Tom said:

> 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.

Might I suggest that the time will also change so that it is back to
168,000 years for SN1987a?

Tracy P. Hamilton

FYI----Rod

It seems to me that at least for some OEC in this newsgroup, God's method of
getting starlight visible on earth as recorded in Genesis 1:14-19 calls for
the following possible harmonization between the Bible and modern science -

(Remember it was God's purpose for the light bearing bodies to be visible to
Adam and his children, see Genesis 1:17)

a. Accept the big bang model as real and a universe as old as the Hubble
time.  The big bang takes place before Genesis 1:1.

b. The big bang model cannot explain why c is a constant at 3 x 10^10 cm/sec
today but we know it has not changed as a constant since its origin, long
before the events of Genesis 1:3.

c. The wave function of light will collapse if c is an infinite velocity.
The possible range of velocities for c after the big bang ranges from
today's value of 3 x 10^10 cm/sec (or perhaps even slower) to the upper
limit for the wave function which is at or near an infinite velocity for c.
The range of possibilities is staggering, including a possible cDK universe
where c would never be a constant.  Some like Martin Rees may consider these
possibilities to be real based upon other universes that evolved after the
inflation epoch.

d. Assume that God would use a.-c. as the solution to getting starlight
visible on earth to Adam and his children when He told the children of
Israel it took only 6 days to make the universe - Exodus 20:11.

For a secular humanist, the job is much easier.  Just throw out the Bible
because it is a book of legends, myths, and ancient cosmogonies developed by
shepherds out watching their flocks. In my opinion, item b. is suspect
because of item c.  Item b. takes a measurement of 3 x 10^10 cm/sec today
for c supported by a limited time of historical observation and measurement
(since the 1600s with various error bars reported), then extrapolates this
rate back 15 billion years.  At some point, the extrapolation breaks down as
you approach and enter the cosmological singularity before the big bang.

For a YEC who accepts Relativity and Genesis 1:14-19 two interesting options
appear:

1.  The purpose of God in creating the heavens was to have starlight and
light from the heavenly bodies visible on earth.  This purpose does not
require that starlight be visible throughout the entire universe so that
what we see is pretty much generic throughout (Copernican principle.)  From
earth we can see M31 but perhaps at M31, the Milky Way galaxy is not
observable.  Not enough light-transit-time has elapsed in our galaxy for
that situation to be true.  This conflicts with the Copernican principle and
the Hubble time.

2.  All observations of spectral class O and B stars and OB associations
can be 1st generation dating back to the 4th day of creation week, no matter
where they are found.  Applying this to the Local Group galaxies, this
places a lower limit on the Local Group galaxy ages.  This lower limit can
be billions of years younger than the age assigned to the earth and the
Hubble time.  Because God's purpose in the creation week was to cause
starlight to shine upon the earth, we on earth could observe 1st generation
starlight from OB type stars, while in some of their host galaxies, these
same stars may have burned out long ago.

The Special Theory of Relativity is not an absolute.  Various experiments in
recent times may be showing cracks in it.  At the end of this section, there
is a report about the speed of gravity.  Interested folks can also see News
& Analysis, Unlimited Light, Scientific American 283(3):26-30, 2000.  "Those
misunderstandings center around the exact meaning of the famous statement
from Einstein's theory of relativity that 'nothing can travel faster than
the speed of light in a vacuum'.  Most optical physicists now agree that it
does not pertain to the group velocity, contrary to countless classroom
lectures and prominent textbooks.  Instead it applies to a more idealized
quantity called the 'front velocity'-the speed of the edge of a light pulse
that is abruptly, instantaneously switched on.", p. 26

This is the September 2000 issue and July 2000 Nature reported on this topic
also.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4153.asp
accessed 05/02/00
  God and the electron
  Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati talk to physicist Keith Wanser
  First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 21(4):38-41,
September-November 1999

    Dr Keith Wanser, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. is Professor of Physics
at California State University, Fullerton. His research interests lie in
fibre-optic sensing techniques, experimental and theoretical condensed
matter physics, and basic theories of matter...

Changing light speed

    Actually, light is a major specialist area for DR Wanser. So
what did he think of proposals that the speed of light has changed,
affecting radiometric dating as well as starlight travel-time? He replied,

  'It's not really widely known that standard quantum electrodynamics
predicts that the speed of light © is a function of the field strength, thus
changeable in principle. I've been playing around with this for years, and
while it's still heretical, some are starting to accept that c may not be
some eternally immutable thing.'[9]

  Keith was familiar with the theories (including recent work) of
Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, which have c declining from a
huge initial value. He said,

  'I don't go along with Barry's statements on this; he's
well-meaning, but in my opinion he's made a lot of rash assumptions. For
instance, he has a whole sequence of things that have to be held constant
just because his theory needs it, and he's certainly not come up with any
real equations explaining anything. There is not a lot of mathematical and
physical theory in his work, and there's a misunderstanding of many of the
things that would have happened if c had been 10^10 higher than what it is
today.'[10]

    From what Keith told us in more detail, it appeared that the
vocal humanist/skeptic critics of the Setterfield theory also needed some
lessons in high-level physics. He went on to say,

  'There are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is
changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the
Setterfield theory. It's an exciting field - a very bright colleague of mine
at the University of Colorado in Boulder has just completed some
little-known but fascinating work in this area.'[11]

  Keith affirmed that the confident public image of the 'certainty' of
the latest physical theories was a far cry from reality. He cited the 'big
bang' as an example, particularly lately with 'quantum cosmology'.

  'They have to get matter out of energy. An experimentally
established physical principle[12] shows that the only way you can do that
is to end up with equal amounts of matter and antimatter. But all around us
in the universe there is a huge preponderance of matter over antimatter.
Instead of abandoning the "big bang", they conveniently hypothesized a way
to violate scientific law, a fudge factor if you like. But this would make
protons unstable, so for years they've been looking in vain for even one
proton to decay. They haven't found it, and all indications are that the
proton must be stable for a period of time much larger than previously
thought possible, more than 1,000 billion billion times the assumed
evolutionary age of the universe.[13] This makes it completely impossible
for the "big bang" to work.

  'The problem hasn't been pointed out much; it's there, but it's
ignored in the hope that it will go away. The sad thing is that the public
is so overawed by these things, just because there is complex maths
involved. They don't realize how much philosophical speculation and
imagination is injected along with the maths-these are really stories that
are made up.'

  'People look at the sort of science that put men on the moon, and
they put these "big bang" theories in the same basket. They're unaware of
all the speculation and uncertainty (even rule-bending) there is in physical
theories of origins. It's a tragedy that evangelicals are being urged to
"re-interpret" the Bible because of the so-called "certain facts of science"
in this area. It is even more tragic that there are professing Christians
who are promoting evolutionary notions of the "big bang" and galactic and
stellar evolution as supporting the Bible and belief in God, while at the
same time denying literal six-day creation and the global nature of the
Genesis Flood.'

References and notes
  9. 'In fact,' said Keith, 'there are good reasons to believe that c
might be drastically altered in the near vicinity of an electron;
recognition of this might help to develop a viable theory for this
particle.' Return to text.
  10. As examples, assuming electron and proton mass and charge had
remained the same, Keith cited 'the almost complete disappearance of
electromagnetic radiation, magnetism, and magnetic effects, including
nuclear magnetic moments, Faraday's law, and the Lorentz force. Such
drastic effects would surely give a far different display of past events
recorded in starlight than we see today.' Return to text.
  11. New Scientist, July 24, 1999, pp. 29-32. Return to text.
  12. The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number. Return to text.
  13. New Scientist May 22, 1999, pp. 48-52. Return to text.

    Discover how you can have a personal relationship
    with the Creator of the Universe...

COPYRIGHT © 2000 Answers in Genesis Ministries International. All Rights
Reserved.

And to demonstrate that Dr Keith Wanser may not be blowing smoke -

Title: The Speed of Gravity-What the Experiments Say
Authors: VAN FLANDERN, TOM
Affiliation: AA(Meta Research)
Journal: American Astronomical Society, DDA meeting #30, #10.04 Publication
Date: 09/1998
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: © 1998: American Astronomical Society Bibliographic
Code: 1998DDA....30.1004V

Abstract

If gravity from the Sun propagated outward at the speed of light, the
transmission delay would progressively increase the angular momentum of
bodies orbiting the Sun at so great a rate that orbital radii would double
in about 1000 revolutions. Direct measurements of the directions of bodies
and their accelerations show that, while light of any wavelength undergoes
aberration as an immediate consequence of its finite speed, gravity has no
such aberration or propagation delay at a detectable level. Dynamical
studies of binary pulsars show that not only the position and velocity of a
source of gravity are anticipated without light-time delay, but
accelerations of the source are anticipated as well. Indeed, Newton's
universal law of gravity, to which general relativity is supposed to reduce
in the low-velocity, weak-field limit, requires infinite propagation speed
for gravity. These paradoxes are supposed to be explained by general
relativity's curved spacetime interpretation of gravity. Yet that
interpretation leads to new, equally unresolvable paradoxes, especially
acute in the case of binary black holes.

Moreover, that interpretation is in conflict with results from neutron
interferometer experiments. One resolution of the paradoxes is to interpret
the experiments literally, and from them deduce that the speed of
propagation of gravitational force is at least 2 x 10(10) c. Although this
is inconsistent with the Einstein interpretation of special relativity, it
is consistent with the Lorentzian variant of that theory. This subtle
alteration in our thinking about what is allowed under the laws of physics
has several beneficial consequences. Examples are the locality dilemma of
quantum mechanics and the question of the existence of singularities in
nature ("black holes").

Rod said:

> 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

Well, that does seem to be a problem for those proposing such concepts.
Maybe they should get their house in order first before announcing
such "profound" results.  After all, all it took on my part was reading
what they said and working through something for myself.

> and how the assumptions are
> made.

I used *their* assumption - decreasing c.

> 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.)

Quite clearly you do not understand the issues surrounding constants.  They
are
*observed* to be constant for a wide range of conditions.  That is why
they are called constants.

People do not know why some of them are the value they are, or whether
they are constant under conditions where we have no experience.

However, there is no problem with constants that I know of for something as
normal as even a supernova explosion, much less signal transit through
outer space.

> 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.

This makes no sense to me.  Please reword.

>  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

It is the results of these postulates that verifies the postulates as
not just assumptions, but facts to scientists.  Let me state the
enitirety of the assumptions (which can be justified from
experiments).

Postulate I. The laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems.

That is, F=ma on Earth and on Mars.  The last two probes notwithstanding,
we would not be able to get spaceships to Mars if this were not true.

Postulate II. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Supported by the Michelson-Morley expt.

From this was derived the fact that simultaneity of events is relative.
Having c decay change everywhere *at the same time* is a
*nonsensical* notion.

Special relativity is verfied by observation of time dilation, and the
operation of particle accelerators.  Then there was the Bomb.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Tracy you said about Setterfield cDK [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?]

I believe you are correct, Setterfield is attempting to show how atomic time
in the universe could be a very old clock while the dynamical time clock
(like pulsar spin rates or planetary orbital revolutions) shows 6,000-10,000
years of time IAW the book of Genesis-----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Tracy you said about Setterfield cDK [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?]
>
> I believe you are correct, Setterfield is attempting to show how
> atomic time in the universe could be a very old clock while the
> dynamical time clock (like pulsar spin rates or planetary orbital
> revolutions) shows 6,000-10,000 years of time IAW the book of
> Genesis-----Rod

Rod,

This is complete nonsense, which is falsified by direct
observations.  We can observe spectral lines in distant stars which
would depend on your "atomic" time, and we can observe eclipsing
binaries, pulsars and various other dynamical process that depend on
your "dynamical" time.  There is no evidence that the two times are
different from direct observations.

Let's face it Rod, the cult of YECism, and it seems to have the
properties of a cult, is as stone dead as flat earthism or
geocentricism, and your attempts to wriggle out of arguments by
bringing up yet more absurd arguments shows that people like you
are detached from reality and unable to think rationally.

The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
With such complete nonsence YECs are putting forward, no wonder
people toss out the Bible altogether.

Christopher M. Sharp

Couple of things:

For Rod:

I'm sorry I have not been able to communicate the point about pulsar spin
rates.  cDK has NO effect on pulsar spin rates at all.  None.  Today we
*observe* a spin rate on a pulsar of 30cps.  Suppose, however, that c today
is only 1/11,000,000 what it was when the light left the pulsar.  In other
words, suppose that Setterfield is right.  The change in c cannot be
observed, according to Setterfield, because c changes everywhere in the
universe at the same time.  However ...  the spin rate that we *observe* for
the pulsar--30cps--is not the spin rate that the pulsar had when the light
originally left it, traveling at the time the light originally left it at
11,000,000c.  OK?  I'm saying the *actual* spin rate and the *observed* spin
rate are different.  The *observed* spin rate is 30cps.  But we observe a
spin rate of 30cps because c has decayed to 1/11,000,000 the rate it had
when the light left the pulsar.  The *actual* spin rate is 30cps x
11,000,000, because cDK causes a "slow motion effect" in our *observation*,
not a speed-up or slow-down in the *actual* spin rate.  But we cannot
observe the *actual* spin rate because we cannot observe any light traveling
faster than c.  We can compute the actual spin rate by multiplying by the
decay rate of c, which gives us an *actual* spin rate of 330,000,000cps,
which we know to be physically impossible.  Therefore, c cannot have been
11,000,000c when the light left the pulsar.  In fact, there are other
pulsars which are observed to spin faster, and if one takes Setterfield's
curve back a few thousand years one gets a spin rate on some pulsars which
is impossible.  Ergo, c was not faster at any time in the past than it is
now.  That's the argument.

