Sunday , 21 December 2014

About Doug Hamp

  • Robert Stuch

    13-14 billion (or whatever) years or 6 days. That is the question. Well, how about BOTH are true. The Bible says in 13 places that GOD spread out the universe. So, what is it that he spread out? What is it about the universe that now limits the speed of light to circa 186,200 MPH? Why not more? Why not less? There is an answer that eliminates the gap theory, progressive creationism, and other ad-nauseum.
    How about that in the beginning, light speed, and atomic processes occurred circa 6 x 10^11, faster than they do now and logarithmically decreased since then because of the underlying build up of virtual particles that ‘interfere’ with their speed. This is the zero point energy that inhabits all of space and which had been increasing since the inception of the universe.
    How about whole galaxies of stars being formed in the early universe through the plasma pinch. It shouldn’t be too hard to imagine the speed that such may happen given the speed of all else at that stage of universe development. Why else than that even the galaxies visually seen out to 13 billion years of age are fully developed? It isn’t gravitic, but electric that can cause that to happen. Gravity is the latter effect, not the cause, especially viewed over that short of time span from inception.

    To gain a further understanding on the effects of the WORD of GOD, one may wander over to, and ponder over the following URLS:

    http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/basic%20summary.html

    for the overall basis.

    http://www.setterfield.org/GSRresearchpapers.html

    for the quite more in depth study.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddie-Spivey/557038024 Eddie Spivey

    Hydroplate theory best explains all the fossils, geological features found all around the world. It give the best explanation for all earth history.

  • http://twitter.com/truthcountsnet Dale Miller

    Here is a free windows software program that you might find interesting It compares the Theory of Evolution, with the truth God reveals in the Bible. A multimedia, interactive, Adventure in Science, exploring the Universe we live in. Why are we here? Was Darwin right? Did life evolve or was it created? Does radiometric dating prove the earth is billions of years old? Is intelligent design opposed to science? Can the Bible be
    trusted?, Is there a creator God? Does the Bible really say that Jesus Christ Created the Universe? Is there Life after Death? Did Jesus come to provide Salvation? Do you need Salvation? Is Jesus Gods Messiah? Can Jesus really Save you? If you have ever wondered why you are here this is Gods revelation regarding your Life. You can download it from http://www.truthcounts.net/store/truthinscience/index.html

  • mike sommars

    Thanks Douglas for a great article…

  • Paul

    Interesting summary, although I think (most) Gap Theorists do actually reject evolution — they simply accept deep time. I think that, of the alternatives, the Gap Theory is closest to the plain, literal view of Genesis.

    • douglashamp

      Hi Paul, I agree that the Gap theory is the one that is most conservative and true, they do deny biological evolution. Nevertheless, deep geological time was something that was invented by Charles Lyell (and others) to explain away God. The Bible couldn’t be clearer – “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that[i] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” (Exod 20:11) I know a lot of Gap theory holders and we are in agreement on pretty much everything except for the gap.

      • Paul

        Thanks for the reply, Doug. This short article on Lyell features some of his correspondence and shows his agenda — and what a jolly smug fellow he was. The lofty tone of his writing foreshadows (albeit mildly) that of today’s atheists. …Perhaps unsurprising, since they’re both διαβολοπνεθστοσ, as it were. :)

        …By the way, I’ve just been listening to this week’s radio show, and though the “chemtrails” stuff had me pulling faces, I must say that I agree completely with you about TV. When I think how long I’ve spent in front of the idiot tube it’s enough to make one weep. Things changed (praise God) when I got saved: all that secular trash I used to watch went out the window (I would still watch any decent stuff I could find on Christian TV — which was a bit like looking for diamonds in a dunghill, sad to say).

        Modern mainstream TV is a godless diet of sexual immorality, covetousness, violence, evolutionary propaganda, cruel “humour”, scoffing and occultism. It’s a good test of how serious someone is in their walk with Christ whether or not they still happily lap up that poison. Good for you, ditching your set!

        Shabbat shalom,

        Paul.

        • Warren Jones

          I fully agree with the above statement; Preach brother! Call it for what it is.

          “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake” (Matthew 5:10).

          God Bless You

          • Fred

            Howdy Pau! How ya been brother?

            Something to ponder concerning creation, fall of the angels and time. God is light. As you approach the speed of light time slows down.

            Howdy Doug, as usual awesome article. I’m glad God chose you as a shepard! See what I did there? :)

            Fred

          • Paul

            I’m fine, thanks, Fred: and you?

            The point about time you make is a good one. Time dilation should not be overlooked. According to Special Relativity, an observer’s record of how long an event takes to occur depends on the speed of his frame of reference relevant to the frame of reference of that event.

            The well-known “Twin Paradox” of Special Relativity illustrates this, and it goes as follows. There are two twins. Twin A climbs into a (hypothetical) spacecraft and sets off into space for a six-day round trip. Twin B stays on Earth. Twin B sits at mission control: he measures the speed of twin A’s craft at 80% of the speed of light.

            Now here’s the weird bit: according to Special Relativity, although twin A will register his round trip as 6 days, the number of days timed by twin B will be 6 × 1/√(1 – v²/c²) where v is the speed of A (as measured by B) and c is the speed of light (the factor 1/√(1 – v²/c²) is called the Lorentz factor; it’s something which crops up in the mathematics of Special Relativity). So, crunching the numbers…

            6 × 1/√(1 – v²/c²) = 6 × 1/√(1 – (.8c)²/c²) = 6 × 1/√(1 – .64) = 6 × 1/√.36 = 6 × 1/.6 = 6/.6 = 10 days.

            So whereas A will have timed his trip at 6 days, B will have timed it at 10 days! Who’s right? They both are!

            This isn’t science fiction — it’s mainstream physics, and has been verified experimentally many times.

            So to reiterate: if someone who moves at 80% of the speed of light relative to the Earth completes something in 6 days according to his own clock, that exact same event will take 10 days according to the clock of someone on Earth. …Yet both are absolutely valid measurements of time. And if that doesn’t sound weird to you, then I don’t know what will.

            Moreover, if twin A’s spacecraft is beefed up even more, so that it travels at 98% of the speed of light, then, again plugging in the numbers, we get

            6 × 1/√(1 – v²/c²) = 6 × 1/√(1 – (.8c)²/c²) = … = 30.15 days.

            So 6 days for A at 98% of the speed of light will register as just over 30 days for B. Similarly, at 99.8% of c, 6 days on A’s clock is about 95 days on B’s. And at 99.98% of c, 6 days on A’s clock is 300 days on B’s. The closer A gets to the speed of light, the longer his “6-day” journey takes (as timed by an observer on earth). …Yet both are right. A can rightly say “it took six days” — he is not lying! And B can rightly say, “it took 30 days, 300 days, 3 years, 30 years, etc.” — he is not lying, either. The closer A travels to light speed, the more Earth-time is swallowed up by his six-day trip. (I’ve just opened a spreadsheet and fiddled around with the above calculation, and found that if A is moving at 99.9999999996247% of the speed of light, then A’s six-day journey will be registered by B as taking six thousand years, bringing to mind 2 Peter 3:8!)

            I don’t know why God set things up this way (it hurts my brain to think about it), but He did, and there it is. It doesn’t seem to make sense, and yet it’s experimentally verifiable. Creation is so much stranger than we generally think!

            Light in physics is itself a mysterious thing, and exhibits both a wave-nature and a particle nature — but light is constantly on the move, irrespective of whether one envisages it as a travelling particle or as a wave propagating through space. So when in Scripture we read “God is light” in 1 John 1:5, could this actually mean that God is Himself is constantly on the move? …At the speed of, well… light?

            If He is, then the calculations above give a Lorentz factor of 1/√(1 – c²/c²) = 1/√(1 – 1) = 1/0, which is undefined: we can’t easily speak of how Earth appears from the point of view of someone travelling at light speed relative to the Earth. …But the maths would seem to suggest that all the events recorded by us on Earth would take zero time at all to such a person. Weird stuff indeed.

            Anyway, I’ve written too much again as usual. …My apologies for the long post!

          • Paul

            EDIT: I’ve spotted a couple of typos… In the first paragraph, “relevant to” should have read “relative to”, and the second calculation should have .98 in it rather than .8, i.e. it should have read

            6 × 1/√(1 – v²/c²) = 6 × 1/√(1 – (.98c)²/c²) = … = 30.15 days.

            …though the result was right. My apologies if this caused any confusion!

          • Fred

            Paul.

            I’ve been doing okay. Just watching a fallen world fall but thanking God for his light in his children.

            I’m with ya and I agree. If God is light and the heavenly realms are closer to God then we are 6 days on earth could be much longer for the angels. I believe God transcends time and can view things as it pleases Him to view them. :)

            Fred

          • Paul

            Thanks, Warren!

            Television (at least in the English-speaking world, and probably most of the West) really is spiritually toxic. …And so are most radio stations and the mainstream press. Even several years ago, when I last read the Sunday newspapers in Britain, they were full of lewdness and bawdry (and the magazines they contained were awful). No Christian should in truth be reading this stuff — and any pastor who says that we should be doing so in the name of “engaging the culture” is a bad shepherd.

            Today’s anglophone media is surely one huge Satanic brain-bath. I’m glad to be away from it.

            God bless, brother.

      • Tim

        I’ve always felt the Gap Theory gives the best explanation of the facts. While I don’t dispute 6 literal days for creation I have a hard time fitting in all the other events such as the Fall of Lucifer, reference to possible pre-Adamite cities by Job, explanation for the term ‘replenish’ in Genesis 1, explanation for structures on Mars etc. (if it turns out to be true), the fact that many ancient cultures speak of a time before humans when gods ruled, why the earth was initially made formless and void (or is the correct Hebrew translation to be read as *became formless and void/chaotic* as some suggest) when God says he makes nothing in vain.

        Note, none of my reasons for the Gap Theory have anything to do with evolution.

        I doubt all of this could have been fit into a single literal day between Gen 1:1-2 or Gen1:2-3. I’m happy to hear your argument why this doesn’t need to be the case but I don’t see anything in the Bible that contradicts that the gap couldn’t have happened either.

        As always I find your posts both interesting and challenging and I look forward to hearing your views whether they agree with mine or not.

        • douglashamp

          Hi Tim, I discuss the fallacy of “replenish” in my book, The First Six Days. The Hebrew word just means to fill, it doesn’t mean to fill again. Incidentally, the English word, replenish didn’t originally mean “refill” it just meant fill. I deal with your other considerations in the First Six Days and also in my new book on the millennium.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: