data and not dismissed by name-calling.
I found this book to intriguing and loved how transparent it was. Dr. Humphreys was open and honest about his assumptions and reasoning. Never before have I seen biblical Greek and Hebrew and general relativity calculations in the same book. I was able to follow Dr. Humphrey’s reasoning, but I don’t think I count as the average person. I can read biblical Greek and have had some exposure to biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, I was exposed to special relativity in a Nuclear Physics class in college. I can think of many people who might benefit from this book but am not sure that they could wade through it. Sadly, the book’s greatest strength, its level of detail, is also its greatest weakness.
The book consists a main body of two chapters and three appendices that form the great majority of the book. Appendix A lists a number of previous attempts to explain distant starlight or some aspect of creationism that Dr. Humphreys finds deficient and provides his reasoning. Appendix B is a paper documenting an exegetical review of the creation account in Genesis in which Dr. Humphreys argues that his cosmological solution to the problem is consistent with the Genesis account. Appendix C is a paper documenting the technical details of Dr. Humphreys’ proposed cosmological solution. The main body of the book is essentially a high-level summary of the problem and the solution as described in greater detail in the appendices. For this reason, my review focuses on the appendices.
As noted above, Appendix A discusses why Dr. Humphrey feels that various earlier attempts to explain distant starlight or to interpret the creation account in Genesis fall short. Problems he has with these ideas include failure to account for all the observable evidence and failure to make testable predictions, issues that any scientist worth his sault would have. I will expound further on two failed ideas he discusses. The first is that God created the light waves in transit so we can actually see stars more than a few thousand light years away. The problem with this idea is that the light from distant stars carries information. The light spectra allow us to identify the component elements and include red shifts that allow us to identify their motion relative to us. We have spotted the light from supernovas millions of light years away. To argue that God created all these light waves in transit is to imply that God reveals illusions to us. Dr. Humphreys’ criticism of this idea is just. The second failed idea is the canopy theory. The Genesis account mentions waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse. The canopy theory treats the expanse as the earth’s atmosphere and postulates that there was a layer of water above the troposphere that served as the water source for the Genesis flood and served as a shield protecting the earth from solar and cosmic radiation, reducing the carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere and allowing for the long antediluvian lifespans described in Genesis. I had already seen strong criticism of it. For example, the amount of water vapor necessary to flood the earth would not permit sunlight to reach the earth’s surface. So, Dr. Humphrey’s rejection of this idea is well justified.
Dr. Humphreys faces a two-fold challenged in that he has to develop a cosmology of origins that is consistent with the creation account of Genesis and explains the observable data. He uses Appendix B, an exegesis of the creation account in Genesis, to justify the consistency of his proposed cosmology with Genesis. His exegesis considers both the chronology and certain Hebrew words in the text, such as that translated “expanse.” Because of uncertainty in the translation of some Hebrew words, Dr. Humphreys also gives consideration to their Greek counterparts in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made by native speakers during the time of the Ptolemies.
Finally, Dr. Humphreys describes the technical details of his proposed cosmology in Appendix C, delving deeply into general relativity and gravitational time dilation effects, as opposed to the velocity time dilation effects of special relativity. His cosmology includes the following features:
• Consistent with the Genesis account, there is initially a mass of water that collapses under its own gravity into a singularity, tearing apart the molecules, atoms, nuclei and subatomic particles in the interior of the mass. Possibly a result of God adjusting the cosmological constant, the singularity is converted into a white hole, which ejects the matter of the universe outward in all directions, causing the white hole to shrink due to its steady reduction in mass. As the earth clears the shrinking event horizon, earth time passes much more slowly near the event horizon than does time in the rest of the universe. As a result, billions of years of cosmological time take place during a very brief period of earth time, allowing for star and galaxy formation and billions of light years of starlight travel. The white hole dissipated during the creation week and no longer exists. As with the Big Bang singularity, which likewise no longer exists, there are testable predictions to validate the theory.
• The waters above the expanse form a bound on the universe. In modeling the Big Bang, cosmologists can assume a bounded universe or an unbounded universe. This choice has major ramifications with regards to the nature of cosmological expansion. Astronomers have known for decades that the universe is expanding on account of red shifts in starlight. A bounded universe has a center, and expansion is away from that center. An observer at the center of a bounded universe will see the same red shift behavior in all directions, and an observer away from the center will not. An unbounded universe does not have a center and expansion is the same in all directions. In other words, no matter where the observer is, the red shift behavior will be the same. Modern cosmologists assume that the universe is unbounded and argue from the resulting cosmological implications that Earth is not at the center of the universe and that there is nothing special about it. Two words. Petitio principii. They assume their conclusions. Given that Dr. Humphreys’ proposed cosmology places the earth at or near the center of the universe, an observer on earth will see the exact same red shift behavior whether the universe is bounded or unbounded. The only way to determine which is correct is to travel to a galaxy far far away and check the red shift behavior there. In other words, a major tenet of modern cosmology that Dr. Humphreys challenges is both unverified and unverifiable.
