RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 9, 2013 at 10:53 am
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2013 at 10:56 am by max-greece.)
(October 9, 2013 at 10:00 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:(October 9, 2013 at 8:53 am)max-greece Wrote: David Russell Humphreys has a cosmology model that uses relativity that solves the light problem for DISTANT objects.
I didn't choose a distant object. Even if time were running slowly on Earth it would be running slowly on Andromeda too - its our neighbour - remember.
So Andromeda would be in Humphreys' great gravitational depression along with our solar system.
Still needs 2.5 million years. (Are you feeling a bit setup now?) Did ya think I didn't know of Humpreys' (actually flawed) theory?
Nice, but predicable try.
Actually Humpreys theory does solve the starlight problem. Whether you agree with his theory is another issue.
You still do not understand that the "no God" assumption is false, so you cannot use it in the determination of age.
Please show the measurement of the speed of light and the shape of space over large distances.
How do you want me to show you the measurement of the speed of light?
Will a url suffice?
We are not talking about space over large distances - remember Gracie? We are talking about our neighbour galaxy, Andromeda. That's why I chose it.
Right now I am happy to use his theory (even though its largely discredited) because it doesn't apply in this case. He can explain distant objects - but not near ones that yield ages older than the 6,000 years he is aiming at. This is merely one of the problems - his sea salinity proof also needs about 10 times the age he is aiming at.
Forgot the damn link:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/wav...dence.html
Its a lovely simple one I used for my daughter when she was about 8 - you should be able to get it too Gracie.
