Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Starlight & Time Paperback – October 31, 1996
From timeless classics to new favorites, find children's books for every age and stage. See more
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
About the Author
Dr. Humphreys was awarded his PhD in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. He has retired from Sandia National Laboratories, and continues to serve as a resource scientist for AIG to assist with questions and information concerning physics, astronomy, and cosmology
If you buy a new print edition of this book (or purchased one in the past), you can buy the Kindle edition for only $2.99 (Save 63%). Print edition purchase must be sold by Amazon. Learn more.
For thousands of qualifying books, your past, present, and future print-edition purchases now lets you buy the Kindle edition for $2.99 or less. (Textbooks available for $9.99 or less.)
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
This is an excellent text. Anyone who has read many of my reviews will note that I rarely am in agreement with the modern psychobabble passed off as “science”. This text, however, is not psychobabble; rather, it acceptably resolves probably the biggest debate between the evolutionist – who is almost always wrong, and the Creationist – who is almost always right.
Did you ever notice how the smartest guy in the room – that’s any room – is always a Bible-believer?
First, through no fault of Humphreys’, I marvel that this text is twenty-one years old, yet to my knowledge it is virtually unknown. I have piles of related works, but I have yet to see this text quoted. As a note, I do not recall how I personally discovered this work.
Second, Humphrey takes you through a “crash-course” in special relativity that is understandable to those who, perhaps, have not spent the last ten years studying calculus and related subjects. In short, it is a practical explanation for how light from stars – seemingly billions of miles away – arrived at a planet created roughly 6,000 years ago. In short, both facts are true, and Humphrey explains the how and why.
The most honest quote ever made by a scientist is found on page 31, Humphreys writes, “Please keep in mind that the details of what follows are tentative and subject to drastic revision as we learn more.” He admits that he is still learning; what scientist ever openly admitted that he was not an all-knowing creature?
My personal favorite quote is found on page 99, Humphreys remarks, “It is ironic that so many enthusiastic supporters of the big bang are completely ignorant of these basic features of the theory they promote.”
As theology is my field of expertise, supporters of the big bang are not being ironic; they are simply grasping at the few remaining straws of their government supported religion (aka. evolution) that has failed on so many levels that one cannot keep track. The evolutionist will believe anything – without exception – before he will believe that he is responsible for his actions before an absolute Supreme Creator God.
Nonetheless, the Bible – without proven error – notes,
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
(Romans 10:9-10, English Bible, aka. KJV, AV, AV1611, etc.)
Finally, while this is an excellent well-written text, it will profit the evolution/Creation debate in no dramatic fashion. Why? Both evolution and Creation are faith-based systems of belief. Some use the term “religion”. As an evangelist, I have learned that most people cling to their faith regardless of the information presented to them. Evolution is certainly no exception.
I've been dubious for a long time about the supposed existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" that supposedly controls 96% of the observed physical movements of the observable universe. Astronomers cannot explain the apparent movements of the galaxies on the basis of existing physics and what we can actually detect and see in existence.This enigma has baffled astronomers and physicists since the 1930's. It is high time to admit that there is something wrong somewhere with the basic assumptions.
Humphreys has provided an answer that I believe substantially explains the mystery of dark matter and dark energy--i.e., there isn't any. Even if he is not right in every detail, I suspect that he he has provided the basic answer to this mystery, which is that the observable movement of the galaxies is not due to the galaxies all moving away from each other THROUGH space, but rather that what we see is the actual expansion of space itself while simultaneously "pulling" the galaxies along. Apparently this expansion accounts for the red shift.
From what I have read elsewhere, it would appear that Humphreys' mathematics which accompanies his proposition is sound and valid. In comparing the competing theories, I would think that the theory which accounts for the remaining 96% of the observable forces of the universe should be the default assumption of every physicist and astronomer. But don't expect the priests of the prevailing orthodoxy to jump so fast when the IMPLICATIONS of the theory run counter to their basic philosophical presuppositions and biases which they bring to their professions.
For further reading, I would recommend, "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by John Hartnett. Some older must-reads would be some books by Arthur Koestler: "The Ghost in the Machine," "Janus," "The Roots of Coincidence," "The Sleepwalkers," and "The Case of the Midwife Toad." Koestler learned to think for himself unshackled by the pressure of his peers and his books are the result of that independent thinking. I don't necessarily agree with all of Koestler's conclusions, but his understanding of the academic and scientific establishment was dead on.