In the two decades since Dr. Humphreys wrote this book, I am sure that there have been many more developments. In fact, he acknowledged future work he needed to do to make his cosmology more complete. Developments since then may have debunked his ideas or given them further validation. I am looking forward to seeing more of his work and that of other creationists in order to find out. I can easily imagine non-creationists calling him anti-science because he has adopted a view contrary to the majority view. If that is the definition of anti-science, he is in good company. For example, when Copernicus proposed that the earth orbited the sun, that was a minority view. Most men of science of his day believed that the sun orbited the earth. Even worse, because he proposed circular orbits, his astronomical model underperformed the prevailing geocentric model in predicting the motions of the planets. It wasn’t until Kepler incorporated elliptical orbits into the Copernican model that it truly outperformed the geocentric Ptolemaic model. So, if Dr. Humphreys is anti-science because of his minority view, so was Copernicus. Let the theory be tested against the available observable data and not dismissed by name-calling.
I found this book to intriguing and loved how transparent it was. Dr. Humphreys was open and honest about his assumptions and reasoning. Never before have I seen biblical Greek and Hebrew and general relativity calculations in the same book. I was able to follow Dr. Humphrey’s reasoning, but I don’t think I count as the average person. I can read biblical Greek and have had some exposure to biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, I was exposed to special relativity in a Nuclear Physics class in college. I can think of many people who might benefit from this book but am not sure that they could wade through it. Sadly, the book’s greatest strength, its level of detail, is also its greatest weakness.
July 16, 2020
Very interesting ideas that are backed up with a great understanding on modern cosmology and general relativity. I’m not totally sold on the idea of a you g universe, but this work made me acknowledge the plausibility of it from the perspective of a respected scientist and Christian.
June 27, 2018
A fascinating topic! As an amateur scientist with no background in astronomy or cosmology, I needed the layman’s explanations at the beginning. Even so, general relativity is difficult to grasp, and I didn’t make it much past the idea that there is mathematical evidence, given certain assumptions, that gravity can change time in such a way as to age certain things faster than others.
Though the articles are approachable, with no esoteric vocabulary or math, the explanations are sparse in places, leaving me with questions about fusion: what elements could be formed? How long would it take? How much energy would be produced? I also could not understand the difference between closed and bounded universes. In at least one place, the author provided no basis for his suspicion of another’s research. Finally, it was not clear what his position was on the current expansion of the universe, and how that affects his theory.
I really appreciated the scientific extrapolation of Biblical concepts. As a Christian, Humphreys includes Scripture in his research and evidence. I had never concretely understood what words such as “void,” “stretched out,” “waters above,” and “heaven” meant. I would be very interested to read updates to Dr. Humphrey’s theories and thought.
Though the articles are approachable, with no esoteric vocabulary or math, the explanations are sparse in places, leaving me with questions about fusion: what elements could be formed? How long would it take? How much energy would be produced? I also could not understand the difference between closed and bounded universes. In at least one place, the author provided no basis for his suspicion of another’s research. Finally, it was not clear what his position was on the current expansion of the universe, and how that affects his theory.
I really appreciated the scientific extrapolation of Biblical concepts. As a Christian, Humphreys includes Scripture in his research and evidence. I had never concretely understood what words such as “void,” “stretched out,” “waters above,” and “heaven” meant. I would be very interested to read updates to Dr. Humphrey’s theories and thought.
December 26, 2024
Inspirational interpretation of creation, described in plausible detail
The book is easily readable. An open mind and heart will allow the reader to really appreciate G-d’s staggeringly beautiful creation. The writer is someone whose works I haven’t read before and it was refreshing to read a discussion about biblical creation which confounds and equals the usual Big Bang evolutionary billions of years argument. Ross argues the case for an expanding universe with “Earth” near the centre, which accords with Genesis 1:1-11. There are some complex equations to grapple with for those who are not floored by such algebra, but the reader will not miss the point of the discussion if they choose to avoid a headache and skirt around this intellectual proposal. The point is; secular science does not have an exclusively accurate assessment of creation, just a bunch of assumptions and propositions; so does Ross, meaning the reader is able to contemplate an alternative view to the Darwinian and Copernican Cosmology which has bombarded humanity for the past 100 years. There is an answer and purpose to Life the Universe and there is hope not oblivion.
