Hi, Rod.

Wait a second. Let's get things straight. It is a fact that the earth
revolves around the sun. It is a fact that the universe and the earth
are much, much older than just 10,000 years, as directly observed by
such examples as SN1987A, and this means that YEC doctrine is false.
THEREFORE, the literalistic interpretation of the Bible that YEC is
based on is itself a false hermeneutic (the biblical inerrancy
approach of old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists), OR
the literalistic interpretation is true and thus the Bible itself is
false.

Which part of "SN1987A alone proves the universe has been around for
at least about 168,000 years, and thus directly disproves YEC" did
you not understand?

If you wish to dispute the entire fields of geology and geophysics,
then please go right ahead and start working on it. You are welcome to
do so. The peer-reviewed scientific journals are open to your
relevant data and well-reasoned analysis. (Of course, the data must
truly be relevant, and the analysis must truly be well-reasoned, and
such determinations are not determined by the bias of people who
promote demonstrably false ideas.) Why should geologists "recant" the
4.6 billion year estimate which is based on numerous studies of
earth, the moon, and meteorites? (And please don't start talking
about "uniformitarian assumptions," because SN1987A - which is not
based on "uniformitarian assumptions" - shows already that YEC is
wrong.) Truth cannot contradict truth, and so, of course, geologists,
astronomers, and physicists try to develop "pictures" that are
*consistent* with one another. Hey, Rod, maybe there's something
really throwing everything off significantly (which no one has yet
discovered), and maybe the earth is really only 3.2 billion years
old. But 10,000 years? That's ludicrous! The objective data totally
contradicts the idea of 10,000, or 30,000, or 100,000, or even 1
million years. YEC is wrong, because the real world have been in
existence for a much longer period of time. This is just the fact of
the matter. You have already conceded that the objective information
proves that the universe has been around a lot longer than allowed by
YEC, so please explain why "evolutionists" are supposed to "recant" a
decent idea based on a good deal of evidence when YECs can't even
give up their demonstrably false idea?

Truths about the real world are not "an agenda." That our universe
has millions of galaxies in it is a fact, not part of an agenda. That
the Jovian moon Io has active volcanoes on it is a fact, not part of
an agenda. That the Kuiper Belt actually exists is a fact, not part
of an agenda. That there are huge impact craters on earth that
occurred millions of years ago and have since undergone a very
lengthy process of erosion, burial under sedimentation,
lithification, uplift, and re-erosion is a fact, not part of an
agenda. Science teachers should teach about these things, and, more
importantly, about *how* they were discovered, not because they are
part of an agenda, but because they are aspects of the real world
discovered through scientific examination of the real world.

Science teachers are supposed to teach science. Do you want them,
perhaps, to teach that SN1987A is merely a grand illusion in the sky,
that it never really happened, that none of the millions of galaxies
in the universe that astronomers observe right now are real but that
all of these observations are just fake? After all, that is the YEC
position. Are science teachers supposed to check in with AIG and ICR
before teaching science? What possible agenda is at stake in teaching
a false doctrine like YEC not only in public schools, but anywhere at
all, including in churches? Would it be okay to teach geocentrism and
to teach that Christians who believe otherwise have a questionable
faith, at best? Is Christian faith dependent on believing
demonstrably false ideas about the real world?

And since SN1987A (in the second closest galaxy to earth) proves that
the universe has been around for far longer than a mere 10,000 years,
when are AIG, and ICR, and you going to recant? Indeed, since we are
NOT seeing you guys recant your demonstrably false position, then
please explain why people who have demonstrated their explicit and
obvious bias should be considered to bear any reasonable credibility
when it comes to expressing an opinion on what is or is not *good*
science that should be taught.

Since it is a demonstrated fact that YEC is false, as a biblical
inerrantist it seems to me that you ought to be motivated to work to
understand the biblical text in light of what has been demonstrated
to be genuinely true about the real world, INSTEAD OF working to show
how wrong the Bible is. After all, this is what the biblical
inerrantists a few hundred years ago did when astronomers discovered
the truth that the earth revolved about the sun instead of the other
way around.

Incidentally, the Hebrew in Job 38:7 is "morning" and "stars." The
KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, and the RSV versions all translate
this "morning stars." The similar phrase "stars of...dawn" is used in
Job 3:9. Specific constellations of stars are also referred to in Job
9:9 and 38:31-32.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
When will evolutionists recant of the 4.6 Gyr old earth and solar
system? What possible agenda is at stake in teaching doctrines like
this throughout US public schools? It certainly cannot be to advance
*good* science.

Why not ask the evolutionists when they will recant?

Rod:

Christians are not given allowance to act unlovingly, even to those who
themselves are hypocrites.  In fact, the instruction is exactly the
opposite.  You show the hypocrite how to be truthful by an example of
truthfulness.  You show the false scientist how to be a true scientist by an
example of practicing true science.

But now we are back to the discussion we had a week ago:  how can AiG and
ICR justify to themselves making misleading statements, supposedly in the
service of truth?

Rod, I do not indorse--in fact I oppose--the sanctimonious,
"more-knowing-than-thou" attitude of many self-proclaimed "lords of
science."  When Richard Dawkins tells me I am an ignoramous unless I accept
that evolution is the explanation for all forms of life, I know exactly what
kind of rhetoric he is practicing, and I know exactly where he has put true
science on his agenda.  But you start by cleaning up your own house, not by
demanding that the other fellow clean his house first.  That is, you do that
if you want to claim that you're a Christian.  Jesus didn't wait to die for
you until you were good enough, did He?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

when the evolutionists community recants of their doctrine (4.6 Gyr old
earth and solar system) we can discuss who is the hypocrite-----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Okay Christopher, I don' have much trouble with your recent post.
> Yes I concur that based upon a Josephus/Ussher time scale, I can't
> prove the age of the solar system using that time scale but the YEC
> have at least a historical record position unlike evolutionists.
> Okay, you cannot defend what was established in 1955 by Clair
> Patterson, namely the 4.56 Gyr old solar system either.  In my
> opinion, this is a legend.  The data from the Jovian system is full
> of contradictions for the solar nebula model and a 4.6 Gyr history
> for Jupiter.  The Sept 2000 issue of Scientific American has a
> report on extrasolar planets, a neat table showing 44 entries.
> Just do a simple comparison to our solar system using Kepler's
> equation for orbit and perihelion and aphelion distances, it does
> not take a genius to see God established the earth to be inhabited.
> If these extrasolar planet reports are 'real', and if they orbited
> in our solar system or our solar system was configured that way, I
> would not be here to send you this email and you would not be here
> to read it and get upset at the YEC folks.
>
> Enough for now Christopher.  My prayer for you and Todd is that
> both of you will not get blinded by current science models to the
> fact of Jesus Christ and His person as presented in the New
> Testament and the gospel message of salvation, thanks------Rod

Rod,

Todd, I, and some others here are prepared to accept the truth as
learned through empirical observations of the universe.  True,
science doesn't have all the answeres and never will, but we are
prepared to look at the real universe.  If anybody is blinded, it is
you who are engaged in bibliolatry.  You seem to be so steeped in
your particular literal interpretation of the Bible, you are blinded
to the truth.  I'm wondering if you also believe that insects have
four legs based on Lev. 11:23.

At the moment we can only detect massive planets in fairly close
orbits around other stars.  This is a selection effect, and detecting
a planet like Jupiter taking 12 years to orbit its parent star is
difficult.  It's even more difficult to detect planets like the
earth, so it's still too early to say how special our solar system
is, as we don't have enough information.  However, currently it looks
as if our solar system is unusual.

>
> Subject: Searching for Shadows of OTHER EARTHS
>
> Doyle, L.R., Deeg, H-J., Brown, T.M., Scientific American 283(3):
> 58-65, 2000.  Interesting read here in the Sept 2000 issue.  On
> page 63 there is a table showing 44 stars with extrasolar planets
> listed.  Star name, min mass of planet, value for e, and semimajor
> axis in AU are provided.  If we assume these are all real
> extrasolar planets, our solar system looks unusual (well suited for
> life on earth.)  On page 60, 'A handful of astronomers had even
> begun to wonder whether the lack of transits implied a lack of
> planets. Perhaps the wobble observations had been misinterpreted.'
>
> Apparently the lack of transits documented for some of these
> extrasolar planet reports has at least some astronomers worried so
> the transit documented now may help settle them down.
>
> Jovian system notes on youth -
>
> "After several years of analysis, researchers recently announced
> the abundance of the other noble gases.  Argon, krypton and xenon
> are enriched compared with the solar composition by about the same
> factor as carbon and sulfur.  That, too, is a mystery.  The only
> way to trap the inferred quantities of these gases is to freeze
> them-which is not possible at Jupiter's current distance from the
> sun.  Therefore, much of the material that makes up the planet must
> have come from colder, more distant regions. Jupiter itself may
> even have formed farther from the sun, then drifted inward." [1]

As I said in an earlier post, these uncertainties don't make us
believe that Jupiter is less than 10,000 years old!

>
> Galileo satellite measurements of the abundance of deuterium in
> Jupiter's atmosphere indicate that it is similar to the sun and
> different from Earth's oceans or comets.  "The finding suggests
> that comets have not had a major effect on the composition of
> Jupiter's atmosphere, despite the spectacular effects when they
> hit, as demonstrated during the Shoemaker-Levy 9 collisions in
> 1994." [2]

If Jupiter formed further from the sun than it is now, this could be
true, but it doesn't make one believe that Jupiter is less than
10,000 years old, that is an absurdity!

>
> Ganymede was discovered to posses a dipole magnetic field.
> Evolutionists calculated how long Ganymede could remain with a
> magnetic field.  "But the same models show that convection will
> cease as the core gradually cools; the conditions required for
> convection should last only a billion years or so."
> [3]

A possible explanation for this is that the interior of Ganymede is
heated by tidal action like Io and Europa, but to a lesser extent.
In fact there may be a buried ocean of salty water, or salty slush
with ice.  Any conducting liquid in motion is likely to cause a
magnetic field.  Why do you insist in using the word "evolutionist"?

> Evolutionists have invoked orbital resonance to keep Ganymede hot
> in its core so the magnetic field can remain.  This process is
> tidal heating. "Researchers used to think that tidal heating was of
> little consequence for Ganymede, the outermost of these three
> moons.  But now they realize that the orbits may have shifted over
> time.  Consequently, the resonances may once have been stronger and
> Ganymede's orbit more perturbed than it is now.  The immense fault
> systems that wind across the surface may record this earlier
> period of intense heating.  If so, the moon is still cooling off,
> and its core can continue to generate a magnetic field." [4]
>
> "Callisto is covered with large impact scars, ranging from craters
> kilometers in diameter to the so-called palimpsest named Valhalla,
> some 1500 kilometers across.  The surface is believed to date back
> more than four billion years to the rain of meteoritic and cometary
> debris left after the formation of the planets and satellites.  In
> this sense, Callisto is indeed old." [5]
>
> My observation> the Jovian system is full of conflicts for the
> evolution model.  The noble gases suggest Jupiter formed much
> farther out in the early solar nebula where the temperatures were
> much colder and then drifted inward to its present orbit.  However
> could the data suggest too an abrupt and rapid formation process
> for Jupiter, featuring rapid cooling?
>
> Europa based upon the density and size of impact craters has a
> young surface age.  However, Callisto has a surface age claimed to
> be at least 4 billion years old using the crater record.  The
> crater record may suggest an abrupt and rapid bombardment in some
> regions with other areas missed or a steep decline in the crater
> formation rate over a very short time scale.

What timescale are you talking about, the 6 days of creation?!!!
Tidal heating is responsible for Io and Europa having young surfaces,
but Calliso has experienced no significant tidal heating so it has an
ancient surface.  Ganymede is in an intermediate position.

> Jupiter's deuterium abundance suggests little effect from comet
> impacts over nearly 4.6 billion years.  One could interpret this as
> evidence for a relatively short exposure history to comets in the
> outer solar system thus Jupiter has not had a long orbital history
> around the sun.  The data for the magnetic field found on Ganymede
> could support such a hypothesis without invoking past orbital
> changes, resonance or tidal heating changes for the satellite.
> Ganymede has a magnetic field today because it is not 4.6 billion
> years old but much younger in age.

See above.  What age do you propose, 10,000 years old, in which case
explain the formation of the jovian system in such a short and recent
timescale, and explain where the gravitational potential energy of
Jupiter went?

> References
> 1.	Torrence V. Johnson, "The Galileo Mission to Jupiter and Its
>    Moons",
>    Scientific American,
>    February 2000, Vol. 282, No. 2, p. 46.
> 2.	Torrence V. Johnson, p. 46.
> 3.	Ibid., p. 48.
> 4.	Ibid., p. 48.
> 5.	Ibid., p. 48.
>
> Subject: EUROPA'S COMPLEXION
> FYI, ref LETTERS TO THE EDITORS, Scientific American February 2000,
> p. 6. Some interesting comments made here by a previous author on
> the subject of Europa and its surface age.
>
> "A cyclical geologic history is quite plausible.  Some models
> predict that tectonic activity may have changed in response to
> orbital variations.  Such changes may occur on a timescale of 100
> million years, which is probably too slow to account for the
> formation of individual ridges but might induce periods of overall
> satellite activity and inactivity.  Research continues to try to
> understand these important problems"
>
> Referring to Europa's surface age and the work of Gene Shoemaker -
>
> "His extrapolated number of large craters was indeed about 45, and
> the implied age about 30 million years.  But for us to be so
> precise is misleading, as the error bars for both numbers were
> large.  It is more appropriate to say that Shoemaker predicted a
> surface age of about 10 to 100 million years.  Based on recent
> Galileo results, this original order-of-magnitude estimate has held
> up remarkably well."
>
> My observation>
>
> a. Models for recycling Europa's icy surface have not been clinched
> or proved yet
> b. The lack of large craters continues to plague evolutionists
> concerning

Here we go again with the word "evolutionists" again.

> its surface age.  10-100 million years using their dating methods.
> c. The data from Europa could be used to support not only a young
> surface age but also a highly variable crater rate in the solar
> system.  Earth's Moon would have a similar surface age as Europa in
> the creation model (both very young) but a major difference shows
> up in the crater formation rate. Europa may never have been
> subjected to as intense a bombardment episode as the Moon thus the
> age assigned by evolutionists would be inflated (so its surface age
> could be << 10 to 100 million years old)----Rod.

If you are trying to show conventional science is wrong in it's
conclusions, then fine, but it is then your duty to provide an
alternative explanation to show your model is correct: (1) that it
agrees with what is observed and can make predictions, and (2) that
it is internally consistent.

Christopher

Todd and Tom, I will examine this more carefully about the word usage here.
Context has a lot to do with it.  To my knowledge, the Hebrew has only one
word for stars and it is *kokkivm*.  Any light bearing body in the heavens
would have been called this, planets to (and today asteroids, meteoroids.)
I will also check the Greek LXX translation.  Why Job 38 mentions 'morning
stars' rather than the normal usage (what we find distinctly in Genesis
1:14-19, also there is another word in Hebrew here for light bearing body
which I don't believe is in Job chapter 38) I don't know.  It is true that
stars can be seen in their helical rising and the reference in Job 38 may
indeed be to these (so old earth creationists may have a point that the
stars predate the foundation of the earth at least according to this passage
and possible interpretation.)

Even if we accept that the stars were created before the earth, Sun, and
Moon (Genesis chapter 1:1  possibly could allow this if it is not a simple
introductory clause), this does not mean the big bang cosmology is to be
accepted by the Church or even correct.  I know that such a statement of
faith is consistent with the CRS in the US, namely that the heavens could be
much older than the earth.  It also does not establish an *old earth*
doctrine in the Bible or that Genesis chapters 1-11 would even allow such a
position.  The YEC position in my view is better supported by the text and
context.

What I said earlier about when the first supernovae originated in
relationship to Genesis chapter 3 brings some of this out.  I agree,
supernovae are not created starlight, they are real, however they are not
*new stars* being created either.

If the first SN took place after the Fall of Man in the Bible as well as the
entrance of death for mankind and the animal world, then your approach
collapses and indeed science has missed something critical in nature so
arguments from SN1987A explode, pun intended.  If the first SN took place
prior to the Fall of Man in Genesis 3, then it opens the door to the
possibility that the stars could be much older than the earth and events
recorded in Genesis 1-3.  I cannot say if ICR or AIG has addressed this
possibility in their writings.

However some type of c-decay during creation day 4 or some type of time
dilation operating during creation day 4 may also work but details are not
available at this time (at least not by me.)  Real evolutionists would never
accept any of this including any OEC model (Richard Dawkins or SJ Gould for
example).

Some YEC would not have trouble with this position (that the heavens may be
much older than the earth), just trouble with a 4.6 Gyr earth and Sun and
local Flood model.  However, keep in mind what I said earlier.  The upper
waters on creation day 2 may indeed have been involved in the formation of
stellar bodies on creation day 4.  This too is a possible interpretation
today.  The details in mechanics have not been worked out by YEC.  Water
molecules are H2O.  Getting rid of the oxygen is part of the solution.
There is plenty of hydrogen.  If this approach is taken, Kupier belt objects
(which are not at present an enormous number, I believe < 100 documented to
date) and the presence of gas giant planets is not a surprise to a Biblical
creationist because they would have formed via H2O conversion into gas
during the creation week (whatever the mechanics by God.)  I admit, this is
speculation on my part.

Some YEC folks like Russ Humphreys have been working issues like this,
thanks----Rod

To all,

After an absence let me chime in again for a moment.

1) I am observing a clear difference in how we approach the Scriptures. One
says that they are the foremost authority by which all else must be
understood. Another says they must be interpreted in light out outside human
understanding and observation. This is a vital difference, and it will affect
not only how one understands the truth about creation, but many aspects of
truth revealed throughout the scriptures. Many have, and will continue, to
reinterpret the scriptures according to current human reasoning. Truth
becomes relative and subjective to whatever filter we want to use to grind
the Bible through.

2) It is obvious that many give "observed empirical evidence" much more
authority than the stated word of God. We are told that empirical evidence is
objective and factual, while Biblical testimony is subject to fallible
interpretation. This will effectively eliminate the authority of Bible
teaching on any and all subjects = "that's just your interpretation!"

3) We must give no ground to the assumed conclusions of observed empirical
evidence. I will not trust man's, or my own, wisdom above the stated wisdom
of God. The apostle Peter defied the assumed conclusion of empirical evidence
in 2 Peter 3:3-6 when some used uniformitarian conclusions to question the
Lord's promises. Some are using the same tactic to question the divine
testimony of the creation and flood that Peter endorsed by inspiration. Peter
refuted their claims based on empirical evidence ("all things continue as
they were from the beginning of creation") by pointing them to the
supernatural acts of God that could only be truly verified by the word of God
(v. 2). Therefore, we should not fear questioning the assumed conclusions of
empirical evidence today. Man may just be wrong in how he concludes his
"facts" since he does not give priority to the revealed word of God.

4) If the phrase "the foundation of the world" has reference to the time of
the beginning, then the Hebrew writer says that all the "works" of the six
days of creation were finished, completed, at that time (Hebrews 4:3-4). That
includes man himself who Jesus said was "from the beginning of the creation"
(Mk. 10:6). This can only make sense when taking Genesis 1-2 as a literal
historical account. Man was created in the beginning of the creation, during
the works accomplished in the foundation of the world. This would encompass
the six days of creation. OEC simply cannot have man created at the
foundation of the world, from the beginning of creation. They cannot
reconcile their human "empirical observations" with the testimony of inspired
scripture. Are we to be surprised? Peter shows us not to give any ground to
such uninspired claims, but to stick with the actual truth of scripture.

I am sure everyone is stirred up now. What thinkest thou? What do the
scriptures say? What is your reading of them? Will they be our authority in
all things?

Marc Gibson

Marc said:

> To all,
>
> After an absence let me chime in again for a moment.

[snip]

> 3) We must give no ground to the assumed conclusions of observed empirical
> evidence. I will not trust man's, or my own, wisdom above the stated
> wisdom of God. The apostle Peter defied the assumed conclusion of
> empirical evidence in 2 Peter 3:3-6 when some used uniformitarian
> conclusions to question the Lord's promises. Some are using the same
> tactic to question the divine testimony of the creation and flood that
> Peter endorsed by inspiration. Peter refuted their claims based on
> empirical evidence ("all things continue as they were from the
> beginning of creation") by pointing them to the supernatural acts of
> God that could only be truly verified by the word of God (v. 2).
> Therefore, we should not fear questioning the assumed conclusions of
> empirical evidence today. Man may just be wrong in how he concludes his
> "facts" since he does not give priority to the revealed word of
> God.

[snip]

I have a simple question.  If the Bible said the sky was green,
would it be improper to look?

Tracy P. Hamilton

Hi, Marc.

Glad to see you back. :-)

Tracy beat me to it. But here's my question:

When you get real sick, do you read the Bible or go to your doctor
and, perhaps, take advantage of the latest in medical technology if
needed?

And how certain are you that the earth revolves about the sun:
Absolutely certain? Fairly certain? Probably so? A good chance?
Maybe? Don't think anyone really knows for sure?

My questions are simply meant to get you to think about the fact -
the FACT, Marc - that we do indeed learn things about the real world,
completely independently of the Bible, which over time we realize are
*certain*. You continue to mention the concept of the fallibility of
human wisdom, which every single person here agrees with you about.
But you are neglecting to take into account the fact that there are a
great many things we know with certainty about the real world: The
sun rose this morning. The earth is shaped like a ball. Disease can
be cause by microorganisms. Microorganisms exist (not something
generally known before just a couple of hundred years ago). Atoms
exist. Atoms can be split, and this can produce engergy. Atoms can be
fused, and this can produce energy. There is the chemical table of
elements.

So you can play around with the fallibility concept all you want, it
does not in any way imply that we cannot know anything about the real
world.

That brings me to SN1987A. SN1987A is one of these "certain" things
known about the real world. We can observe it in the sky. We can
measure its ring, and knowing its absolute radius from having
measured the light travel time from the stellar explosion we thus
know the distance from earth. There is absolutely no question about
this. This is as certain as knowing that Mars has two moons and Venus
has none. You have not pointed out any kind of mistake. You can
pretend that there is a mistake, but you have not actually produced
one. You could equivalently say, there must be some kind of mistake,
there is the possibility, however remote, that the earth really has
more than one moon.

This kind of equivocation only lasts so long. It does not last long at
all with people who are familiar with the relevant information and who
have no strong bias against accepting the truth. (Indeed, I myself had
a strong bias against accepting the truth, and the truth led me to
overcome my bias anyway.)

Additionally, you have failed to take into account Davis Young's
point that theologians are widely varied on biblical interpretation,
whereas astronomers are unanimous regarding SN1987A (just like they
are unanimous regarding the fact that the earth revolves around the
sun instead of the other way around).

So to boil it down, Marc, instead of merely pleading *in general*
that human wisdom is fallible, what you must do is actually show that
all of the extensive information by which we literally see the
antiquity of the universe, not just SN1987A but all of the millions
of galaxies beyond SN1987a that we observe from even farther in the
past, is - somehow - all wrong.

I look forward to your demonstration.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene

FYI----Rod  I went back and did some research and here is my results.

Job 2:1 - 'angels' in NIV is Hebrew beni haelohim [1] = sons of God.
Job 3:9 - 'morning stars' in NIV is Hebrew kokabi neshephu = evening or
twilight stars
Job 38:7 - 'morning stars' in NIV is Hebrew kokabi boqer = dawn stars and
'angels' in the NIV, is Hebrew beni elohim = sons of God.  kokabi boqer may
indeed refer to stars in their helical rising.  Apparently old earth
creationists (OEC, at least some) believe Job 38:7 indicates that stars
existed before the creation of the earth as compared to Genesis 1:9-19,
creation days 3-4 which indicates the earth was created before the Sun,
Moon, and stars.  However, the Greek LXX offers no support for the
interpretation that stars existed before the foundation of the earth in Job
38:7.  'When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud
voice' [2]  There is no reference to when the stars were made relative to
the earth in the LXX so you could not use Job 38:7 in the LXX to establish
that the passage teaches stars existed prior to the creation of the earth.

Following the interpretation that the upper waters separated during creation
day 2 in Genesis 1 was for the purpose of establishing light bearing bodies
in the heavens on creation day 4, some stars may have been formed on
creation day 2 but the text is silent on this subject.  See Psalm 136:5-9,
the order here supports the order in Genesis chapter 1.  Namely the Sun,
Moon, and stars were created after the earth was made.  Note Genesis 1:7,
what was the mass of these upper waters?  Was it 1 g or 10^100 g?  Again the
Biblical text is silent.  If this mass of waters was converted into the Sun,
Moon, and stars on creation day 4 (and perhaps some stars during days 2-3),
it is no surprise to see comets in or solar system.  No Oort Cloud or Kuiper
belt is needed to replenish long-period and short-period comets in the
ecliptic today.  Also large molecular gas clouds like M16 the Eagle nebula
and M42 in Orion is no surprise.  The mechanics would involve converting H2O
into a large amount of H/He.  Young earth creationists (YEC) have not worked
out such details.  If other elements were mixed into the waters (C/H2O,
Fe/H2O, etc) described in Genesis 1:6-7, then during the events of creation
day 4, many other elements may have formed in the stars, mixed with H/He.
Some stars may have formed with higher C/H or Fe/H ratios and others may
have formed with lower C/H or Fe/H ratios.  Again this would be no surprise.

I would call this Genesis nucleosynthesis (GN) in contrast to BBN in the big
bang model.  This hypothesis has the potential to damage BBN and stellar
evolution theory, namely the r-process and s-process for the origin of
heavier elements.  With GN, you don't need billions and billions of years to
slowly build up heavier elements in the stars after the big bang.  Some
elements may be forming today in the stars from the r-process and s-process,
but to claim all elements heavier than H, He, and some primordial Li formed
via the r-process and s-process over billions and billions of years would be
foolish in my opinion.

The Hebrew for stars in Job is kokabi or kokabim.  Here is a list of all the
references in Job where the word occurs:

Job 3:9, 9:7, 22:12, 25:5, and 38:7 [3]

Psalm 136:5-9 clearly supports the order of creation as described in Genesis
1:6-19.  For YEC, this should be the preferred interpretation in my opinion.

YEC also need to examine the issue of when the first supernovae took place
relative to the events of Genesis Chapter 3 and come to some agreement on
this.  If the first supernovae pre-date Genesis Chapter 3, the stellar realm
could have an immense age and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics operated before
the Fall of Man.  The first supernovae would likely take place during the
4th day of creation week.  This could involve some type of c-decay or time
dilation effect operating during the creation week or perhaps both.  If the
first supernovae originated after the Fall of Man, then the stars are very
young and so is the entire universe.  The Hubble time collapses and so does
the 4.56 billion years old earth model.  The way I see it, this issue could
place constraints on the YEC group and also OEC group.

References

1.	Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Wuttermbergische Biblelanstalt Stuttgart,
1973.  All references to Hebrew from this text.
2.	Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Zondervan, p. 693, 1970.
3.	Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, WM. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co, p. 932, 1970.

FYI-----Rod

Implications of Non-Constant Light Velocity by Lambert Dolphin

...Question: Regarding the recent research acknowledging the possibility
that the speed of light has not always been constant, someone wrote to me:
"By the way, there's a pretty easy way to demonstrate that the speed of
light has been constant for about 160,000 years using Supernova 1987A."
Comment from Barry Setterfield: It has been stated on a number of occasions
that Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) has effectively
demonstrated that the speed of light, c, is a constant. There are two
phenomena associated with SN1987A that lead some to this erroneous
conclusion. The first of these features was the exponential decay in the
relevant part of the light-intensity curve. This gave sufficient evidence
that it was powered by the release of energy from the radioactive decay of
cobalt 56 whose half-life is well-known. The second feature was the
enlarging rings of light from the explosion that illuminated the sheets of
gas and dust some distance from the supernova. We know the approximate
distance to the LMC (about 165,000 to 170,000 light years), and we know the
angular distance of the ring from the supernova. It is a simple calculation
to find how far the gas and dust sheets are from the supernova.

Consequently, we can calculate how long it should take light to get from the
supernova to the sheets, and how long the peak intensity should take to
pass.  The problem with the radioactive decay rate is that this would have
been faster if the speed of light was higher. This would lead to a shorter
half-life than the light-intensity curve revealed. For example, if c were 10
times its current value (c now), the half-life would be only 1/10th of what
it is today, so the light-intensity curve should decay in 1/10th of the time
it takes today. In a similar fashion, it might be expected that if c was 10c
now at the supernova, the light should have illuminated the sheets and
formed the rings in only 1/10th of the time at today's speed. Unfortunately,
or so it seems, both the light intensity curve and the timing of the
appearance of the rings (and their disappearance) are in accord with a value
for c equal to c now. Therefore it is assumed that this is the proof needed
that c has not changed since light was emitted from the LMC, some 170,000
light years away.

However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these
features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c WAS
equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion. Furthermore,
according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any
instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical
vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current value
of c now. This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been
slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only travelling at
1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at
which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of the
rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire event
in slow-motion. The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times
faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner
than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for sure
because of the slow-motion effect...

August 12, 1999. October 21, 1999. January 23, 2000. February 14, 2000.
February 24, 2000. August 17, 2000.

	Implications of Non-Constant Velocity of Light
	by Lambert Dolphin
	Web Pages: http://ldolphin.org/
	Email to Barry Setterfield: Email forwarding to Barry Velocity of
    Light Home Page Lambert Dolphin's Library

Rod:

So what means would Lambert and Setterfield propose to falsify this
hypothesis?

That's what I thought.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:25 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

FYI-----Rod

Implications of Non-Constant Light Velocity by Lambert Dolphin

[snip]

Good question but note what Todd Greene claimed about SN1987A -


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 7:50 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Thoughts to Ponder

---stuff deleted rjb----

That brings me to SN1987A. SN1987A is one of these "certain" things
known about the real world. We can observe it in the sky. We can
measure its ring, and knowing its absolute radius from having
measured the light travel time from the stellar explosion we thus
know the distance from earth. There is absolutely no question about
this. This is as certain as knowing that Mars has two moons and Venus
has none. You have not pointed out any kind of mistake.

 ---stuff deleted rjb----

I don't think Todd's claim is as bullet proof as he believes and has
represented.  That is all I am pointing out-----Rod

Rod:

The idea that SN1987A is 168,000 LY away from earth CAN be falsified.

The idea that the speed of light changes everywhere in the universe at the
same time, thus preventing the detection of changes in the speed of light,
cannot be falsified.  Can't you see the difference?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Good question but note what Todd Greene claimed about SN1987A -


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 7:50 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Thoughts to Ponder

---stuff deleted rjb----

That brings me to SN1987A. SN1987A is one of these "certain" things
known about the real world. We can observe it in the sky. We can
measure its ring, and knowing its absolute radius from having
measured the light travel time from the stellar explosion we thus
know the distance from earth. There is absolutely no question about
this. This is as certain as knowing that Mars has two moons and Venus
has none. You have not pointed out any kind of mistake.

 ---stuff deleted rjb----

I don't think Todd's claim is as bullet proof as he believes and has
represented.  That is all I am pointing out-----Rod

Tom apply your reasoning to the big bang event.  How large was 3D space
after the big bang?  Remember this is not the inflation epoch-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Rod:

The idea that SN1987A is 168,000 LY away from earth CAN be falsified.

The idea that the speed of light changes everywhere in the universe at the
same time, thus preventing the detection of changes in the speed of light,
cannot be falsified.  Can't you see the difference?

tom

Rod:

My belief that the universe is very old is not dependent on the behavior of
the BB.  I have very little knowledge of the speculations surrounding the
BB, and I don't doubt that much of what cosmologists claim about the BB is
speculation.  That does not change the fact that when discordant
observations are made the BB theory will be modified or abandoned.  The
question is, what discordant observations could be made regarding cDK?  That
was the question we were discussing, before you changed the subject, as you
so frequently do.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Tom apply your reasoning to the big bang event.  How large was 3D space
after the big bang?  Remember this is not the inflation epoch-----Rod

No Tom, what would falsify the claim that the big bang happened *everywhere*
and the universe has no *center*?  Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking believe
this at Cambridge University.

These are tenets of the big bang theory you accept based upon secular
science.  If secular science can accept such beliefs without showing how
they can be falisied, why do you hold the Setterfield cDk to this standard?
Bottom Line:  Todd Greene was making claims that were clearly not factual
about SN1987A.  Todd Greene did not have a measuring stick and measure the
velocity of light when SN 1987A exploded.  The whole argument is based upon
an assumption, and the assumption is not *truth*, it is just an assumption.
It may be a simple assumption, but still an assumption.  Assumptions may or
may not be true----Rod

Rod:

You're kidding, right?

"What would falsify the claim that the big bang happened *everywhere*"?

If there was nothing material except "the Singularity," then there wouldn't
be any "anywhere" except where the singularity was, would there?  Rod, what
would falsify the statement, "the definition of 'obfuscate' is 'to darken,
obscure'"?  Since the Singularity is "everything material that exists," then
where else would anything happen?

None of this has anything to do with whether the BB is true or not.  That's
an open question.  All I'm saying is that as an OEC, I don't have any
problem with it, so long as speculation stays within the realm of what is or
might be real (i.e., not "imaginary time"), and acknowledges that since
there is nothing material outside the singularity the cause of the BB cannot
be material (that is, the cause of the BB has to be spiritual).  If I were a
YEC I probably wouldn't have any problem with it either.  But that's your
problem, not mine.

As far as the question of whether the universe has a center, I don't know
enough to speculate, but I cannot see why that question would be important
either to an OEC or a YEC.  Does the earth have to be at the *center* of the
universe for God to love us?  Doesn't it magnify the grace of God for the
human race to be on a cosmic backwater somewhere?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

No Tom, what would falsify the claim that the big bang happened *everywhere*
and the universe has no *center*?  Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking believe
this at Cambridge University.

These are tenets of the big bang theory you accept based upon secular
science.  If secular science can accept such beliefs without showing how
they can be falisied, why do you hold the Setterfield cDk to this standard?
Bottom Line:  Todd Greene was making claims that were clearly not factual
about SN1987A.  Todd Greene did not have a measuring stick and measure the
velocity of light when SN 1987A exploded.  The whole argument is based upon
an assumption, and the assumption is not *truth*, it is just an assumption.
It may be a simple assumption, but still an assumption.  Assumptions may or
may not be true----Rod

Tom, please stick with Todd Greene's claims about SN1987A.  Do you agree
that Todd -

	a. Did not have a measuring stick when SN1987A exploded so he did
not measure the velocity of c when this event took place.
	b. Todd is marketing an assumption as *truth* which may or may not
be correct.

----Rod

Rod:

OK, I will stick with Todd Greene's claims.

a.  The hyperfine structure constant as measured in spectral data from
SN1987A is identical to what is measured on earth today.  c then must equal
c now.

b.  I would not claim to be as certain as Todd is about SN1987A, but Todd
can defend himself.  Rod, what's the alternative?  Why don't you just claim
that God, at every instant, miraculously causes us to see objects that are
more than 10,000LY away?  Why bother with something like cDK?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Tom, please stick with Todd Greene's claims about SN1987A.  Do you agree
that Todd -

	a. Did not have a measuring stick when SN1987A exploded so he did
not measure the velocity of c when this event took place.
	b. Todd is marketing an assumption as *truth* which may or may not
be correct.

----Rod

Your argument sidesteps Setterfield proposition, namely that we would see
things in proportion to c today, not as c may have been when SN1987A
exploded if c had slowed down, so again you are using an assumption as
truth-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Rod:

OK, I will stick with Todd Greene's claims.

a.  The hyperfine structure constant as measured in spectral data from
SN1987A is identical to what is measured on earth today.  c then must equal
c now.

b.  I would not claim to be as certain as Todd is about SN1987A, but Todd
can defend himself.  Rod, what's the alternative?  Why don't you just claim
that God, at every instant, miraculously causes us to see objects that are
more than 10,000LY away?  Why bother with something like cDK?

tom

Rod:

It is a fact, not an assumption, that c is one of the factors in the FSC.
It is a fact, not an assumption, that the FSC in the spectrum from SN1987A
is identical to the FSC measured on earth today. It is a fact, not an
assumption, that if distant quasars rotated any faster they would fly apart,
and if cDK were true they would have to be rotating thousands of times
faster than they are.  It is a fact, not an assumption, that if cDK were
true "gravitational lensing" would be seen to be less than predicted in the
most distant objects, but that effect is not observed.  It is a fact, not an
assumption, that Setterfield's hypothesis is ad-hoc, unscientific, insulated
and violates special relativity.  It is a fact, not an assumption, that
Setterfield has never published one observational thread of evidence in
support of cDK except erroneous figures for crucial measurements of c in the
distant past.  I am side-stepping nothing.  I have explained to you why I
provisionally reject cDK and why you should provisionally reject it, at
least until Setterfield has published a way of determining whether or not
it's true, which he has not.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

Your argument sidesteps Setterfield proposition, namely that we would see
things in proportion to c today, not as c may have been when SN1987A
exploded if c had slowed down, so again you are using an assumption as
truth-----Rod

I cannot address everything in your list but what you said here [It is a
fact, not an assumption, that c is one of the factors in the FSC.]

Look at what cDk is saying here -

Norman and Setterfield also believe that photon energy, (hf), remains
constant over time even as c varies. This forces the value of (hc) to be
constant in agreement with astronomical observations. What is measured
astronomically are light wavelengths, not frequency. The consequence of this
is that h must vary inversely with c and therefore the trend in the
constants containing h are
restricted as to their direction. The Fine Structure constant is invariant.
An increasing value of h over time affects such things as the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle.....

cDk according to Setterfield does not change the FSC value.

According to such a position you would not expect to see the FSC change in
SN1987A.  Also any arguments based upon spin rates or pulsar spin rates must
who how cDk subtracts angular momentum from these objects.  M1 for example
the Crab pulsar, spins at 1/30 second.  What mechanism in cDk would remove
the angular momentum so astronomers could see a rapid change in pulsar spin
rate as c slows down?  It still appears that your *facts* are based upon
certain assumptions.  Setterfield may have cooked some constants but others
are doing it too (OEC folks for example)

-----Rod

> FYI-----Rod
> Implications of Non-Constant Light Velocity by Lambert Dolphin
> ...Question: Regarding the recent research acknowledging the possibility
> that the speed of light has not always been constant, someone wrote to me:
> "By the way, there's a pretty easy way to demonstrate that the speed of
> light has been constant for about 160,000 years using Supernova 1987A."
> Comment from Barry Setterfield: It has been stated on a number of
> occasions that Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) has
> effectively demonstrated that the speed of light, c, is a constant. There
> are two phenomena associated with SN1987A that lead some to this erroneous
> conclusion. The first of these features was the exponential decay in the
> relevant part of the light-intensity curve. This gave sufficient evidence
> that it was powered by the release of energy from the radioactive decay of
> cobalt 56 whose half-life is well-known. The second feature was the
> enlarging rings of light from the explosion that illuminated the sheets of
> gas and dust some distance from the supernova. We know the approximate
> distance to the LMC (about 165,000 to 170,000 light years), and we know
> the angular distance of the ring from the supernova. It is a simple
> calculation to find how far the gas and dust sheets are from the
> supernova.
>
> Consequently, we can calculate how long it should take light to get from
> the supernova to the sheets, and how long the peak intensity should take
> to pass.  The problem with the radioactive decay rate is that this would
> have been faster if the speed of light was higher. This would lead to a
> shorter half-life than the light-intensity curve revealed. For example, if
> c were 10 times its current value (c now), the half-life would be only
> 1/10th of what it is today, so the light-intensity curve should decay in
> 1/10th of the time it takes today. In a similar fashion, it might be
> expected that if c was 10c now at the supernova, the light should have
> illuminated the sheets and formed the rings in only 1/10th of the time at
> today's speed. Unfortunately,

FOR WHO?

> or so it seems, both the light intensity curve and the timing of the
> appearance of the rings (and their disappearance) are in accord with a
> value for c equal to c now.

And with relativity!  Relativity is not just speculation, unlike cDK.

> Therefore it is assumed that this is the proof needed
> that c has not changed since light was emitted from the LMC, some 170,000
> light years away.
>
> However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these
> features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c
> WAS equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion.

OK.

> Furthermore,
> according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any
> instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical
> vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current
> value of c now.

OK.

> This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been
> slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only travelling at
> 1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at
> which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of
> the rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire
> event in slow-motion.

OK

> The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times

MAY HAVE???????  C'mon, man, compute the rate.

> faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner
> than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for
> sure because of the slow-motion effect...

I suggest maybe a little more testing is in order.

and what the heck is this?

from http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/report.html#5d

"CONCLUDING COMMENTS

When all the best-fit date curves are extrapolated back in atomic time, they
each show essentially the same features. This family of curves is
illustrated in Figure V. From them, the collapse in the run rate of the
atomic clock appears to have started roughly 600 million years ago in atomic
time. Up until then the run rate followed a slightly sloping straight line.
The rollover to the collapse seems to have been complete about 50 million
years ago atomically and the final steep linear collapse set in. These dates
correspond to important events in the fossil record. It was about 600
million years ago on the atomic clock that the Cambrian fossils recorded a
burst of life geologically. It was also about 50 million years ago,
atomically, that the present geological era, the Cenozoic, commenced with
its mammal dominance. This report has dealt mainly with physics and
astronomy. In the second report, it is hoped to demonstrate that c decay has
supplied the mechanism guiding natural selection into some of the changes
recorded by these fossils and explore other implications in astronomy,
geology and biology."

This is Setterfield's writing on Lambert Dolphin's web page.

Such is the "wisdom of man" (scientific creationism, an
incoherent hodge-podge) that members of the Church of Christ are
listening to all too much.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod,

What function do they propose for the speed of light?

Give me one, and I can show that it won't work.

Can you get something from these guys, or waffling?

Tracy P. Hamilton