Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages


Blog

Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earch

(Text as at 30/04/2010 10:43:41)

(For other versions of this Note, see the tables at the end)


This is just a correspondence dump – to be sorted out in due course.


----- Original Message -----
From: Theo Todman
To: Michael Penny
Cc: julie@theotodman.com
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: For Theo

Mike,

For discussion tomorrow!

I sent you a "holding" response to the email-stream below (under the title of "Re: Einstein and all that ...") back in January, with the promise of researching further. I've done quite a bit of digging, and have read one of Carmeli's books (if "read" is the right word for skimming a book full of mathematics I don't understand). I still don't really understand the physical theories, partly because they presuppose a good mathematical and conceptual understanding of Einstein's Special and General theories, which I don't really have, as well as the mathematical intuitions of a working theoretical physicist. Even so, there's something very odd about them. But - if correct - they would seem to answer some puzzling questions about the rotational stability of spiral galaxies - and since no other theory has a response to such questions without ad hoc assumptions, then maybe Carmeli's theory is as principled as any. Carmeli has it that - instead of (or as well as) c being a universal constant, so is the total amount of "cosmic time", the inverse of the Hubble constant. He counts time from now going back to the Big Bang, which seems to be upside down (though if he's right, then it doesn't matter); I just don't understand what "cosmic time" is supposed to be. You'll have noticed in the papers I sent you the other day, that if you add up the lengths of the "Genesis" days, and a few more days thereafter, that they end up summing to a time longer than the age of the Universe - but that's probably the whole point - you can't add times linearly in Carmeli's theory any more than you can add velocities in SR. But it's all very odd. You can measure velocities, but how do you measure "cosmic times"?

I have three main gripes with Hartnett's book.
1. The first is that it's all reliant on a controversial theory that is probably wrong. A lot of the book is taken up with showing that this theory is plausible - but it comes across as just another (if ingenious) fudge to do away with "dark matter", though I don't think this is Carmeli's intention. But it's not clear what the motivation for Carmeli's theory is - I've found about 20 of Carmeli's papers on the web, and I intend to look through them to see if any of them provide enlightenment, because his book doesn't - it just says you can extend Einstein's theories by ... yada yada ... but (unlike Einstein) doesn't give any philosophical underpinning as to why you'd want to, and why it's sensible.
2. The second is that there's a bit of arm-waving in the final Appendix, which is really the purpose of the book - to prove that the "star-light travel time" problem goes away - but (unlike Carmeli) he doesn't really do the sums. It seems to me that to support the "young earth" view the theory needs not only to demonstrate that the creation process took 6 days, but that that event took place 6,000 years ago (by the appropriate clocks) - but I couldn't really see that demonstrated (and I'm pretty certain it can't be).
3. The third is that Hartnett takes some verses literally that sound figurative to me, and his whole case rests on this interpretation. Ps 104:2 "He wraps himself with light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent". Well, the first half of the verse is as figurative as you can get, so why should we take the second half as saying that God stretched the fabric of space in the creation week from something a bit larger than the Earth to something 15bn light-years across? Surely this verse (and others like it) is just describing how the heavens look to someone staring up at the sky (in wonder). It looks like the starry sky covers the Earth like a tent. How is the cosmic stretching that the Big Bang cosmological model presupposes got anything to do with errecting a tent? You don't stretch the sheep-skins, not much anyway. Now, I've nothing against cosmic stretching, but just don't like the idea of ransacking ancient texts and reading it into them (any more than "finding" QM to be prefigured by Buddhism).
Incidentally, I'm currently reading "The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton. While he believes in creation ex nihilo, he doesn't think that Genesis 1 is talking about this, but about God arranging the functions of the cosmos (ultimately with man in mind) and that it presupposes the scientific world-view of the day, which is not thereby given a nihil obstat.

I was going to write something in opposition to your "history is bunk" ideas, but haven't got round to it yet. I wrote the blurb below in January, and wasn't really happy with it. This is all very complicated stuff, but here are a few more random thoughts for what they are worth ....

There are many questions about authority in this correspondence (your's with Stephen Glasse). Bullinger is mentioned twice, as though he is some sort of oracle. Well, he was a scholarly man, and greatly to be respected, but that doesn't make all his views into authoritative statements. The world is full of scholarly men who disagree. The racular statements in queston are:-
1. “No one who believes in Evolution can be a believer in Revelation”
2. “words are useless for the purpose of revelation” if such an interpretation holds.
Well, why should we believe these statements? All they really say is that things would be simpler if we could just take the Bible at face value and ignore any clashes with what we see, or are told to see, outside of it. Yet it is clear (and admitted by Stephen) that the Bible sometime intends to be taken literally, and sometimes figuratively, and it's a case of determining which is which. The difficult questions arise when it looks likely that the human author intended himself to be taken literally, but where, maybe, the divine author did not. We all know the rumpus with Galileo and whether or not the Scriptures that say that the earth does not move should be taken literally or figuratively. Basically, we can only tell by looking at the external world. Who knows whether the original author believed in storehouses for the wind, but one presumes the divine author didn't, as there are no such things.

This question of interpretation, and the seeing of "all truth as God's truth" is a large one, and one that causes a certain class of fundamentalists (if they are taken seriously) inadvertently to place a stumbling-block in the path of well meaning and honest Christians. True, the first quotation from Bullinger above doesn't say that one cannot be a Christian, and yet believe in evolution, but one can't be a believer in divine revelation. Well, surely this is plan false - it's a matter of the interpretation of revelation that's at stake. Now, I agree that "squaring" evolutionary theory with the Bible is a tough ask - though some - indeed many - who would claim to be evangelical Christians seem to themselves to have squared this particlar circle, but attempting to force people to believe what seem to them plain falsehoods on pain of being deemed spiritually second-class cannot be a good thing. How does anyone know that Biblical literalism is the path of the strong, rather than the weak?

Stephen quotes Hartnett's rejection of some of his creationist predecessors' work as though this is unequivocally a good thing. Now, Hartnett is right to do so, as the theories of Barnes and Setterfield were very light-weight and easily refuted, and ultimately brought disrepute upon creationism. Most creationists aren't scientists, so seem to be willing to accept anything that supports their case. But this rejection ought to be a warning, in that no doubt the Hartnett/Carmeli theory will be proved incorrect in due course if anyone can be bothered with it. Now this isn't a council for despair in the acceptance of scientific theories. All theories should only be accepted in proportion to the evidence. Most people are not capable of evaluating the evidence, and go along with the consensus without question except when the theory impinges on what they otherwise want to believe. But some theories are clarly better supported and more centrally embedded in the consensus over-arching world view (if there is one) than others.

Something ought to be said about why insistance on young-earth creationsism and other clunky attempts to interpret the Bible as a science book can be counter-productive. Why do we accept the Biblical revelation at all? There are lots of revelations off the shelf, all mutually contradictory when literally interpreted, and some more obviously false than others. Why should we accept the Bible, rather than the Koran, say? Islamic fundamentalists claim that lots of scientific truths were revealed first in the Koran (a very dubious claim from what I've seen, but some clever scientists make such claims). Well, there's a very strong pull to literalism as it seems objective and less open to the whim of interpretation than a more "spiritual" or alagorical approach. And I agree, but you can't have what's not provided. Why do we accept the Bible (rather than the Koran) other than because it's the Holy Book of the culture we were brought up in, and the natural first port of call for seakers after truth? Dispensationalists don't believe in the private revelation, or the appearance of angels (or maybe even the Trinity) in suits, or at least not in the circles I've moved in. It's partly, at least, because the Biblical revelation seems convincing. But some parts are more convincing than others. Some have to be take as part the package deal, at least by those who like the content of their faith cut and dried. Others find giving up the scientific stories too much to stomache - there's a grandeur in a universe that obeys strict laws and evolves in accordance with them, and they find the idea of something cobbled together 6,000 years ago, with no explanation as to why this beautiful creature is the way it is, or this disgusting parasite the way it is, somewhat underwhelming.

Best wishes,

Theo

----- Original Message -----
From: Theo Todman
To: Michael Penny
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Pre-reading

Hi Mike (and Sylvia),

Here are a couple of very similar (and thankfully very short) papers by Moshe Carmeli (the chap behind the physics in Hartnett's book). While the maths is elementary (unlike in the appendices in Hartnett's book, and Carlmeli's other works) the underlying ideas are difficult to grasp, or so it seems to me. I look forward to discussion on Saturday. They don't seem to be cited in Hartnett's book.

Best wishes,

Theo

----- Original Message -----
From: Theo Todman
To: Michael Penny
Cc: julie@theotodman.com
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Einstein and all that ...

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the email and for the copied correspondence. I'm interested in the topics discussed, and did rattle off a response on the train on Friday. But re-reading it, it all seems a bit of a rant that deserves more careful consideration. So, I'll need a bit of time. But before embarking, I have some questions. Would the discussion just be between ourselves, or with Stephen, or with you for forwarding to Stephen? It affects the style as well as the content.

Who is Stephen, where does he live, what does he do, is he a scientist or mathematician, how did he get into dispensationalism, etc?

I'm afraid I've been "sitting on" the book by Hartnett - though I've read it through, bar a detailed study of the appendices. I had the vague idea that I might mug up on General Relativity, and see if I could evaluate Hartnett's theory mathematically and scientifically, but this is a ridiculous idea, as this is a job for a professional mathematical physicist, which I am very far indeed from being. So, all I can offer are some philosophical points, which can seem something of a cop out. Were you hoping I might comment on the whole email stream, provide feedback on Hartnett's book, or both?

I don't know anything about Hartnett and Carmeli, beyond what can be gleaned from the Web. See Link and Link / Link, and some further links below. I'm sure more time spent rummaging would enable one to derive a fairer picture.

It looks like Hartnett is an experimental physicist with a sideline in "emergent ideas in cosmology". He reports publishing a paper in Foundations of Physics (see Link (Defunct); paper stored at Link - paper available free at Link). It looks to me - from Wikipedia: Foundations of Physics - as though (despite the very distinguished editorial board) having something published in Foundations of Physics doesn't indicate any sort of acceptance of the proposal by the scientific community. It looks like a forum for more off the wall approaches in areas where mainstream physics is currently stuck. A good thing, however. I suspect though, that papers published there are more likely to be wrong than mainstream, less ambitious and less revolutionary offerings. However, he's also had things published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (see Link (Defunct), which builds on Carmeli's work). I must say, I thought that there's something fishy about a cosmology that has 5 dimensions, one of which is not a fundamental dimension, but involves the other four - but that's a purely aesthetic judgement, and the fact that it's being discussed at all must mean that it's a possibility that doesn't strike everyone as nonsense.

So, Hartnett and Carmeli do seem to be (or have been) respected scientists / mathematicians. Hartnett has extended Carmeli's work, and I don't know whether this extension is respected - but it does appear in peer-reviewed journals, so it's not just one of his private projects. He's also collaborated with Carmeli, if a joint paper cited in his book is anything to go by. I don't think that Carmeli's work has been accepted by the mainstream, but it seems to be being discussed. This doesn't mean that it's right or wrong, only that it's not open to non-specialists to cherry-pick it because they happen to like its alleged implications for what they want to believe. And note that the implications for Young Earth creationism are Hartnett's deductions from Hartnett's extensions to Carmeli, and not Carmeli's own deduction. Hartnett's proposals seem to make the Earth a very special place from a cosmological perspective, and I guess that would be difficult for most mathematical physicists to take seriously.

There seems to be a catena of questions here - whether Carmeli is right, whether Hartnett's extensions of Carmeli are right, and whether Hartnett's applications of his theory to the Bible are right. It would take a lot of effort to investigate all this, but my focus would have to be on the last link in the chain. That, and the other issues raised by your correspondence with Stephen.

Incidentally, I tracked down a copy of Hartnett's book at Creation Ministries (Link) for under £8 including P&P, so I can hand back the copy you loaned me when we meet. I had a rummage on Amazon for Carmeli's books - but they are too expensive, and too difficult to bother with at the moment.

I'm aftraid I can't remember the context (if I ever knew it) of the capitalised extract you quote from Stephen's email. But if the expansion of the universe is accellerating, wouldn't that imply that it's even older than was thought? I think that Hartnett gets round the starlight problem by having the Earth-clocks running very slowly during the creation days (so the universe can take billions of years to create, it just didn't look like that to Adam). Not sure what this has to say about the current state of affairs. Will need to investigate.

Finally, there's a reference to a mysterious "friend from Cambridge" in Stephen's emails, but not in yours. Who is this? I hope it's not me.

Best wishes,

Theo

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Penny
To: 'Julie Todman'
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:33 AM
Subject: For Theo



From: Michael Penny [mailto:michael@pennyfamily.co.uk]
Sent: 22 January 2010 09:25
To: Theo & Julie Todman (Todman, Theo & Julie)
Subject: FW: einstein and providence

Theo,

We hope you and Julie are well and will, God willing, be over to see you in February.
I forwarded Julie’s email to Sylvia and she will sort out the date with Julie.

Below, is the correspondence I have been having with Stephen Glasse, the person who gave me the book I passed on to you.

This is for your information and, if you wish and have time, your comment.
In one paragraph he writes about the author of the book:

“In regard to your other points I agree that one should not accept Dr Hartnett’s theory just because he’s a creationist. He may very well be wrong. But it does deserve honest consideration. He is a PhD physicist at a major Australian university and the basis for the book comes from his published research with Moshe Carmeli the Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University who was one of the leading authorities on relativity. Prof Carmeli predicted the acceleration of the expansion of the universe TWO YEARS PRIOR TO OBSERVATIONS WHICH CONFIRMED SUCH ACCELERATION. Dr Hartnett has developed Carmeli’s cosmology and asserts that the solution to starlight travel time falls naturally out of the equations. Furthermore he is extremely critical of previous creationist attempts to resolve the issue even ones that he has been involved in and he stresses the limitations of science so I think he deserves better than an immediate dismissal.”

I really don’t know anything about these two people. Do you?

Every blessing

Mike


From: Stephen Glasse [mailto:sglasse74@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2010 22:06
To: Michael Penny
Subject: RE: einstein and providence


Dear Michael & Sylvia,
Thank you for the reply and I probably owe you a full explanation. It was in the June/July 2008 issue of Search that I read Sylvia’s study on The Two Trees in the garden of Eden in which she asserted that they should be understood figuratively. This struck me then and still strikes me now as a far-fetched interpretation and I was also disturbed by the repeated description of the ‘literal’ reading of the text as involving “’magical’ trees”. This seemed to me to be a classic ‘straw man’ if you like because no one who believes in the existence of such trees in the garden would ever describe them as ‘magical’. This struck me then as an attempt to get around the paucity of evidence for a figurative reading by providing a false account of the alternative. To quote Andrew Kulikovsky ” The fruit is no more magical than the bronze serpent.......the fruit was merely the means by which God performed a supernatural act”
-Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation (I can’t recommend this book to you enough. I’d buy it and give it to you for free!)
In Gen 2:9 we read, “Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.
The author having then described the rivers that flowed from the garden informs us
“Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden [and]..commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat””
(if vv15-17)
We continue to read further references to eating the fruit of the garden in 3:1,2,3,5,6,11,12,13,17,22 interspersed with references to the sewing of ‘fig leaves’ (in contrast to the skins of 3:21) and the acts of ‘seeing’, ‘taking’, and ‘giving’ (3:6).
Now it is surely impossible in such a context to justify Sylvia’s figurative interpretation. To quote Dr Bullinger “words are useless for the purpose of revelation” if such an interpretation holds. It is one thing to take a literal truth and then apply it later in a figurative manner but it is wholly another to do the reverse. It is, of course, true that Dr Bullinger himself regarded the serpent of Gen 3 as being a figure of speech for an ‘angel of light’ ie satan but he provided immensely strong evidence: the interchangeable nature of nachash and seraph in the brass serpent account in Numbers; the structure of Gen 3 which sets up a parallel between the nachash and the cherubim; and Paul’s reference to satan as an angel of light in 2 Cor 11 the same chapter in which he refers to Eve as being deceived by the serpent (verses 14 & 3 respectively). But no comparable evidence was provided in the Search article and it seems impossible to justify it from the immediate context.
Sylvia makes arguments on the basis of texts like Proverbs 3:18; 11:30 and 13:12 but in these texts the tree of life is used as a predicate of a metaphor ie X is a ‘tree of life’. This says nothing about the tree of life itself.
The article reminded me of the attempts people make to force Scripture to fit with their faulty science so I thought I would send you Dr Hartnett’s latest book as an example of recent Creation Science especially as Michael is a mathematician.
In regard to your other points I agree that one should not accept Dr Hartnett’s theory just because he’s a creationist. He may very well be wrong. But it does deserve honest consideration. He is a PhD physicist at a major Australian university and the basis for the book comes from his published research with Moshe Carmeli the Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University who was one of the leading authorities on relativity. Prof Carmeli predicted the acceleration of the expansion of the universe TWO YEARS PRIOR TO OBSERVATIONS WHICH CONFIRMED SUCH ACCELERATION. Dr Hartnett has developed Carmeli’s cosmology and asserts that the solution to starlight travel time falls naturally out of the equations. Furthermore he is extremely critical of previous creationist attempts to resolve the issue even ones that he has been involved in and he stresses the limitations of science so I think he deserves better than an immediate dismissal. Furthermore, your receiving of the book coincided with your article on relativity and Einstein which, of course, might be of no significance whatsoever but then again who wants to resist the Holy Spirit?
I am already aware of the alternative readings of Gen 1-9 and I have a fairly technical work in front of me. But the fact is that it doesn’t matter whether there are differing viewpoints amongst Christians what matters is whether they are defensible. None of the alternatives can avoid the fact that God wrote, “Six days you shall labor and do all your work..........for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth” and they can’t avoid the fact that they exist purely as ad hoc attempts to harmonise scientists theories with the Word of God. Was it not Dr Bullinger who wrote, “No one who believes in Evolution can be a believer in Revelation”
With Best Wishes, Stephen


Stephen Glasse

--- On Wed, 20/1/10, Michael Penny wrote:

From: Michael Penny
Subject: RE: einstein and providence
To: "'Stephen Glasse'"
Date: Wednesday, 20 January, 2010, 9:16
Dear Stephen,

Many thanks for your email and we trust that you are well.
I did not say that my friend from Cambridge was an Acts 28 dispensationalist.
In fact there many Bible believing Christians of all theologies who do not hold to a 6 x 24 hour creation.

Scientists are indeed fallible, as Richard Dawkins.
It is surprising how scientific data can be interpreted in different ways.
Quite often the scientist will interpret data so that it fits into their overall scenario of historic events.
That is true of evolutionists; it is also true of young earth creationists, as I learnt when we lived in the USA.

Also, just as we find there are different types of evolutionists and different theories of evolutions,
we find that Young Earth scientists also differ amongst themselves ... again, as I found out when we lived in the USA.

In fact, my view is that you cannot apply the term science to anything from the past.
Science means setting up a theory or model and proving / testing the theory it by experimentation.
An experiment others can perform and other verify or gainsay the theory or results.

One cannot do that with many of Dawkins’ ideas / theories; quite simply no one was there and no one can repeat the experiment.
This is also true of the ideas / theories put forth by Young Earth Scientists; no one was there and no one can say whether or not their ideas are correct.
Amongst Young Earth Scientists there are a number of theories as to what happened at the flood; how it was caused etc.
Which one is correct! I don’t know, but I don’t think any of them can be subject to correct scientific scrutiny.

Christian Scientists did more good when they spent their time and energy showing the flaws in evolution.
Once they set up Young Earth Science as opposed to Old Earth Science, and set up their rival theories, they then opened themselves to many of the same scientific criticisms as Evolutionists.
We have no way (scientifically) of verifying or gainsaying their ideas / theories.

Some Christians, when they read that these Young Earth Theories fit a biblical scenario, immediately accept the Theory ..... but that is not good science.

There are a number of Theories of Creation held by different Christians and which are in the booklet we publish called “Theories of Creation”.
There are good points and difficult points within each of them, and if you haven’t read the book, you may care to obtain a copy.

Many years ago a book came out in Germany proving that was lived on the inside of a massive sphere, so that we were literally in a closed universe.
A number of Christians, especially in Holland, accepted this because the person who wrote the book had a few Bible quotations to support his idea.
This came up at a conference I was speaking at in the Hague.
Although the book was in German I could see that all the Mathematical equations were correct and held for that world.
However, all those equations were inversions of all the equations were use and so they were bound to work.
All the person had done was turn everything inside out – i.e. inverted the physical world and so he had to invert the equations.
So I don’t believe we live inside a massive sphere, even though the Mathematics works for such a universe.

Now keep up the good work, Stephen, and may the Lord richly bless all that you do in His Name and for His glory

Mike





From: Stephen Glasse [mailto:sglasse74@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 18 January 2010 19:43
To: michael@michaelandsylvia.co.uk
Subject: RE: einstein and providence

Dear Michael,
Thanks for the quick reply because having received your reminder about my subscription only a few days ago I was wondering whether you had received my cheque.
In regard to your friend from Cambridge I would be interested to know whether he holds to a literal 6 x 24 hr creation period as taught in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 and affirmed by Dr E W Bullinger for example or whether he has compromised in this area. His views in this area will no doubt affect his attitude towards the ‘content’ of the book. It’s very sad when Christians will stand up for truths such as Acts 28:28 dispensationalism but reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit on more fundamental matters such as CMI are proclaiming. How can we mourn or even criticise the failure of our brothers and sisters to grasp dispensationalism when we dismiss such crucial truths in the early chapters of Genesis?
Praise God for Charles Ozanne’s recent work on Bible Chronology though.
But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself here and he really does have good reasons for rejecting Dr Hartnett’s work. After all scientists are just as fallible as anyone else and Dr Hartnett is no exception to the rule.
With best regards, Stephen




--- On Sat, 17/10/09, michael@michaelandsylvia.co.uk wrote:

From: michael@michaelandsylvia.co.uk
Subject: RE: einstein and providence
To: "Stephen Glasse"
Date: Saturday, 17 October, 2009, 3:24
Dear Stephen,
Many thanks fornthe email and we will remember your letter in our prayers,
Every blessing
Mike



On Fri 9/10/09 6:32 PM , Stephen Glasse sglasse74@yahoo.co.uk sent:
Dear Michael,

I would like to make a quick prayer request. The subject of Acts 28 dispensationalism is being discussed quite heavily where I am staying and the Christians who I am living with have encouraged me to write to a friend of theirs who is a Pentecostal theologian!! I have typed up my response to his criticisms and should be e-mailing it soon so I would value your prayers.

God bless,

Stephen Glasse

--- On Fri, 17/7/09, Michael Penny wrote:

From: Michael Penny
Subject: RE: einstein and providence
To: "'Stephen Glasse'"
Date: Friday, 17 July, 2009, 9:03 AM
Dear Stephen,

Many thanks for the ‘shoes’ which arrived yesterday!
I do look forward to reading the book, but it may take some time before I can get round to it.
We have the OBT Holiday starting in 8 days and I have to do several talks on that.
Then I have a week at a Christian Hotel in Wales, giving the evening and morning devotions.
Then comes the OBT Seminar in Nottingham at the end of August.
And then we have a six week speaking tour of the USA and Canada.
So I do have rather a lot of studies and talks to prepare.
Maybe I will read it on the plane to the States.

Thank you ever so much for thinking of us.

Every blessing

Mike

From: Stephen Glasse [mailto:sglasse74@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 16 July 2009 22:07
To: michael@pennyfamily.co.uk
Subject: einstein and providence


Dear Michael,

Its amazing how God goes before us is it not? I have just received the latest edition of Search and to my surprise you mentioned how you studied Einstein's theories at university and you cited a series of quotes from the great scientist. Well just the day before I posted you a copy of Starlight, Time and the New Physics in which the physics professor John Hartnett uses the Israeli Moshe Carmeli's expansion of Einstein's theories to the Cosmos to solve the problem of distant starlight reaching the earth in Genesis 1. Plenty of maths in the appendices as well!

God bless, Stephen








Live Version of this Archived Note

Date Length Title
18/12/2010 19:58:05 12072 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth


Table of the 2 Earlier Versions of this Note

Date Length Title
30/04/2010 10:33:36 20141 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earch
30/04/2010 09:14:24 1890 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earch


Table of the 10 Later Versions of this Note

Date Length Title
01/07/2010 21:37:26 12077 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 20:15:22 11783 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 15:02:53 11768 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 14:54:14 11989 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 14:41:17 11766 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 14:36:58 11800 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 11:08:10 11795 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 10:50:53 11782 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 09:10:05 11628 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earth
30/06/2010 08:54:14 31946 Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earch



This version updated Reference for this Topic Parent Topic
30/04/2010 10:43:41 902 (Hartnett, Carmeli and a Young Earch) None






Summary of Note Links to this Page

Status: Philosophy of Religion (2010 - May) Theo Todman's Blog      

To access information, click on one of the links in the table above (if any).




Text Colour Conventions

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019




© Theo Todman, June 2007 - July 2019.Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com.File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this PageReturn to Theo Todman's Philosophy PageReturn to Theo Todman's Home Page