The book is easily readable. An open mind and heart will allow the reader to really appreciate G-d’s staggeringly beautiful creation. The writer is someone whose works I haven’t read before and it was refreshing to read a discussion about biblical creation which confounds and equals the usual Big Bang evolutionary billions of years argument. Ross argues the case for an expanding universe with “Earth” near the centre, which accords with Genesis 1:1-11. There are some complex equations to grapple with for those who are not floored by such algebra, but the reader will not miss the point of the discussion if they choose to avoid a headache and skirt around this intellectual proposal. The point is; secular science does not have an exclusively accurate assessment of creation, just a bunch of assumptions and propositions; so does Ross, meaning the reader is able to contemplate an alternative view to the Darwinian and Copernican Cosmology which has bombarded humanity for the past 100 years. There is an answer and purpose to Life the Universe and there is hope not oblivion.
June 15, 2023
Young earth Physicist Russell Humphreys has written a very accessible book (Starlight and Time, 1994) which shows how Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can be used to show that the six days of Genesis 1 on earth is the same as billions of years to an observer at the edge of the expanding universe. This is the reversal of the position of Gerald Schroeder in his book "The Science of God" which is addressed in the book.
The book is 166 pages in length, with the first quarter devoted to an explanation of Humphreys position, and the rest to three appendices (two of which were presented at a young earth conference in 1993). I read the whole book, and despite having no physics knowledge was able to follow even though I didn't read the maths / physics bits.
Well worth the read for young and old earthers.
The book is 166 pages in length, with the first quarter devoted to an explanation of Humphreys position, and the rest to three appendices (two of which were presented at a young earth conference in 1993). I read the whole book, and despite having no physics knowledge was able to follow even though I didn't read the maths / physics bits.
Well worth the read for young and old earthers.
January 23, 2013
When I was a young-earth creationist, I had hoped for a solution to the starlight-and-time problem, and so eagerly read this book. But my knowledge of general relativity and the Bible allowed me to see so many scientific and theological errors in the book that I realized it was time to ditch the YEC idea. Later "solutions" (e.g. by Jason Lisle) continue to confirm my understanding that YEC is grasping for straws.
September 12, 2018
almost by definition any Young Earth Creation model is going to be far closer to the one historic actuality than any deep-time dependent doctrine model.
Modern 'science' being cumulative and premised on faulty assumptions, is thus religous like doctrine.
The overwhelming empirical evidence, that is the prevelant cosmological redshift of distant starlight, aligns w/ scriptural testimony, and attests to YeC, as expalined in/by SPIRAL cosmlogical redshift hypothesis and model.
Modern 'science' being cumulative and premised on faulty assumptions, is thus religous like doctrine.
The overwhelming empirical evidence, that is the prevelant cosmological redshift of distant starlight, aligns w/ scriptural testimony, and attests to YeC, as expalined in/by SPIRAL cosmlogical redshift hypothesis and model.
August 8, 2015
Excellent book that deals with the issue of the old earth/new earth creation debate. No matter which side of the debate you're on, this will be an excellent read. It helps to show how BOTH sides could actually be right, even though they seem contradictory. This book brings people together where there has traditionally been heated division. Highly recommend!
December 29, 2020
This book puts forward a cosmology for a young earth creation that explains the problem of distant starlight in a young universe. Like the title says. This book is not for everyone by any means, but I find this stuff fascinating. If you share this fascination you might also like this book. Four stars.
January 10, 2009
This book was full of lots of interesting ideas, but it indirectly led me to one conclusion: I'm not a physicist. Still, in the event I start writing some science fiction, I will undoubtably utilize some of the thoughts in this book.
March 11, 2010
time is relative
gravity effects time (or the physical process)
radiation clock affected by gravity
how do we see stars so far away if the universe is young??
simple answer is that the gravity affecting the 'time' of this bodies was less, allowing them to speed up.
gravity effects time (or the physical process)
radiation clock affected by gravity
how do we see stars so far away if the universe is young??
simple answer is that the gravity affecting the 'time' of this bodies was less, allowing them to speed up.
April 28, 2020
Just an attempt by young-earth creationists to sound like they've done their due diligence vis-a-vis origins of the universe and cosmology.
July 29, 2013
Mindblowing...
January 9, 2015
While I wasn't fond of all the hermeneutics offered up in this book, it offers a very interesting and well-thought-out answer to the problem of starlight from the young-earth perspective.
June 16, 2021
Really enjoyed this. Insights worth considering
September 9, 2017
It is clear from Gen. 1 that the Jews, like other ancient peoples, believed there was an ocean in the sky. It's an understandable mistake; they didn't know where rain came from or why the sky was blue like the ocean. Believe it or not, creation "scientists" still insist that this was no mistake: it's in the Bible after all, so it must be true. Since the sun, moon, & stars were placed btwn the waters below & the waters above, Ham & Humphrey's conclude that this sky ocean not only still exists today, but that it SURROUNDS OUR ENTIRE UNIVERSE! First God created the universe as a giant ball of water, then he separated the waters above (the outer boundary of our universe) from the waters below (the mass of water that would become the earth), & filled the space between these waters with all the stars & galaxies that make up the cosmos. Could you really be justified in saying Moses "parted the sea" if all he really did was extract a single drop of water from it? The size discrepancy would be even greater in the case of the earth & this cosmic ocean. Never mind that, what does all this have to do with the problem of distant starlight?
According to the theory, the universe was contained inside a black hole with earth at it's center, which then became a white hole (the theoretical opposite of a black hole). The horizon of this black hole began to collapse & then crossed paths with the "waters above" as they expanded out to the edge of the universe (which is no longer expanding). This caused all of the stars on the outside of the white hole horizon to age must faster than the earth, because of the force of gravity inside the white hole. I'm not making this stuff up. Humphreys' sites Einstein's theory of relativity & throws in a bunch of complicated equations that may impress or intimidate the lay person, but don't let that fool you, this is pure nonsense, it is not science. It isn't that Kenneth isn't smart, he has a PH.D & his refutations of previous creationist attempts to solve the starlight problem are spot on. However, he unwavering in his commitment to the presupposition that the Bible is true & infallible. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. One might ask him how he knows God said of what's in the Bible, but that's simply not a possibility creationists like him are willing to consider. That's why creation science isn't a science at all; it's a bunch of otherwise intelligent people making post hoc rationalizations of the evidence that is so constantly & consistently stacking up against their beliefs, but they will never call these beliefs into question because the maintenance of belief is more important to them than the discovery of the truth.
November 2, 2021
I liked the first 40 pages. After that it gets a little wonky when he dives into biblical support.
The presupposition that the universe *has* to be a young one otherwise no science and religion can coexist seems to heavily influence his exegesis.
The presupposition that the universe *has* to be a young one otherwise no science and religion can coexist seems to heavily influence his exegesis.
Read
September 28, 2021My understanding of reality just had a major shift. The brain is now exploding. 🤯
Read
June 4, 2022I may write a review later. Another reviewer commented that this could have been written by "The Onion". I agree.
June 15, 2015
It is very hard to be objective about this book. The main idea is that the six days of creation in Genesis are six Earth days, while everywhere else in the universe experienced time differently as it expanded away from the Earth (which is the center of creation). So, the distant stars are literally billions of years old, though Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Astronomers are therefore correct in talking about old stars, even though Earth itself is relatively young. This smells of "secret knowledge" that someone would need to be a believer - most of the universe is billions of years old but Genesis is clearly talking about time as experienced on the young Earth. What? We call the universe "young" because Earth is young but everywhere else is old?
I would be interested in hearing details on how the othereight seven planets in our solar system (sorry Pluto) and thousands of exoplanets were supposedly formed. Earth was special but those other ones took time, right? Shouldn't this inconsistency be troubling?
I guess I'm not part of the target audience for this book. I believe that the Bible is authoritative in all that it speaks about, but I have a hard time believing that the beginning of Genesis is strictly literal. So it's possible that all my doubts and criticisms above are based on this lack of faith. I can't tell you what to believe here.
Astronomers are therefore correct in talking about old stars, even though Earth itself is relatively young. This smells of "secret knowledge" that someone would need to be a believer - most of the universe is billions of years old but Genesis is clearly talking about time as experienced on the young Earth. What? We call the universe "young" because Earth is young but everywhere else is old?
I would be interested in hearing details on how the other
I guess I'm not part of the target audience for this book. I believe that the Bible is authoritative in all that it speaks about, but I have a hard time believing that the beginning of Genesis is strictly literal. So it's possible that all my doubts and criticisms above are based on this lack of faith. I can't tell you what to believe here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews