What is the classic young earth creationist explanation for this?

Question

In the 1920s an astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed the light from distant galaxies and he noticed something amazing. He saw that the light from these galaxy clusters was redshifted, which meant that they were all moving away from us. The galaxy clusters that were farther away from us were moving at a faster rate, the farther they were away.

I'm sure you have some hypothesis that covers this, what is it?

Thinkenstein: I have not read the book and not asked this question before, but I know of Russell Humphreys. I don't think there are a lot of people outside creationist circles who take this ideas seriously.

But I offer up an observation, what is the explanation? Oh, and "Voyager confirmed the accuracy of Humphreys predictions", please. It is true because it said so in my book is not science.

Answer 1

The redshift is a perfectly balanced and well observed phenomenon and the multibillion year universe theory fit these observed facts.

Dr Humphrey´s theories are considered highly suspect. It´s very dishonest to do science MAKING THE FACTS FIT THE THEORY instead of MAKING THE THEORY FIT THE FACTS.

Creationists will go to any extreme to do the first and ignore the latter. Are they conscious that each time they build the lie upwards, there are new observations that make them invent further. It´s a vicious circle of stubbornness and blindness.

As Pacino said in "The Devil´s Advocate": "Vanity, definitely my favorite sin". Well how vain can become a Christian? Just try to put their faith in doubt and you´ll see...

The following is an excerpt from wikipedia:

Most scientists disagree with Humphreys' work. For example, on Humphrey's thousands of year old universe, in 1998 Dave Thomas wrote "he has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy) planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."[1]

Humphreys claims there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea. Conversely, Thomas notes that "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."[2]
Likewise Dr. Kevin Henke explained he has "criticized and documented some of the numerous problems in Dr. Humphreys' work."[3] For example, Humphreys thinks "that zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."[4] Henke noted that "the "dating" equations in Humphreys" work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5]

Some critics simply assert "Humpherys misunderstands and misrepresents science" because "the rules of the scientific method do not allow individuals to invoke miracles to eliminate scientific data (i.e., U/Pb dates) and questions that they don't like."[6]

Others simply claim he uses arcane sources and misrepresents his sources. [7] For example, "in the eight years since, Humphreys has learned that 'Kuyper' is really spelled 'Kuiper'. That is all he has learned - his astronomy knowledge is still abysmal. The Kuiper Belt is no longer a "supposed" source of comets, it is a documented source, with over 800 Kuiper Belt Objects discovered since 1992

Answer 2

I have already answered a similar question by you. Apparently you have not read Russell Humphreys' (an accomplished scientist and a professor at LSU) book "Starlight and Time" published by Master Books. If you are truly interested in knowing the current creationist explanation for distant starlight and red shift you will read this book for yourself. If you are not interested in knowing you will not. Humphreys' white hole cosmology is too involved to cover here, but this is THE popular theory among creationists today. I do find it interesting that, based upon the presuppositions of his cosmology, Humphreys successfully predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune. Voyager confirmed the accuracy of Humphreys predictions, which were radically different than those of old earth proponents.

--edit--

Sorry Pope. I guess it was someone else who asked a similar question. Forgive me. Surely you don't think that science can not be recorded in books. Humphreys made his predictions and Voyager confirmed these. The fact that this information is recorded in books does not invalidate it. Have you researched this for yourself? If not, why do you scoff at it? You are right that Humphreys' cosmology is not highly respected by old earth scientists because his cosmology validates young earth theories. I was just answering your question. If you are sincerely interested in knowing about it why not read the book? Wouldn't that be the open-minded thing to do? I have read both sides of this issue.

Answer 3

Here's one that gets me persecuted a bit, but is completely within the confines of a literal Genesis:

The first two verses are not actually part of the first day--and therefore completely independent in regards of time constraints. Could God have caused the Big-Bang, waited 13.7 billion years, and then spent creation week (starting with Genesis 1:3, not 1:1) making just the EARTH?

Few Christians take me seriously--more because of indoctrination than any legitimate case they can make against it.

And I'm not saying that is what I ultimately believe either, but it is one answer that fits the literal definition while still accounting for an old universe.

Answer 4

Quasars have a very large redshift. They are therefore expected to be very far away. Prof. Hubble's Space Telescope identified a Quasar in spiral galaxy NGC7319. The galaxy is calculated to be 360 million light years away. Using Hubble's Law, a Quasar seen in this galaxy is calculated at 35 billion light years away. You did mean for us young earth creationists to understand that greater redshift=greater distance, right?
Not that this shows the earth isn't billions of years old..........

Answer 5

I just read an article that scientists have proof that the speed of light has varied over time. Since all these criteria are based upon the speed of light, none of the data is valid, now is it?????

A train going 10 mph today takes one hour to travel 10 miles. Tomorrow if itr goes 20 mph then it will take only 30 minutes.

Hmmmmm????????????

Answer 6

actually he was wrong....it actuality , EARTH and this system is moving away from them at this rate not the other way around!

Answer 7

My favorite answer to that is that the speed of light has been slowing down...

Answer 8

My answer is that it's evidence for an expanding universe... I'm guessing, however, that Hubble decided the same thing.

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 9

The shine from your eyes?

Answer 10

it was actually caused by the flood.

that covers all the bases.