For all:

Setterfield does not, to my knowledge, propose actual varying rates in time,
although if c changes obviously variation in time is one observed result.
His entire agenda is to "solve the problem" of light traveling from distant
stars in 10,000 years of observed earth-time.  The point I have made is that
even if Setterfield is correct some phenomena, such as varve formation, are
not addressed by his theory.  Setterfield himself has made this point and
has urged YECs to abandon "flood geology" as an explanation for all
phenomena in the earth's crust, which is one reason many YECs have turned
against him.

Rod, here's an alternative to your YEC interpretation of creation.

1.  Genesis 1:1 does describe the creation of the universe, _ex nihilo_,
maybe using the big bang, maybe not.

2.  At the instant of creation described there God either: (a)  created all
stars and other heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon; or, (b)
created the processes (stellar evolution) which would produce all stars and
heavenly bodies.

3.  When the Holy Spirit arrives on the scene in Genesis 1:2, billions of
years have passed, and now the earth is ready for life.

4.  On day 4 God does not create ('bara') the sun, moon and stars _ex
nihilo_, but makes them available ('asah') for their intended purpose.

5.  Thus, the "problem" of light travel from the stars is solved, the
"problem" of radiometric dating is solved, the "problem" of apparent stellar
ages is solved ... but the problems of getting to where we are today from
the first appearance of life in the fossil record remains.

6.  The statement that God created "heaven and earth, sea and all that is in
them" in six days is "observer-true" for human observers from the
perspective of the surface of the earth.  That is, everything that any
observer in Bible times might have seen was created/made available within
the six days.

Just a suggestion ...

tom

Christopher you said about atomic and dynamic time measurements [There is no
evidence that the two times are different from direct observations.]

Christopher I am surprised at this.  I showed you a list sometime ago not
posted to this newsgroup which clearly demonstrates that much data in our
solar system could be interpreted as indicating a much younger dynamical
time for the solar system than the radiometric ages of meteorites allow.
You must patch and patch to make your position work but the YEC will
continue to march on-----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher you said about atomic and dynamic time measurements
> [There is no evidence that the two times are different from direct
> observations.]
>
> Christopher I am surprised at this.  I showed you a list sometime
> ago not posted to this newsgroup which clearly demonstrates that
> much data in our solar system could be interpreted as indicating a
> much younger dynamical time for the solar system than the
> radiometric ages of meteorites allow. You must patch and patch to
> make your position work but the YEC will continue to march
> on-----Rod

Rod,

I don't have to patch and patch, as the ages of the universe, the
solar system and the earth being billions of years old is supported
by the facts.  Your fundy YEC cult, and lets be blunt, that's what it
is, contradicts the facts.  And yes, YECs will probably march on -
into oblivion, taking many ignorant people with them.  It's up to you
YECs to show not only where the age of the universe is wrong in being
billions of years old, but also show us how your "theories" are
correct instead.  Of course you have singularly failed to do so,
because you can't produce the evidence, just like a flat earther
can't produce the evidence that the earth is flat, can't explain why
a ship dissapears below the horizon, and can't explain an eclipse of
the moon.  Like flat earthism, YECism is a fantasy, and like flat
earthers, YECs use the Bible as their science textbook, yes, you can
use the Bible to support flat earthism, e.g. Matt. 4:8.

I seem to remember the data, and as far as I can remember, it was the
usual YEC material, shrinking sun arguments etc.  As I've said before
just because we don't know the details of say Jupiter's formation,
doesn't invalidate it's age of about 4.6 Gyr, and certainly can't
make it less than 10,000 years old.

Christopher M. Sharp

Tom you said [1.  Genesis 1:1 does describe the creation of the universe,
_ex nihilo_, maybe using the big bang, maybe not.]

Tom, could Genesis 1:1 be nothing but an introductory statement followed by
the details later?  Just a thought----Rod

Christopher, I am not going to repeat myself.  Your answers were mere
circular reasoning to my list attempting to make it look like everything
fits with a 4.6 Gyr meteorite date.  By the way, just how many meteorites
have been radioisotope dated?  How many are documented?  How many have much
younger cosmic ray ages?  Please stop the story telling here-----Rod

Rod:

Yes, Genesis 1:1 could be just an introductory statement, a "synopsis" of
the whole.

But in Genesis 1:2 the earth is there.  How did it get there?  Where, if not
in 1:1, does the Bible say?

Furthermore, "six days" cannot possibly begin until there is light AND the
light has been divided from the darkness.  So it appears to me that "the
heavens and the earth" are not included in the six days.  That goes back to
my statement about the "six days" stated by Moses being "observer
true"--referring to objects addressed from "day one" on, but 1:1 is not a
part of "day one."

What do you think?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

Tom you said [1.  Genesis 1:1 does describe the creation of the universe,
_ex nihilo_, maybe using the big bang, maybe not.]

Tom, could Genesis 1:1 be nothing but an introductory statement followed by
the details later?  Just a thought----Rod

I think if you examine ancient writings and ancient historical records, an
introductory clause for Genesis 1:1 seems to fit.  The Holy Spirit comes
upon the face of the waters to start the process of creating the earth, and
the universe.  The real problem Tom, is that the Hebrew uses the word 'yom'
coupled with the cardinal or ordinal numbers and waw consecutive clause
which shows it is all linked back to the introduction.  yom used with
cardinal or ordinal numbers in Hebrew, has only 1 meaning, a day as we see
it on earth.  Just look at the account of Abraham in Canaan taking his son
Isaac up to Mt. Moriah.  It was on day 3 he saw the mount.  Same here as in
Genesis 1----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

Rod:

Yes, Genesis 1:1 could be just an introductory statement, a "synopsis" of
the whole.

But in Genesis 1:2 the earth is there.  How did it get there?  Where, if not
in 1:1, does the Bible say?

Furthermore, "six days" cannot possibly begin until there is light AND the
light has been divided from the darkness.  So it appears to me that "the
heavens and the earth" are not included in the six days.  That goes back to
my statement about the "six days" stated by Moses being "observer
true"--referring to objects addressed from "day one" on, but 1:1 is not a
part of "day one."

What do you think?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

Tom you said [1.  Genesis 1:1 does describe the creation of the universe,
_ex nihilo_, maybe using the big bang, maybe not.]

Tom, could Genesis 1:1 be nothing but an introductory statement followed by
the details later?  Just a thought----Rod

Tom, Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews back in AD 90-93.

Q: Have you read what this 1st century Jew (who was raised a Pharisee) said
about the creation week?

Q: Have you read what he said about the flood of Noah? (local or global)

---Rod

Rod:

You stated:

The real problem Tom, is that the Hebrew uses the word 'yom'
coupled with the cardinal or ordinal numbers and waw consecutive clause
which shows it is all linked back to the introduction.  yom used with
cardinal or ordinal numbers in Hebrew, has only 1 meaning, a day as we see
it on earth.

Not correct.  Hosea 6:2 uses "yom shelishi," again same as Genesis 1.  There
is one other instance which I knew but which I cannot cite at this moment,
and there may be others; I have not had a chance to check completely.  But
the word "yom" is used in at least three different senses in the creation
account.

tom

Rod:

I have not read Josephus.  I have seen him quoted.  I thought he rejected a
literal 7X24 interpretation.

Whether he did or didn't, what does that have to do with us?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] for Tom Couchman

Tom, Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews back in AD 90-93.

Q: Have you read what this 1st century Jew (who was raised a Pharisee) said
about the creation week?

Q: Have you read what he said about the flood of Noah? (local or global)

---Rod

without me looking this up, is 'shelishi' a cardinal or ordinal number?
like 1, 2, 3, or 10, 17 or 5?  There are some 6,000 words or more in
Biblical Hebrew and the transliteration here escapes me (along with numerous
other words), thanks-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

Rod:

You stated:

The real problem Tom, is that the Hebrew uses the word 'yom'
coupled with the cardinal or ordinal numbers and waw consecutive clause
which shows it is all linked back to the introduction.  yom used with
cardinal or ordinal numbers in Hebrew, has only 1 meaning, a day as we see
it on earth.

Not correct.  Hosea 6:2 uses "yom shelishi," again same as Genesis 1.  There
is one other instance which I knew but which I cannot cite at this moment,
and there may be others; I have not had a chance to check completely.  But
the word "yom" is used in at least three different senses in the creation
account.

tom

No Tom, Josephus accepted the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest just like
most orthodox Jews do today.  I can provide specific quotes later.

His understanding of the creation week is similar to YEC today, including
order of events (sun and moon after the earth) and a global Flood of Noah.
I can only say that modern science has enabled folks to grasp the 'true'
meaning of the Bible today but folks like poor Josephus were not able to
read it correctly-----Rod

Hello Todd,

I hardly have the time to deal with every matter brought up, but I will make
mention of the most significant.

Since you brought up the appearance of age argument, I will admit that it is
indeed a necessary result of creative activity. When water was turned to wine
it had the appearance of being stored away until that time, as the master of
the feast erroneously concluded (John 2:1-10). When Jesus multiplied the fish
and loaves, the created product had the same appearance and function as that
which came through natural means. Examining Adam a year after he was created,
a doctor would have been hard pressed to date him only a year old without it
being revealed to him. The earth and universe was created fully-functioning.
Someone not knowing that would assume the beginning as being long before the
actual creation by using the presently observed processes and "winding back
the clock." That would make for errors then just as it has now.

I can observe the real world just as you can. What I am not prepared to do is
determine the ancient past without consulting the word of the creator as to
His supernatural activity. That does modify the conclusions I would come to
by naturalistic parameters alone. That does modify my conclusions about
SN1978A. There is more to consider that what meets the eye, and I am willing
to consider it and accept any conclusion that divine revelation requires. It
is objective truth by which I can know the reality of the natural and
spiritual realms.

Thanks,
Marc

"Yom Shilishi" means "day three" in Hosea and Genesis.  Identical usage.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

without me looking this up, is 'shelishi' a cardinal or ordinal number?
like 1, 2, 3, or 10, 17 or 5?  There are some 6,000 words or more in
Biblical Hebrew and the transliteration here escapes me (along with numerous
other words), thanks-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

Rod:

You stated:

The real problem Tom, is that the Hebrew uses the word 'yom'
coupled with the cardinal or ordinal numbers and waw consecutive clause
which shows it is all linked back to the introduction.  yom used with
cardinal or ordinal numbers in Hebrew, has only 1 meaning, a day as we see
it on earth.

Not correct.  Hosea 6:2 uses "yom shelishi," again same as Genesis 1.  There
is one other instance which I knew but which I cannot cite at this moment,
and there may be others; I have not had a chance to check completely.  But
the word "yom" is used in at least three different senses in the creation
account.

tom

okay, is the passage in Hosea literal day three or some symbolic meaning?
the context will show


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

"Yom Shilishi" means "day three" in Hosea and Genesis.  Identical usage.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

without me looking this up, is 'shelishi' a cardinal or ordinal number?
like 1, 2, 3, or 10, 17 or 5?  There are some 6,000 words or more in
Biblical Hebrew and the transliteration here escapes me (along with numerous
other words), thanks-----Rod

The meaning in Hosea is figurative.  That's the point.  "Yom" plus an
ordinal does not always mean a literal day.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

okay, is the passage in Hosea literal day three or some symbolic meaning?
the context will show


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

"Yom Shilishi" means "day three" in Hosea and Genesis.  Identical usage.

tom

i will check this out, thanks (hosea 6:2)----rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

The meaning in Hosea is figurative.  That's the point.  "Yom" plus an
ordinal does not always mean a literal day.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves YEC

okay, is the passage in Hosea literal day three or some symbolic meaning?
the context will show

Christopher and Tracy,

Christopher said,

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

My, my, how judgmental! And how insulting to one's expressed faith in the
Bible as the inspired word of God. I suppose the Jewish Scriptures were
Jesus' idol since He quoted them time and time again. Again we have the
notion that Biblical study is inferior to scientific study. If that is your
attitude, Christopher, then we have no common basis to discuss these issues.
Our differences lie much deeper.

And the constant suggestions that someone who would actually believe the
literal, historical prose of Gen. 1-2 as truth must not be using their brains
is insulting. I gave you a reason for my faith and you reject it. Why discuss
these matters with those who think you are foolish? Time to shake the dust
off.

Both of you seem to really have a thing for the "four-footed" insects. The
terminology of "going on all fours" is common in scripture to refer to
creeping things. It need not be pressed to indicate the exact number of feet
(four or more) used in the creeping. If a cow or dog lost a leg, or was born
with five legs, it would still be classed as a creature that "goes on all
fours." The passage in Leviticus is distinguishing flying insects from
creeping insects and thus the use of the common terminology for creeping
things. I am sure that this will not satisfy the minds of those who will
remain skeptical no matter what. When one reads the Bible looking for errors
instead of truth, such simple matters elude him. The Bible's inspiration and
inerrancy has stood the test of many skeptics and haters throughout the
centuries. I hardly think people of faith have anything to fear now.

If charges of bibliolatry, idolatry, and brainlessness continues, I will not
dignify it with a response. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom.
3:4).

Marc Gibson

Tom,

Thanks for your willingness to discuss the Scriptures seriously. That is not
the attitude of some on this list, unfortunately.

My argument was this...

>>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, during the works of
creation 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. Man is commonly
dated billions of years after this time period. The scriptures speak quite to
the contrary.<<

While you are at it, Tom, would you comment on Ex. 20:11, as to:
1) The use of the term "made" (asah) used here as a comprehensive term for
the entire creation, even those things said to have been "created" (bara). Is
this not evidence that "asah" and "bara" are equal, synonymous terms in the
context of the six-day creation?
2) The parallel pattern of the Sabbath week with the six days of creation and
one day of rest. Must not the basic pattern of the days of creation be equal
to the Sabbath week in being literal, sequential, and contiguous? Otherwise,
how could any pattern be established?

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher, I am not going to repeat myself.  Your answers were
> mere circular reasoning to my list attempting to make it look like
> everything fits with a 4.6 Gyr meteorite date.  By the way, just how
> many meteorites have been radioisotope dated?  How many are
> documented?  How many have much younger cosmic ray ages?  Please
> stop the story telling here-----Rod

Rod,

Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html,
and you will see that quite a few meteorites have been dated.  I
stand by what I say, as shown through empirical observations, the
universe is clearly very ancient, orders of magnitude more than your
miserly 10,000 years or so.  No circular arguments have been used,
check back again with Todd's arguments on SN 1987A.

As a Christian it is my duty to seek the truth, and to speak the
truth as far as is possible, clearly the great age of the universe is
the truth, and you have singularly failed to show that it is not
true.  All your arguments about c decay have been shown to be false,
the kind of nonsense YECs are putting out is false and known to be
false by many of the so called "professional" YECs or
creation "scientists" themselves.  They are a discrace to
Christianity, which they claim to belong to.

Christopher M. Sharp

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Marc Gibson wrote:
> Christopher and Tracy,
>
> Christopher said,
>
> >>You are suffering from a classic case of bibliolatry, i.e. making
> the Bible your idle [sic] and putting your concept of the Bible
> above what we can see of God's creation visible through a
> telescope.<<
>
> My, my, how judgmental! And how insulting to one's expressed faith
> in the Bible as the inspired word of God. I suppose the Jewish
> Scriptures were Jesus' idol since He quoted them time and time
> again. Again we have the notion that Biblical study is inferior to
> scientific study. If that is your attitude, Christopher, then we
> have no common basis to discuss these issues. Our differences lie
> much deeper.

Marc,

Sorry for being a bit harsh, but it's very hard to keep a straight
face with the kind of arguments you use.  Jesus of course didn't have
the benefit of modern knowledge.  He referred to, if I remember
correctly the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds.  As far as I
know, this is not the case, but at Jesus's time this wasn't known.
Biblcal study is quite separate to scientific study, and except for
moral things, and archeology in the Middle East etc., should be kept
separate.  Trying to make a science book a book on theology makes no
more sense than trying to make the Bible a science textbook.  Science
is the "how" things happen, theology is the "why" or "what purpose"
things happen.

> And the constant suggestions that someone who would actually
> believe the literal, historical prose of Gen. 1-2 as truth must not
> be using their brains is insulting. I gave you a reason for my faith
> and you reject it. Why discuss these matters with those who think
> you are foolish? Time to shake the dust off.
>
> Both of you seem to really have a thing for the "four-footed"
> insects. The terminology of "going on all fours" is common in
> scripture to refer to creeping things. It need not be pressed to
> indicate the exact number of feet (four or more) used in the
> creeping.

So you arbitrarily decide not to take literally correct 4 legged
insects, but you arbitralily decide to take 6x24 hours of creation as
literally correct.


> If a cow or dog lost a leg, or was born
> with five legs, it would still be classed as a creature that "goes
> on all fours." The passage in Leviticus is distinguishing flying
> insects from creeping insects and thus the use of the common
> terminology for creeping things. I am sure that this will not
> satisfy the minds of those who will remain skeptical no matter what.
> When one reads the Bible looking for errors instead of truth, such
> simple matters elude him. The Bible's inspiration and inerrancy has
> stood the test of many skeptics and haters throughout the centuries.
> I hardly think people of faith have anything to fear now.

It depends on what faith you are talking about, there is the faith in
God and Jesus, and there is the blind faith in making the Bible a
science textbook and ignoring the obvious contradictions between the
real universe, and what a fundamentalist literally interpret,
regardless of the sense, or lake thereof.

> If charges of bibliolatry, idolatry, and brainlessness continues, I
> will not dignify it with a response. "Let God be true, and every man
> a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
>
> Marc Gibson

Which is no doubt an out of context quote.

Christopher Sharp

Marc said:

> Christopher and Tracy,
>
> Christopher said,
>
> >>You are suffering from a classic case of bibliolatry, i.e. making the
> Bible your idle [sic] and putting your concept of the Bible above what we
> can see of God's creation visible through a telescope.<<
>
> My, my, how judgmental! And how insulting to one's expressed faith in the
> Bible as the inspired word of God. I suppose the Jewish Scriptures were
> Jesus' idol since He quoted them time and time again.

Actually, was it not Jesus who offended the Pharisees
and was put to death for violating the laws of the
Sabbath?  Certainly the Pharisees saw it as
improper respect for the law.

The Pharisees problem is that they put following the
letter of the law above all else.  That is not right.
Jesus said so quite clearly.

[snip]

> Both of you seem to really have a thing for the "four-footed" insects. The
> terminology of "going on all fours" is common in scripture to refer to
> creeping things.

This is too glib.  Please make a proper argument.

I looked up "goes on all fours" - it is mentioned a grand total
of two times int he RSV Bible, both in Lev. 11.  Looked up
fours - 4 times, all in Lev. 11.

> It need not be pressed to indicate the exact number of feet
> (four or more) used in the creeping.

Why is the exact number given, then in Lev 11:27?

Why does Lev 11:42 say:
"[Lev 11:42] Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or
whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth,
you shall not eat; for they are an abomination."?

Here *in the same chapter* it distinguishes between 4 and other
numbers.

> If a cow or dog lost a leg, or was born
> with five legs, it would still be classed as a creature that "goes on all
> fours."

It is used to exact *specification* of the type of animals allowed.

The context is in a rather *painstaking* list of what is allowed
and what is not.

Therefore your argument falls way short.

Of course, it is to be expected when somebody already
"knows" the answer.  That is a difficult thing to overcome,
no matter how sincere the effort.

> The passage in Leviticus is distinguishing flying insects from
> creeping insects and thus the use of the common terminology for creeping
> things.

WHOSE common terminology?  Do we go around saying
insects have 4 legs?  Do you?

Maybe the passages about creation are using the common terminology of the
times with respect to those things.

> I am sure that this will not satisfy the minds of those who will
> remain skeptical no matter what. When one reads the Bible looking for
> errors instead of truth, such simple matters elude him.

Then this should be a simple matter for you.

We will see if putting the blame on others is proper.

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Christopher,

You wrote...
>>So you arbitralily decide not to take literally correct 4 legged
insects, but you arbitralily decide to take 6x24 hours of creation as
literally correct.<<

It was not arbitrary, for I gave reasons for both from the context of
scripture itself.

You also wrote...
> If charges of bibliolatry, idolatry, and brainlessness continues, I
> will not dignify it with a response. "Let God be true, and every man
> a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
>
> Marc Gibson

>>Which is no doubt an out of context quote.<<

In the context, Paul is speaking of Jews who had the oracles of God but did
not believe. Their unbelief in the written revelation did not nullify the
truth of what God said. This principle would still apply to the context of
unbelievers in the Bible today. You really should not make comments on the
Biblical text and context if you are not going to take it seriously.

You questioned what kind of faith we are talking about. I'll let Paul tell
you -- "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17).
He also said that the live that he lived in the flesh he live by faith in the
Son of God (Gal. 2:20). Is it hard for you to maintain a straight face when
you read this?

Thanks,
Marc Gibson