----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
<Roderick Bernitt>
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?


>
> 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.

WRONG!  Wavelengths change when the speed of light goes
through materials with different indices of refraction.  The
energy is invariant in this process, and E=hf, and so the
frequency is invariant.  That is why frequencies are what
is detected.

> 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 them.  Did you check their calculations?

Did you think for yourself, to see if what they said was
even self consistent?

Did you see my early message on this?

[goes back and checks]

Yes you did.  All you said was
"Tracy you bring up some interesting points.  One of which I care to examine
here." and left the others to be conveniently forgotten, perhaps?

The consistency one repeated:

"8.  Now for the most serious error:  the changes that are given
by Setterfield himself are inconsistent with *each other*.  Let
the change be done by a scale factor s, and prime denote the
changed value from what is now observed.

"hc is a constant." Therefore h'=hs,
and c'=c/s.
"E=mc^2 is a constant" Therefore m'=ms^2.
"c2=1/(QR)"  Q'=Qs and P'=Ps
"Atomic radii are a constant".
The formula for a bohr radius is constant*Q*h^2/(me^2).
Is r'=r?  Let us see: r'=constant*Q'*h'^2/(m'*e^2)=
constant*Qs*h^2*s^2/(ms^2*e^2) =
rs

r'=r only if s=1, so c'=c, i.e. unchanged.  What a wonder!

In another place:
"The equation reads 'c = FW.' If 'W' is constant and 'c' is varying,
then 'F' must vary in proportion to 'c'"

Why is W constant and F varying, when light going through
a nonvacuum changes W and F is not changed?

Oh well, perhaps he can change more constants of the universe.
I suggest that instead of us discussing these points with
Setterfield, he submit his work to Phys. Rev., and post the
pungent remarks he gets.  That should be entertaining."

> 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 show how cDk subtracts angular momentum from these objects.

If it is just speed of light decay, what possible effect would it have on
angular velocity or moment of inertia?  Perhaps that is one of the
big faults with cDK.  Perhaps *you* could do it, if you wish to
devil's advocate (perhaps more appropriate than you realize!) cDK.

> 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?

Umm, that is *YOUR* problem.  *WE* aren't saying it was going faster,
needing something to slow it down at *just the same rate at which the
speed of light decays*.

>  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)

I can see the referee's report from a creationist reviewer:

"I can't recommend Dr. Einstein's paper for publication,
as it is based on assumptions such as the constancy
of the speed of light."

Tracy P. Hamilton

I said [In fact, the big bang model does explain why c is limited to 3 x
10^10 cm/sec vs.]

I mean the big bang theory does not explain why c is measured today at 3 x
10^10 cm/sec vs. some other rate that could be possible (remember Martin
Rees believes in a multiverse so c could have many different values in some
other universe created after inflation epoch)-----Rod

Rod:

Let's deal with one set of "cooked constants" at a time.

If c were slowing, we would see events which happened when c was faster in
"slow motion."  Slowing-down c is just like slowing down a video tape,
because things can't appear to happen any faster than the speed of light
allows.  If the Crab pulsar appears to be spinning at 30 rps, but c was
11,000,000 times faster when the light was actually emitted (which is what
Setterfield claims it was immediately after creation), then the actual speed
of the pulsar was 330,000,000 rps.  I don't know, so you can tell me if it's
possible for an object to spin that fast without flying apart.

As for the FSC, your reply precisely encapsulates the problem with
Setterfield's hypothesis.  Everything changes at once, so there is no way in
principle to detect the change.  That's an un-falsifiable hypothesis.  It's
an insulated theory.  It's ad-hoc.  It's non-scientific.  Whatever
observation appears to disprove his theory Setterfield is simply going to
claim that something else has changed at exactly the same time everywhere in
the universe (a violation of special relativity) so that the discordant
observation is neutralized.

As I stated before, it would involve fewer assumptions simply to state that
God miraculously causes us to see objects which are too distant for us to
see.  If you want to believe something that can't be proved or disproved,
believe that.  At least we wouldn't be mucking-around with c, h, the fsc,
radioactive decay and everything else, the way cDK requires.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] SN 1987A-certain?

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
show 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

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> I said [In fact, the big bang model does explain why c is limited
> to 3 x 10^10 cm/sec vs.]
>
> I mean the big bang theory does not explain why c is measured today
> at 3 x 10^10 cm/sec vs. some other rate that could be possible
> (remember Martin Rees believes in a multiverse so c could have many
> different values in some other universe created after inflation
> epoch)-----Rod

Rod,

I typed in a reply earlier, but the server went down and I lost it.
In the mean time Tracy has covered the points I wanted to mention.
In the lost post I also pointed out that neutrinos were dectected at
about the time supernova 1987A was seen.  Netrinos have little or no
mass and travel close to or exactly at the speed of light (if they
are truely massless).  These were the first neutrinos to be detected
from any object further than the sun, and were predicted from
supernova theory.  The fact that they were dectected at about the
same time as the light from Supernova 1987A was seen proves that they
travel very close to the speed of light.

Perhaps you may wish to propose some mechanism that explains how
neutrinos also slowed down with the purported slow down in light.  I
look forward to seeing your details on the theory of weak nuclear
forces.

I don't see the relevance of what Marin Rees said, we are talking
about the universe we are in, not about some other possible and
unobservable universes which may or may not have different values of
c.  Likewise, just because we don't currently understand why c is the
value it is, doesn't mean it's been changing.  There is no, nada,
niet, zip, evidence for it's change, certainly not since SN 1987A.

What you are saying is complete fantasy, and may I also say speaking
as a Christian, you are bringing ridicule to Christianity.  With that
kind of nonsense, how can anybody take seriously arguments against
say abortion by people who talk complete nonsense, or who are
associated with such people.

Christopher M. Sharp

Tom, your list of items does not appear to be *facts* at all but rather
interpretations of nature based upon other assumptions.  The behavior of
'constants' in nature in the face of decreasing c (whether past or present),
seems to depend upon how the math is worked and how the assumptions are
made.  There could be other models possible especially when you realize that
explaining the origin of physical law and physical constants from the
cosmological singularity has not been worked out in detail as yet.  May be
string theory will do it like a Grand Unified field theory, may be not.  So
claiming that certain physical constants must behave a certain way during
decreasing c, seems for me to be more assumptions than *fact* and that
includes gravitational lensing (G is a constant too.)

Also if you examine the electromagnetic force as a wave, at what velocity
would the wave function collapse?  Is the wave function limited only to the
velocity of c as measured today?  I think not Tom.  In fact, the big bang
model does explain why c is limited to 3 x 10^10 cm/sec vs. 3 x 10^50 cm/sec
or some other faster velocity.  The Special Theory of Relativity is an
assumption which is beatufil and simple, but still an assumption and to
extrapolat this theory back *billions* of years thru time, is just that, an
assumption, not a *fact*------Rod

Thank you Tracy and Tom for your insights.  I still don't see how
Setterfield cDK changes the angular momentum of a pulsar (which is what
needs to happen to alter the pulsar spin rate).  Setterfield cDK argued for
change in radioactive decay rates but not pulsar spin rates which is a
different mechanism.

Anyway here is something for you folks that weakens all of your arguments in
my opinion.  I see you both avoided the question about when the wave
function of the EM force collapses, i.e. what is the upper limit to the
velocity of c before the wave function disappears or collapses?  The answer
to this question demonstrates that c could travel >> present velocity and is
not limited to its present behavior----Rod
I find OEC folks arguing for constant c in the universe since the beginning
(billions of years ago at least), these arguments also depend upon other
assumptions which are not *fact*.  Even secular scientists are examining
other models where the constants and physical law we see in nature could be
quite different in other universes created after the inflation epoch.  If
our universe ever did have a decreasing value for c (past or present), other
constants of nature may not be affected the way some models have been
proposed and other models may still yet be possible.  I don't argue for
Setterfield cDK but the hypothesis has caused to me to examine some claims
and realize that there is more to the story of c traveling at 3 x 10^10
cm/sec then we know-----Rod
ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Just six numbers : the deep forces that shape the universe
Authors: Rees, Martin Journal: Just six numbers : the deep forces that shape
the universe / Martin Rees. New York : Basic Books, c2000.  Publication
Date: 00/2000

A brief review was done in the August 2000, Astronomy magazine on this book.
ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Before the beginning. Our universe and others Authors: Rees, Martin
J.
 Journal: Before the beginning. Our universe and others, Publisher: Reading,
MA Addision-Wesley, 1997  Physical description 291 p. Foreword by Stephen
Hawking "Helix books" ISBN0201151421
 Publication Date: 00/1997

Christopher, what mechanism(s) explains how neutrinos travel at or close to
c in the vacuum?  I suspect you must have the equations all worked out based
upon your response----Rod

Rod:

YOUR QUOTE:  I still don't see how
Setterfield cDK changes the angular momentum of a pulsar (which is what
needs to happen to alter the pulsar spin rate).  Setterfield cDK argued for
change in radioactive decay rates but not pulsar spin rates which is a
different mechanism.
END QUOTE

cDK does not change the spin rate.  It changes the *apparent* spin rate.
For cDK to operate and the spin rate to be what it *appears* to be, the
*actual* spin rate must have been (according to Setterfield) 11,000,000
times what the *apparent* spin rate is.  In other words, impossible.

YOUR QUOTE:  I see you both avoided the question about when the wave
function of the EM force collapses ...
END QUOTE

I do not understand the question ... not a problem with your formulation
necessarily; you've just outrun my knowledge of physics (and you don't have
to run very fast to do that).

YOUR QUOTE:  I find OEC folks arguing for constant c in the universe since
the beginning
(billions of years ago at least), these arguments also depend upon other
assumptions which are not *fact*.
END QUOTE

Beg pardon, Rod, but these arguments do not depend upon other assumptions.
They depend upon the *absence* of other assumptions--viz., the assumption
that it is possible for c to change--which is the assumption upon which your
possibility depends, and for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

YOUR QUOTE:  If
our universe ever did have a decreasing value for c (past or present), other
constants of nature may not be affected the way some models have been
proposed and other models may still yet be possible.
END QUOTE

I used the assumptions (there is no proof at all) stipulated by Setterfield,
which you also quoted, that these other constants *must* have changed in
order to make things work out--i.e., FSC the same, total amount of energy
same, gravitational mass same, etc.  It's all a bunch of interlocking
circles, perfectly consistent because whenever Setterfield needs something
to change he just waves his cDK magic wand!

How about this one, Rod.  I propose that c has actually *increased* over
time, and that light cannot have traveled from SN1987A in a mere 168,000
years.  I propose that it actually took 168 million years, and that the
universe is not 15 billion years old but 15 trillion years old.  I propose
that the mechanism for the travel of photons through space is a bunch of
tiny invisible unicorns, and that these unicorns absorb energy from the
photons they are carrying in direct proportion to the distance traveled and
the brain wave activity of Henry Morris, causing them to travel faster and
faster over time.  Can you prove me wrong?

Rod ... how much is this worth to you?

tom

Tom, your thoughts only serve to demonstrate that c at 3 x 10^10 cm/sec
today is not predicted by the big bang and tinkering by Martin Rees and
others is undermining the claim that certain constants have not changed in
billions of years.  Perhaps they could change but in ways even Martin has
not dreamed of.

Yes providing good evidence is called for but please keep in mind that
according to Genesis 1:14-19, it was God's purpose that star light be
observable on earth.  How God did that is unanswered in the Bible.

I believe the wave function may collapse if c was an infinite
velocity-----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher, what mechanism(s) explains how neutrinos travel at or
> close to c in the vacuum?  I suspect you must have the equations
> all worked out based upon your response----Rod

Rod,

According to the standard theory neutrinos have no rest mass, so the
momentum is given by

p = E/c (1)

where E is the energy, which can be measured directly.  This also
applies to photons and any other particles which have exactly zero
rest
mass energy and travel at exactly c.  More detailed theories and
observations suggest that neutrinos have very small but non-zero rest
mass, with values a few 100,000 times less than that of an electron,
in which case the relativistic formular for the momentum is

p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^) (2)

where m is the rest mass and v is the velocity.  The energy can be
found from E = mc^2, but

E = pc^2/v (3)

hence

E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (4)

Here v is very close to but not exactly equal to c.  From
observations we saw the neutrinos arrived at about the same time as
the light from SN 1987A, so v is at least very close to c, and E can
be measured directly.  Whether formulae (1) or (4) are valid, does
alter the fact that the neutrinos travelled about 168,000 light years
at essentially the speed of light, and c hasn't changed from the
other arguments.

BTW, why do you base your religious beliefs on a model of the
universe which is clearly wrong, specifically a universe less than
10,000 years old which contradicts what is observed?  Not only that,
but contradicts the laws of physics that you believe were created by
God.

Christopher M. Sharp

Marc to Tracy,

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

Hypothetical questions get us nowhere in long run. Tell me where the Bible
says the sky is green, and we will talk.

If you are suggesting that the Bible is has errors and contradictions in it,
then we have problems in other areas, namely the inspiration and inerrancy of
the Scriptures. It appears to me that we have folks on this list from every
end of the spectrum on this question, and it makes for a confusing
discussion. We do not all share the same foundational principles of faith in
God and His word. Thus, we will not all arrive at the common answers on
origins with these differences unresolved.

Marc

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Marc Gibson wrote:
> Marc to Tracy,
>
> You asked...
> >>I have a simple question.  If the Bible said the sky was green,
> would it be improper to look?<<
>
> Hypothetical questions get us nowhere in long run. Tell me where
> the Bible says the sky is green, and we will talk.
>
> If you are suggesting that the Bible is has errors and
> contradictions in it, then we have problems in other areas, namely
> the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. It appears to me
> that we have folks on this list from every end of the spectrum on
> this question, and it makes for a confusing discussion. We do not
> all share the same foundational principles of faith in God and His
> word. Thus, we will not all arrive at the common answers on
> origins with these differences unresolved.
>
> Marc

Marc,

Perhaps a better example would be that according to Ussher the
universe is only 6000 years old, yet you can look up on a clear dark
night at the right time of year in the northern hemisphere and see
the great galaxy in Andromeda, which is about 2 1/2 million light
years away.  The Bible does not of course say when the universe was
created, but a literal interpretation says it was created in 6x24
hours.  Clearly this interpretation is wrong from direct observation.

Incidentally, in all versions of the Bible I've seen Lev. 11:23 says
insects or creeping things with wings have four legs, no such
creatures exist, so that is wrong.  There are direct contradictions
between KJV and NIV, and between various passages in Kings and
Chronicals describing the same events, so which version of the Bible
is inerrant?

Christopher M. Sharp

Hello Todd,

You asked...

>>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?<<

Both. I always need food for the soul, even when physically sick, and the
spiritual discernment that the Biblical principles give me. Doctors have been
known to suggest "alternative methods" that are far out of their expertise
and practice of medicine. Some of these may be based on unBiblical principles
and unfit for a Christian to follow in practice and philosophy. God's
priniciples guide me through every area of life. No, the Bible is not a
medical manual, but it can warn me about certain philosophies and wisdom that
infects many realms of study to the harm of people in soul and body. Medical
technology is wonderful, but it can be applied wrongly. God gives me
principles to help be aware of such.

>>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?<<

Very certain. But I am also certain about the origin of the sun on the fourth
day of the literal week of creation. Does that make some of you laugh? Why?
Is the testimony of the Creator to be trashed because of the use of present
day observations to assume things about the past? There are things that
science can teach us today, but there are some things that it has no business
speaking to -- such as origins. This is the realm of the Creator and His
supernatural work. He placed the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens for man
to see and use. That includes SN1978A. I cannot explain in my finite wisdom
and context everything about that, but I do know what the Creator said about
origins. I will leave the rest to Him and not assume that I can know
everything about the matter. I am not ashamed of this faith or His word as
strange as this may seem to some.

You make certain definite statements about SN1978A, but that is only from
present observations in the context of our limited understanding of the whole
context of the history of the universe. It cannot factor in unknown
variables, such as supernatural creation, and a Creator who can make stars to
be seen "since the creation" (Rom. 1:20). I made a scriptural argument that
no one has yet answered that shows man's creation "at the beginning" "at the
foundation of the world." Scriptural concerns keep me from granting you all
that you have concluded about SN1978A. There may be more to it all THAN MEETS
THE EYE (kindly emphasis). This is my point, friends.

Marc

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Marc Gibson wrote:
> Hello Todd,
>
> You asked...

[SNIP]

> >>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?<<
>
> Very certain. But I am also certain about the origin of the sun on
> the fourth day of the literal week of creation. Does that make some
> of you laugh? Why?

How can you be certain that your interpretation of Genesis is
correct?  What about Lev. 11:23, do insects really have four legs?

> Is the testimony of the Creator to be trashed because of the use of
> present day observations to assume things about the past?

Seeing SN 1987A and many other phenomena in other galaxies is not an
assumption about the past, we can actually see the past directly.  You
are of course making an assumption that your interpretation of Genesis
is the only true and correct one.

> There are things that
> science can teach us today, but there are some things that it has no
> business speaking to -- such as origins.

What right have you or anybody else to judge what business science has
or has not to investigate anything, aside perhaps any investigations
that impinge on moral issues, such as faetal research etc.?  In 1903
you saw the same attitude some people had against flying, because God
didn't give man wings.  God gave us brains!!!

> This is the realm of the Creator and His
> supernatural work. He placed the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens
> for man to see and use. That includes SN1978A. I cannot explain in
> my finite wisdom and context everything about that, but I do know
> what the Creator said about origins.

Nor can many scientists, including myself explain everything, but even
with our incomplete knowledge, it's quite clear the universe is more
than 10,000 years old, and SN 1987A clearly shows that it's at least
168,000 years old.  We can explain some things, we can explain why
stars explode etc.  That's where YECism falls flat on it's face, it
can't explain these observed facts, whereas science can.

> I will leave the rest to Him and not assume that I can know
> everything about the matter. I am not ashamed of this faith or His
> word as strange as this may seem to some.

Why not use the brain God gave you to think through this?

>
> You make certain definite statements about SN1978A, but that is only
> from present observations in the context of our limited
> understanding of the whole context of the history of the universe.

We don't need to know the whole history of the universe, only the last
168,000 years or so, and quite clearly the light and the neutrinos
travelled to the earth during that period of time.

> It cannot factor in unknown
> variables, such as supernatural creation, and a Creator who can make
> stars to be seen "since the creation" (Rom. 1:20).

So are you now implying the creation of light in transit?  The problem
with that is that we can see exploding stars that according to the
creation of light in transit argument never existed, which is like
Goss's argument of omphalos.  Creation of light in transit implies
that God is deceptive as He created a big lie, namely the appearance
of a creation which never existed, i.e. for this case a star that
exploded, but in fact never really existed.

> I made a scriptural argument that
> no one has yet answered that shows man's creation "at the beginning"
> "at the foundation of the world." Scriptural concerns keep me from
> granting you all that you have concluded about SN1978A. There may be
> more to it all THAN MEETS THE EYE (kindly emphasis). This is my
> point, friends.
>
> Marc

You are suffering from a classic case of bibliolatry, i.e. making the
Bible your idle and putting your concept of the Bible above what we
can see of God's creation visible through a telescope.

Christopher Sharp

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Tom, your list of items does not appear to be *facts* at all but
> rather interpretations of nature based upon other assumptions.  The
> behavior of 'constants' in nature in the face of decreasing c
> (whether past or present), seems to depend upon how the math is
> worked and how the assumptions are made.  There could be other
> models possible especially when you realize that explaining the
> origin of physical law and physical constants from the cosmological
> singularity has not been worked out in detail as yet.

Show us your other models that can explain why we can see distant
galaxies in a universe less than 10,000 years old, and explain how
these are better than "secular" science.

> May be
> string theory will do it like a Grand Unified field theory, may be
> not.  So claiming that certain physical constants must behave a
> certain way during decreasing c, seems for me to be more assumptions
> than *fact* and that includes gravitational lensing (G is a constant
> too.)
>
> Also if you examine the electromagnetic force as a wave, at what
> velocity would the wave function collapse?  Is the wave function
> limited only to the velocity of c as measured today?  I think not
> Tom.  In fact, the big bang model does explain why c is limited to
> 3 x 10^10 cm/sec vs. 3 x 10^50 cm/sec or some other faster velocity.
> The Special Theory of Relativity is an assumption which is beatufil
> and simple, but still an assumption and to extrapolat this theory
> back *billions* of years thru time, is just that, an assumption, not
> a *fact*------Rod

The special and general relativities have been verified to many
decimal places, they are not assumptions.  Also, for the case of SN
1987A, you don't have to extrapolate back billions of years, only
about 168,000 years, and clearly by direct observations, the laws of
physics in the Large Magellanic Cloud are the same as here.  This is
not an assumption, this is a fact.

Christopher Sharp

Hi, Marc.

First of all, I wish to point out that the direct and first question
regarding simply the fact of whether or not the universe and earth are
ancient is not a question about the authority of the Bible, as you
stated earlier. In fact, it is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy itself
that is the motivation for examining the question, because where you
have an interpretation of the Bible that happens to imply something
about the real world this in turn means that it is possible to actually
go examine the real world to check things out directly. This is not just
true in the context of the creationism discussion, it is true in other
areas as well.

Second, thank you for acknowledging that you take advantage of medicine
and medical technology and that you are very certain that the earth
revolves around the sun. What this means is that you agree with me that
despite the general principle of human fallibility with regard to
examining the real world, there is the complementary general principle
that it is possible for us to learn real things about the real world
and we do in fact do so.

You write:

     Is the testimony of the Creator to be trashed because of the
     use of present day observations to assume things about the
     past? There are things that science can teach us today, but
     there are some things that it has no business speaking to --
     such as origins. This is the realm of the Creator and His
     supernatural work. He placed the sun, moon, and stars in the
     heavens for man to see and use. That includes SN1978A. I
     cannot explain in my finite wisdom and context everything
     about that, but I do know what the Creator said about
     origins. I will leave the rest to Him and not assume that I
     can know everything about the matter. I am not ashamed of
     this faith or His word as strange as this may seem to some.

     You make certain definite statements about SN1978A, but that
     is only from present observations in the context of our
     limited understanding of the whole context of the history of
     the universe. It cannot factor in unknown variables, such as
     supernatural creation, and a Creator who can make stars to
     be seen "since the creation" (Rom. 1:20). I made a
     scriptural argument that no one has yet answered that shows
     man's creation "at the beginning" "at the foundation of the
     world." Scriptural concerns keep me from granting you all
     that you have concluded about SN1978A. There may be more to
     it all THAN MEETS THE EYE (kindly emphasis). This is my
     point, friends.

I understand your scriptural concerns, and they should be discussed
further, because - just as an example - I already showed how the "Open
Letter" authors took Psalm 33 out of context and tried to make it teach
things that it clearly did not teach. You state that you "know what the
Creator said about origins," but the problem may be that you also
"know" many other things about origins which the Creator did *not*
"say."

But I want aspects of the fact of the antiquity of the universe, as
exemplified through the example of SN1987A, to be very clear to you. In
my discussions with YECs, I find that typically, because of the
influence of groups like the ICR and certain other people in the COC
such as Marion Fox who continue to propagate discredited material years
and years after having had the problems with it pointed out to them,
YECs simply don't understand that the fact of the antiquity of the
universe is as clear to us as is the fact that the earth revolves around
the sun.

I grant that the antiquity of the universe is not as clear to *you*. But
what I want you to understand is that this exclusivistic attitudes
expressed by the authors of the "Open Letter" is clearly inappropriate.
When people say they accept the fact that the universe is ancient (and
correspondingly, that the earth is ancient), they are not doing it
*because of* having some kind of argument over the authority of the
Bible. They do it because it is simply a fact of the real world, and to
refuse to accept it proves that they are not honest people. *For those
who know* they know that they cannot personally claim to be truth-
seekers while refusing to acknowledge the truth that they have become
aware of at the same time. *For them* they know that they would turn
themselves into hypocrites if they did this.

Those who promote exclusivist division over this issue *while refusing
to dig into the relevant details* in genuinely open discussion with
those they disagree with are thus clearly in the wrong, and this is my
point, friend.

Beyond this point regarding the wrongness of the exclusivistic attitude
expressed by many YECs in the COC, there is, of course, the other point
about the fact of the antiquity of the universe itself.

What I am telling you about the beautiful example of SN1987A itself is
that here we have the case of observing a star explode, and this
explosion we know by direct measurements occurred approximately 168,000
years ago.

Now if you wish to claim that God created the universe only 6,000 years
ago and then created "light in transit," then I want you to understand
the direct implication of this claim: The progenitor star (catalogued as
Sk -69 202) never really existed, but was simply an illusion in the sky;
the stellar explosion itself never really happened and it is merely an
illusion in the sky, simply being "apparent energy" from an event that
never really happened. Indeed, the entire universe outside of our Milky
Way galaxy, all of the millions of galaxies, that we observe today,
right now, is an illusion, not one bit of it ever having actually
existed, all of these events we observe never having actually occurred.
In fact, this would also apply to the vast majority of our own Milky Way
galaxy as well (since the Milky Way is something over 100,000 light-
years across, which puts most of it well beyond a 6,000 or 10,000 year
radius from earth).

You might take my previous paragraph as me trying to ridicule your
position. But, to the contrary, Marc, I am but pointing out a direct
implication of your position. However - and here I'm going to "step
into" an epistemological consideration - I would myself be willing to
agree with you if you could produce evidence for this proposition. I
know there is this YEC argument regarding God's creation of a "fully
functioning universe" and that in creating a universe fully functioning
it was incumbent on God to create a universe with the appearance of age.

There are some flaws with this argument.

First of all, I simply point out to you that old earth creationists and
theistic evolutionists both teach that God created a fully functioning
universe. They simply agree with the time frame that is actually
observed.

Second, God could indeed have created a fully functioning universe
without it having the appearance of having been around before this
creation time. I don't understand why YECs apparently think this is
such a strong argument, because it is actually a *non sequitur*. Let's
take the (typical) example of an adult human being created
instantaneously. In examining this human being, we would find several
things seemingly odd about him. For example, he would have absolutely
no scars anywhere on his skin. No indication of any broken bones. No
chipped teeth, and, in fact, no wear and tear on his teeth whatsoever.
His fingernails would be uncut and without wear. Under microscope, his
hair (and other parts of his body) would show no growth patterns. That
reminds me... If we were to go over to an instantaneously created tree
and cut it down, we would find the curious aspect of it having no growth
rings. And I could start talking about the fossils of dead organisms in
the ground that wouldn't be there.

Now, if you wish to make the argument that God created the universe and
he literally created the universe, not only fully functioning but also
with a completely self-consistent appearance of having been around for
billions of years, then my further response to that would be:

If you wish to argue that the evidence itself is irrelevant, that *no
matter what the evidence about the real world really is* you don't care
about it because your mind is made up and so you will not allow the
evidence to have any bearing on the matter at all for you, then you have
retreated into full subjectivism. With respect to what we actually
observe about the real world regarding the real world, I have to
acknowledge to you that if you genuinly believe that the evidence is
completely irrelevant, then the argument - both yours and mine - are
lost. You yourself have been saying that we should not be trying to
argue that everything is subjective, but if it is, then it is for you as
well as it is for me, and there is nothing any less subjective about
biblical interpretation either. I might just as well be a member of the
Greed Orthodox Church as a member of the Church Of Christ, or a Hindu,
for that matter, since everything is subjective and there is no real
basis by which to judge the "reality" of things.

But I'll stop here and see what details of your view you are really
proposing.

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

My claim that:

     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 are now attempting to find a flaw in my claim:

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

You write:

     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
     SN1987A 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.

Later on, however, you write:

     If our universe ever did have a decreasing value for c (past
     or present), other constants of nature may not be affected
     the way some models have been proposed and other models may
     still yet be possible. I don't argue for Setterfield cDK but
     the hypothesis has caused to me to examine some claims and
     realize that there is more to the story of c traveling at
     3 x 10^10 cm/sec then we know.

First of all, Rod, I thank you for bringing up the one and only YEC
argument against SN1987A, which is that SN1987A is based on
the "assumption" of uniform lightspeed (i.e., a "uniformitarian
assumption"). In my discussion with him a few months ago, COC
preacher Allan Turner raised exactly this same argument. What I
explained to him, and what I will explain to you, is that this
argument is entirely wrong because a uniform lightspeed is what
astronomers observe throughout the universe at the present time. Thus
a uniform lightspeed is *NOT* assumed but observed. Thus, my claim
that SN1987A directly disproves YEC merely by showing that the
universe has been around for at least 168,000 stands unscathed.

I see that you end up actually distancing yourself from this
discredited "hypothesis" of lightspeed decay (to your credit; though
I must point out that this is not the first time you've raised a YEC
argument only to subsequently state after several posts that you
don't support the argument), so I am confused as to why you would
raise the argument in the first place as a legitimate criticism of
SN1987A having occurred about 168,000 years. Why do you raise YEC
arguments that you yourself do not believe are correct? When you
raise the YEC argument, you should be up front about the fact that
you yourself hold it in question, and simply want to see what others
think about it. To present it in any other way leaves people like
Marc Gibson with the mistaken initial impression that, "Oh, look at
this, here's a good YEC argument against the antiquity of the
universe," only to turn around later and say, "But I don't really
believe it myself."

I wasn't going to get into a discussion of a whole slew of
theoretical constants that would have to change in conjunction with
lightspeed, and when I first wrote this sentence I wrote a
parenthetical statement, and it prompted me to write another
parenthetical statement, and then I had to say that... Well here's
what I ended up writing: (And indeed they certainly *would* have to
change, because otherwise Adam and Eve themselves would have
been "crispy critters" if lightspeed was million of times faster
6,000 years ago; it is just such flaws as these that prompted
Setterfield to start proposing changes to other "constants"; the
gigantic problem that Setterfield and other YECs who propose this
have is that when you start changing constants these have "cascading
effects" so that in order to keep the universe together and have a
habitable earth you have to start changing all kind of things;
needless to say, Setterfield's ideas have gone absolutely no where;
can anyone say "crackpot idea"?) So, Rod, if you wish to work on
developing huge theoretical models that have absolutely no
observational motivation or verification, you are welcome to do so.
Indeed, it could actually turn out to be relevant for modeling
alternative universes in a "multi-verse" model, but I have to tell
you it's not relevant to *this* universe, and in the context of the
present discussion on YEC it is this universe we are concerned with.

But besides theoretical considerations regarding lightspeed and
changes in lightspeed, I would simply make the points that others
have already been making.

You, Rod, pointed out the "slow motion" effect, without thinking
through the implications of it. Tom Couchman, for example, went on to
point out that "millisecond pulsars" are observed to spin so fast
right now that if you reverse an assumed slow motion effect you get
pulsars spinning so fast that they would just fly apart.

This slow motion effect would also apply to processes like decay
curves measured for radioactive material produced by supernovae. What
you failed to consider is that *the more distant the observed event,
then the more pronounced the slow motion effect would be.* Thus, if
lightspeed suffered any significant decay in the past, what
astronomers would observe would be *different* radioactive decay
curves in supernovae, depending on the distance from earth.
Supernovae, being what they are, can be observed from immense
universe-spanning distances, and astronomers have observed dozens of
supernovae in galaxies around the universe, so if there was any decay
in lightspeed this would already have been observed.

In fact, Rod, astronomers observe a uniform lightspeed. Thus, uniform
lightspeed is *observed* and *not assumed*. (I would appreciate if
you would inform Allan Turner of this, since I explained it to him in
two or three different ways, and he continued to claim that uniform
lightspeed was just a "uniformitarian assumption" even after I
explained to him why this claim was inapplicable.) I'm sure others
more qualified than myself can produce at least another half a dozen
good examples of observing uniformity instead of "slow motion varying
with distance," but since you yourself have already expressed the
fact that you don't support the argument of lightspeed decay, should
anyone bother?

I shall continue to state that our direct observation today of
SN1987A having occurred about 168,000 years ago is an explicit and
obvious disproof of the idea that the universe is no more than about
10,000 years old, because it is, and this is not based on an
assumption but is based on direct observations, just as I have said.
Right now we literally observe the antiquity of the universe. It's
not based on uniformitarian assumptions, despite the false claims of
YECs. And, just to be obvious, I point out again that SN1987A in the
Large Magellanic Cloud is merely a tiny fraction of the immense span
of time that is observed. 168,000 years is simply a very tiny lower
limit. With the millions of other galaxies that we observe in the
universe, and their corresponding distances from earth, without
knowing precisely how old the universe is, we still can see clearly
that the universe has been around for billions of years.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene

FYI, I received this joke from a friend of mine who is Jewish.  Something
light and not heavy but *I'll be back*-----Rod

> Subject: the new cantor

> The Rabbi was preoccupied with thoughts of how he was going to ask
> the congregation to come up with more money than they were expecting
> for repairs to the Shul building.  Therefore, he was annoyed to find
> that the regular Cantor was sick and a substitute had been brought
> in at the last minute.
>
> The substitute Chazan wanted to know which selections of the Tefilla
> to chant and which not to chant.  He also asked which melodies to
> sing, etc.
>
> "Here's a copy of the service," the Rabbi said impatiently.  "But
> you'll have to think of something to sing after I make the appeal
> announcement about the finances."
>
> During the service, the Rabbi paused and said, "My dear, worthy
> congregants, Brothers and Sisters, we are in great difficulty; the
> roof repairs cost twice as much as we expected, and we need $14,000
> more than we have allocated. Any of you who can pledge $100 or more,
> please stand up."
>
> At that moment, the substitute Chazan started singing "The Star
> Spangled Banner."
>
> And that is how the substitute Cantor became the permanent Cantor.

Marc and Rod:

Both of you have indicated your reluctance to acknowledge the accuracy of
observations, or the validity of the interpretations of observations, which
seem to indicate cosmic antiquity.  Your expressed reasons for doing so,
unless I misunderstand, are your perceptions of contradictions between
scripture and the notion of cosmic antiquity.

Guys, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  I believe that,
if we take the statements in scripture in the context that God gave them, we
will find them to be reliable.  If we take statements in scripture out of
the context in which God intended them to be used, we will reach false
conclusions.

I, at least, am prepared to discuss any texts of scripture which you wish to
raise which prevent you from accepting the notion of cosmic antiquity.  In
my response to the Open Letter, I pointed out several scriptural problems
with the propositions advanced by the Sixty-Seven.  IMHO, the responses to
my article have not addressed the *scriptural* arguments I made.  In other
words, my OEC position is not based on the fact that I reject scripture and
rely only on science.

So Marc and Rod, if there are texts of scripture that you wish us to
discuss, let's by all means do so.  I am not under the illusion that we will
agree on all these texts, but then SJ Gould and Richard Dawkins would kill
each other if you tried to confine them in the same room at the same time,
and they're both atheistic evolutionists.  If we can have a civil discussion
(which I am thankful to say this one has been so far) of both the scientific
and the scriptural issues involved we will come out of the process with more
informed opinions and (perhaps) respect for our polemical opponents.  Rod, I
intend to address your analysis of the Hebrew in Job 38 when I have a
chance.  Marc, you wrote:

I made a scriptural argument that
no one has yet answered that shows man's creation "at the beginning" "at the

foundation of the world."

Would you repeat that argument, please.

thanks,

tom

Tom, I will post some comments about science and the Bible later,
thanks----Rod

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Gibson
To: CreationProcessAge forum
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationProcessAge] Thoughts to Ponder

>
> Marc to Tracy,
>
> You asked...
> >>I have a simple question.  If the Bible said the sky was green,
> would it be improper to look?<<
>
> Hypothetical questions get us nowhere in long run.

Why not?  I want to examine your commitment
to your principles.  You say we can't use anything outside the
Bible (wisdom of man) to determine what it says.

Because if we can, then why not use it to resolve questions
about what the Bible means when there is a disagreement?

>Tell me where the Bible
> says the sky is green, and we will talk.

Insects have 4 legs or 6.  Do we look?

It does say something about that.  This is not hypothetical.

I wonder what kind of response I will get.

Maybe the kind "Properly interpreted,..."

[snip part about inerrancy]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Todd, you said [You, Rod, pointed out the "slow motion" effect, without
thinking through the implications of it. Tom Couchman, for example, went on
to point out that "millisecond pulsars" are observed to spin so fast
right now that if you reverse an assumed slow motion effect you get pulsars
spinning so fast that they would just fly apart.  This slow motion effect
would also apply to processes like decay curves measured for radioactive
material produced by supernovae. What you failed to consider is that *the
more distant the observed event, then the more pronounced the slow motion
effect would be.* Thus, if lightspeed suffered any significant decay in the
past, what astronomers would observe would be *different* radioactive decay
curves in supernovae, depending on the distance from earth. Supernovae,
being what they are, can be observed from immense universe-spanning
distances, and astronomers have observed dozens of supernovae in galaxies
around the universe, so if there was any decay in lightspeed this would
already have been observed.]

Todd, I do not endorse the Setterfield cDK model but I have thought through
some of the implications and the slow motion effect.  I believe you and
others in this newsgroup do not understand Setterfield position.  The pulsar
spin rate is related to the pulsar angular momentum and this measurement in
Setterfield cDK would be *conserved*, so the pulsar would never be spinning
at extreme rates as your extrapolation claims.  Conservation of angular
momentum plays a role.  Unless you could show how Setterfield cDK *alters*
the pulsar angular momentum, I don't believe your argument is valid.  The
pulsar angular momentum is related to dynamical time measurements in
Setterfield has gone to great lengths to show that dynamical time and atomic
time could be separate and independent, thus his cDK model does not have to
upset dynamical time phenomena (like pulsar angular momentum.)  Yes, you
could claim he has *cooked* various constants to allow for this, so be it.

The radioactive decay curve is based upon *atomic time* which is not the
same as pulsar angular momentum which is based upon dynamical time.
Settefield does deal with atomic time as measured in the atom.  Yes, the
radioactive decay rates for Type II SN at extreme distances would be very
different than those for SN 1987A, however due to slow motion effect, *all
observations* processed today would appear to be uniform relative to c
today.  The information processed would appear uniform to c today so the
radioactive decay curves and rates would appear to be similar for all Type
II SNs, no matter what their distance.  However, in reality when the stars
exploded, this would not be the case.

What is the bottom line here?  This is my opinion only Todd.  If someone
advocates cDK as ongoing today or in the remote past and c is a constant
*today*, you must work out various light curve correction factors (lccf) in
order to interpret stellar spectrums obtained today because the present
analysis of these stellar spectrums would need the lccfs to correctly
interpret them.  Of course, this has not been done by Setterfield or others
in the YEC group to my knowledge.  c as a simple constant makes the
interpretation of stellar spectrums much easier, cDK model(s) would muddy
the water significantly in my thinking but perhaps not be dead wrong,
thanks-----Rod

> Todd, you said [You, Rod, pointed out the "slow motion" effect, without
> thinking through the implications of it. Tom Couchman, for example, went
> on to point out that "millisecond pulsars" are observed to spin
> so fast right now that if you reverse an assumed slow motion effect you
> get pulsars spinning so fast that they would just fly apart.  This slow
> motion effect would also apply to processes like decay curves measured for
> radioactive material produced by supernovae. What you failed to consider
> is that *the more distant the observed event, then the more pronounced the
> slow motion effect would be.* Thus, if lightspeed suffered any significant
> decay in the past, what astronomers would observe would be *different*
> radioactive decay curves in supernovae, depending on the distance from
> earth. Supernovae, being what they are, can be observed from immense
> universe-spanning distances, and astronomers have observed dozens of
> supernovae in galaxies around the universe, so if there was any decay in
> lightspeed this would already have been observed.]

> Todd, I do not endorse the Setterfield cDK model but I have thought
> through some of the implications and the slow motion effect.  I believe
> you and others in this newsgroup do not understand Setterfield position.

We understand all too well.

> The pulsar
> spin rate is related to the pulsar angular momentum and this measurement
> in Setterfield cDK would be *conserved*,

How?  If what we see is slow motion, then it actually spun faster in the
past.

*How can an object spin faster and have the same angular momentum*?

> so the pulsar would never be spinning
> at extreme rates as your extrapolation claims.  Conservation of angular
> momentum plays a role.

Yeah, making another argument against Setterfield.  Thanks for
highlighting it.

> Unless you could show how Setterfield cDK *alters*
> the pulsar angular momentum, I don't believe your argument is valid.

See the above question and answer it.

> The
> pulsar angular momentum is related to dynamical time measurements in
> Setterfield has gone to great lengths to show that dynamical time and
> atomic time could be separate and independent, thus his cDK model does not
> have to upset dynamical time phenomena (like pulsar angular momentum.)
> Yes, you could claim he has *cooked* various constants to allow for this,
> so be it.

He has also made up different kinds of time.  Now, really!

Perhaps the universe is 15 billion years old in atomic time, and
6000 years in dynamical time, or is it vice versa?

[snip folderol]

> What is the bottom line here?  This is my opinion only Todd.  If someone
> advocates cDK as ongoing today or in the remote past and c is a constant
> *today*, you must work out various light curve correction factors (lccf)
> in order to interpret stellar spectrums obtained today because the present
> analysis of these stellar spectrums would need the lccfs to correctly
> interpret them.  Of course, this has not been done by Setterfield or
> others in the YEC group to my knowledge.  c as a simple constant makes the
> interpretation of stellar spectrums much easier, cDK model(s) would muddy
> the water significantly in my thinking but perhaps not be dead wrong,
> thanks-----Rod

What is dead wrong is to bring it up as if it had *any* credibility.

Tracy P. Hamilton