Marc said:

> Tracy,
>
> You said...
> >>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.<<

> The Pharisees put their human traditions (doctrines and commandments of
> men)

Where do you think they got their doctrines from?

> above the teaching of the revealed law of God (Matt. 15:1-14). Jesus
> pointed people to the letter of the law and its authority - "Have ye not
> read" and "Not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all is
> fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). We will be judged by the revealed word of Jesus
> - Jesus said so quite clearly (Jn. 12:48).

Nothing about the letter of the law here.

No mention of any Sabbath incident here.

Mat 12. is all about it.

[Mat 12:1] At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath;
his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to
eat.

[Mat 12:2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your
disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."

Is observing the Sabbath a tradition of man?

[Mat 12:3] He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when
he was hungry, and those who were with him:

[Mat 12:4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the
Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were
with him, but only for the priests?

[Mat 12:5] Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests
in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?

Sure doesn't sound like advocating the letter of the law to me.

About the "Have ye not read" reference, I wonder have ye not read Matt. 12.
To me it seems like eisegesis at work to mention *other* scriptures
and *not* the one that is inconvenient for you.

Mark also has the story with the statement:
[Mark 2:27] And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man,
not man for the sabbath;

The observation of the sabbath was placed above any other consideration
by the Pharisees, because it was the law.  It was the law, wasn't it?

> Concerning Lev. 11 and the insects "going on all fours," I will grant you
> that the use is limited, but it indicates a common terminology,

If the use is limited, how can you make statements about
*common* terminology?  And whose common terminology
is it?  Is it ours, *because* it is in the Bible, and not in the
Bible because it was in their common terminology?
If it was the Hebrews common terminology, what did
they understand it to mean?

The problem of translating an idom I hope is apparent.

> for there is
> no evidence that the Jewish people went bonkers over this horrible
> "discrepancy."

The passage is a *description*, quite a detailed list,
 of what they could eat, and what they could not.  They
*understood* it.  Therefore the Jews had no problem.

Using your mode of reading scripture it would have to be read as
insects having 4 legs, making an ancillary statement
*about insects*.  The error is not in the Bible, but the
way it "has to" be read, according to some *men*.

> It was understood in the context it was used. The paragraph of
> vv. 20-23 is dealing with only insects and uses a general term for
> creeping.

It is dealing with insects, which all have 6 legs, and says they have 4.
It is merely your assertion that an explicit number in a rather explicit
chapter should not be taken as the actual number 4.

That said, it *may* have been a Hebrew idiom.

> Verse 42 is in a paragraph dealing with a variety of things, and therefore
> a more specific description of locomotion is necessary. Is this so hard to
> see?

The reference to the other number of legs is because "bugs" other than
insects (the 4 legged bugs) are included.  It could read as insect (4), and
other bugs.

By the way, saw a grasshopper today, and had to count the legs. 6.

> If you don't like me saying it, consider R. K. Harrison's explanation in
> the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (revised), vol. 2, p. 839:
>
> "INSECTS [Heb. seres ha op] (Lev. 11:20f., 23; Dt. 14:19); AV FOWLS THAT
> CREEP, CREEPING THING THAT FLIETH, FLYING CREEPING THINGS; NEB TEEMING
> WINGED CREATURES. The prescription in Dt. 14:19 prohibited for food 'all
> winged insects' as unclean, but the more detailed regulations of Lev.
> 11:20f. made a distinction between winged insects going on all fours,
> i.e., that move like quadrupeds,

How many legs do quadrupeds have?

> and those having 'legs above their feet.' This latter presumably
> referred to bending rear legs which were larger and higher than the
> corresponding forelegs. Such insects were regarded as suitable for food,
> and included species of locusts, of which the order Orthoptera is divided
> into more than forty."
>
> If this is not a reasonable resolution for you,

It is not.  You bring up a possibility.  One that now I look at the translated
texts again, is ambiguous, but I would grant you maybe even correct.

A resolution would be evidence for what the Hebrews understood going on all 4
to mean (if it was an idomatic expression).  That may never be known.

> then who is the one who
> already "knows" the answer? Indeed it is a hard thing to overcome no
> matter how sincere the effort.

I do not know the answer.

However, you are going to have much more difficulty arguing that
the passages referring to the motions and positions of the sun, earth
etc. are just idiomatic, and really refer to the way the solar system is.
There was nothing known that it could be an idiom *for*.

Tracy P. Hamilton

tom, please do not act like this.  I have stated my position clearly in the
Hosea 6:2 post.  No need to debate, for me it is a settled issue,
thanks----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Rod:

You're not going to answer my question, are you?  I asked, *first*, before
you started trying to distract everybody:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

You may ask for time to think about it or study the issue ... I don't have
any objection.  But if you can't answer this question, you can't address the
issue, and the only person who is wandering on this matter is you.  I'm
still intent on getting a response from you to this question.  I will
persist until you respond or admit that you are unwilling to respond.  We
are going to stick to the subject.

Marc, you too.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

tom, is Genesis 1:1-2:3 a record of creation that shows the whole *hosts*
are finished and completed?  If the answer is yes, you have your answer.
Also for others who are *theists*, this is not the God of the Bible.  Sounds
more like Cain in Genesis chapter 4.  Cain went off into the land of Nod
(land of wandering)----rod

Hi, Rod.

Yes, let's tell the rest of the story. Please! It is the details by
which we see that YEC - and the YEC presentation - is false. Every
time I have ever dug into the details of particular examples, I have
always found that the YEC presentation has been bad, almost as if
intentionally designed (which I actually don't believe) to
misrepresent and obfuscate things. This is why I, a young earth
creationist, rejected YEC and strongly criticize it to this day.

John Woodmorappe is your source? Uh... This is the same guy who is so
confident of his material that "John Woodmorappe" itself is a
pseudonym, because he will not publish his material under his own
name. Not only is the information he presents frequently quite
inaccurate, but his discussion if filled with highly prejudicial
rhetoric.

I would recommend you read

   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html

and

   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodgeo/schimm1.html

You might also take a look at Dr. Roger C. Wiens' "Radiometric
Dating: A Christian Perspective" at

   http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

There's also Tim Thompson's excellent radiometric-related links
page "A Radiometric Dating Resource List" at

   http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
> Tracy, have you been reading the material published by John
> Woodmorrape in the CEN TJ and ICR publications on radiometric
> dating methods? He has documented material from the 1950s-1980s
> and updated for the 1990s.
>
> If we really want to discuss facts about dating meteorites for the
> age of the solar system, my questions would have to be presented in
> a clear table form. Until that happens, the rest of the story is
> untold---RJB

FYI, I went out on the NASA ADS service and found numerous abstracts posted
about reports on pulsar spin rates.  The fastest rate of rotation for a
pulsar based upon neutron star models is very dependent upon the equations
of state developed and used for neutron star matter.  These equations of
state apply to a *c constant* universe.  I know in the 1920s-30s, there was
the equation of state for the Eddington limit on stellar mass.  Radiation
pressure could limit stellar mass to 60 M_solar.  However, in the August
2000 Astronomy, this limit no longer applies.  Now considered to be at least
440 M_solar and some reports indicate that if 2 protostars merge, there may
be no limits.

So what is my point - in a cDK universe perhaps other equations of state
could alter the limits for pulsar spin rates and cDK not be a problem.
Interestingly, this could open the door to very rapid and abrupt stellar
evolution processes too.  In a YEC model, the 4th day of creation may have
featured a number of different spin rates develop for pulsars without the
need for *billions of years* of stellar evolution processes.  Speculation on
my part.

The argument used against cDK today based upon slow motion effect that
features a very rapid spinning pulsar for some other higher value of c,
looks good today (same as Eddington stellar mass limit did in 20s-30s) but
could be overthrown in the future----Rod

'Exact formulae which give the dependence of the maximum rotation frequency,
and of the maximum mass and corresponding radius of rotating configurations,
on the value of the bag constant, are obtained. The values of T/W for
rapidly rotating massive strange stars are significantly higher than those
for ordinary neutron stars. This might indicate particular susceptibility of
rapidly rotating strange stars to triaxial instabilities. ' -  09/1999
'The minimum possible rotational period of pulsars, which are interpreted as
rotating neutron stars, is determined by applying a representative
collection of realistic nuclear equations of state. It is found that none of
the selected equations of state allows for neutron star rotation at periods
below 0.8 to 0.9 ms. ' - 08/1992

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Fast rotation of strange stars
Authors: Gourgoulhon, E.; Haensel, P.; Livine, R.; Paluch, E.; Bonazzola,
   S.; Marck, J.-A.
Journal: Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.349, p.851-862 (1999)
Publication Date: 09/1999
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1999: Astronomy & Astrophysics

          Abstract

Exact models of uniformly rotating strange stars, built of self bound quark
matter, are calculated within the framework of general relativity. This is
made possible thanks to a new numerical technique capable of handling the
strong density discontinuity at the surface of these stars. Numerical
calculations are done for a simple MIT bag model equation of state of
strange quark matter. Evolutionary sequences of models of rotating strange
stars at constant baryon mass are calculated. Maximally rotating
configurations of strange stars are determined, assuming that the rotation
frequency is limited by the mass shedding and the secular instability with
respect to axisymmetric perturbarions. Exact formulae which give the
dependence of the maximum rotation frequency, and of the maximum mass and
corresponding radius of rotating configurations, on the value of the bag
constant, are obtained. The values of T/W for rapidly rotating massive
strange stars are significantly higher than those for ordinary neutron
stars. This might indicate particular susceptibility of rapidly rotating
strange stars to triaxial instabilities.

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Roles of Hyperons in Neutron Stars
Authors: Balberg, Shmuel; Lichtenstadt, Itamar; Cook, Gregory B.
Journal: The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Volume 121, Issue 2,
   pp. 515-531.
Publication Date: 04/1999
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1999: The American Astronomical Society

          Abstract

We examine the roles the presence of hyperons in the cores of neutron stars
may play in determining global properties of these stars. The study is based
on estimates that hyperons appear in neutron star matter at about twice the
nuclear saturation density, and emphasis is placed on effects that can be
attributed to the general multispecies composition of the matter, hence
being only weakly dependent on the specific modeling of strong interactions.
Our analysis indicates that hyperon formation not only softens the equation
of state but also severely constrains its values at high densities.
Correspondingly, the valid range for the maximum neutron star mass is
limited to about 1.5-1.8 M_solar, which is a much narrower range than
available when hyperon formation is ignored. Effects concerning neutron star
radii and rotational evolution are suggested, and we demonstrate that the
effect of hyperons on the equation of state allows a reconciliation of
observed pulsar glitches with a low neutron star maximum mass.  We discuss
the effects hyperons may have on neutron star cooling rates, including
recent results that indicate that hyperons may
also couple to a superfluid state in high-density matter. We compare nuclear
matter to matter with hyperons and show that once hyperons accumulate in
neutron star matter, they reduce the likelihood of a meson condensate but
increase the susceptibility to baryon deconfinement, which could result in a
mixed baryon-quark matter phase.

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Equation of state of neutron star matter, limiting rotational periods
   of fast pulsars, and the properties of strange stars
Authors: Weber, F.; Glendenning, N. K.
Journal: Presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Hot and Dense
   Nuclear Matter, Bodrum, Turkey, 26 Sept. - 9 Oct. 1993
Publication Date: 10/1993 Category: Astrophysics

          Abstract

The present status of dense nuclear matter calculations and constraints on
the behavior of the associated equation of state at high densities from data
on rapidly rotating pulsars is reviewed. Recent finding of the likely
existence of a mixed phase of baryons and quarks forming a coulomb lattice
in the dense cores of neutron stars is discussed. A review of important
findings of recently performed calculations of rapidly rotating compact
stars is given. These are constructed in the framework of general relativity
theory for a representative collection of realistic nuclear equations of
state. The minimum possible rotational periods of gravitationally bound
neutron stars and self-bound strange stars are established. Its knowledge is
of fundamental importance for the decision between pulsars that can be
understood as rotating neutron stars and those that cannot (signature of
hypothetical self-bound matter of which strange stars are the likely stellar
candidates). The properties of sequences of strange stars are investigated.
Specifically, the question of whether such objects can give rise to the
observed phenomena of pulsar glitches is answered, which is at the present
time the only astrophysical test of the strange quark matter hypothesis.

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Interpretation of rapidly rotating pulsars
Authors: Weber, F.; Glendenning, N. K.
Journal: Presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Nuclear
Astrophysics: Nuclei in the Cosmos, Karlsruhe, Germany, 6-10 Jul. 1992
Publication Date: 08/1992

          Abstract

The minimum possible rotational period of pulsars, which are interpreted as
rotating neutron stars, is determined by applying a representative
collection of realistic nuclear equations of state. It is found that none of
the selected equations of state allows for neutron star rotation at periods
below 0.8 to 0.9 ms. Thus, this work strongly supports the suggestion that
if pulsars with shorter rotational periods were found, these are likely to
be strange-quark-matter stars. The conclusion that the confined hadronic
phase of nucleons and nuclei is only metastable would then be almost
inescapable, and the plausible ground state in that event is the deconfined
phase of (3-flavor) strange-quark-matter.

okay Todd, please provide the following data then-

  a. list all meteorites to date that have been assigned radiometric
     ages (100, > 100?)
  b.  show these ages in a column besides each meteorite
  c. show the cosmic ray ages in the next column for the same
     meteorite
  d. show the time delta in another column

Go do this and let's talk about who is fudging what----Rod

Todd said, [John Woodmorappe is your source? Uh... This is the same guy who
is so confident of his material that "John Woodmorappe" itself is a
pseudonym, because he will not publish his material under his own
name.]

I recommend you read the CEN TJ material for authors who wish to contribute
articles and why they allow pseudonyms to be used.  It is clearly stated in
each issue----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> FYI, I went out on the NASA ADS service and found numerous abstracts
> posted about reports on pulsar spin rates.  The fastest rate of
> rotation for a pulsar based upon neutron star models is very
> dependent upon the equations of state developed and used for neutron
> star matter.  These equations of state apply to a *c constant*
> universe.  I know in the 1920s-30s, there was the equation of state
> for the Eddington limit on stellar mass.  Radiation pressure could
> limit stellar mass to 60 M_solar.  However, in the August 2000
> Astronomy, this limit no longer applies.  Now considered to be at
> least 440 M_solar and some reports indicate that if 2 protostars
> merge, there may be no limits.

I think we have learned quite a lot since the 1920s-1930s, so it's
not surprising that the figures have changed.  This is in contrast to
YEC whose "science" is still in the 18th century.

> So what is my point - in a cDK universe perhaps other equations of
> state could alter the limits for pulsar spin rates and cDK not be a
> problem.

I have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence for c-decay, so
this is a non-argument.  c-decay is a big problem because it
contradicts what is observed, and violates all known laws of
relativity and quantum mechanics.  If you want to go ahead and re-
write all the laws of physics, fine, go ahead, I will even pay your
airfare to collect the Nobel Prize!

> Interestingly, this could open the door to very rapid and abrupt
> stellar evolution processes too.  In a YEC model, the 4th day of
> creation may have featured a number of different spin rates develop
> for pulsars without the need for *billions of years* of stellar
> evolution processes.  Speculation on my part.

The YEC "model" has been shown again and again to be completely
false.  How can you call yourself a Christian if you keep talking
falsehoods, and know that you persist in talking falsehoods?

> The argument used against cDK today based upon slow motion effect
> that features a very rapid spinning pulsar for some other higher
> value of c, looks good today (same as Eddington stellar mass limit
> did in 20s-30s) but could be overthrown in the future----Rod

Well, lets see your theories that overturn this.

[SNIP details of pulsars]

So what's the point of all these details?  Just because we don't
fully understand the EOS of nuclear matter in the detail we would
like, doesn't change the argument.  We are talking about factors of
millions with your c-decay "theory", not of 2 or 10 or figures like
that.  Not only that, but c-decay will affect everything else we see,
not just pulsar spin rates.  BTW, let's see your theory of c-decay,
and how the permitivity and/or the permeability of free space change,
why they change,  and what features of quantum field theory will
cause them to change.

Bitte zeichen Sie mir Ihre Gleichungen, bitte erklaeren Sie mir Ihre
Physik!

Christopher M. Sharp

Christopher, the point I was making to the newsgroup, the extreme fast
pulsar spin rate as an argument against cDK using the slow motion effect is
based upon equations of state for neutron star matter that apply to a *c
constant* universe.  *This was not brought out when the argument was
advanced*.  I feel it should have.

Will you agree to this?

----Rod

Rod:

Christopher can reply for himself, but I will not agree.

One of the "features" of the cDK hypothesis is that both the gravitational
constant G and gravitational mass m vary with the variation in c so that
there is *no net difference* in the behavior of physical objects as c
varies.  That's why distant objects which we see as they were in the past
appear to work just the way nearby objects which we see in the near-present
work. And it's why there can be *no net difference* in the behavior of
neutron stars or pulsars in a universe with cDK.  All features of any object
must appear to us just the way they would appear if there were no cDK,
according to Setterfield.  The mass and spin characteristics of a pulsar or
neutron star would be, on a net basis, *identical* to what we observe them
to be in our universe with our measurement of c.  Therefore, we would
observe a slow-motion version of a spinning star, the actual speed of which
would be too fast to allow it to be real in a universe with *any* value of c
which is fast enough to propagate light over a GLY in 10,000 years or less.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: pulsar spin rates vs. cDK

Christopher, the point I was making to the newsgroup, the extreme fast
pulsar spin rate as an argument against cDK using the slow motion effect is
based upon equations of state for neutron star matter that apply to a *c
constant* universe.  *This was not brought out when the argument was
advanced*.  I feel it should have.

Will you agree to this?

----Rod

Rod:

You did not respond in any way to my question except to state your
"position," which is that the sun does not go round the earth.  You are
certainly entitled to decline to respond if you wish, but don't claim you
have.

Rod ...  *this* *is* *the* *issue*.  Do you understand?  This is it!  I'm
not trying to give you a hard time.  I'm not trying to browbeat you.  I'm
not angry.  I'm not contemptuous.  I appreciate your willingness to discuss
these matters, in stark contrast to the sixty-seven who professed to be so
eager to debate on their terms but have vanished like smoke on the wind when
a real opportunity arose.

If you want to make an attempt to argue a scientific interpretation of
Genesis, you *must* deal with "the ghost of Galileo."  You *must* explain
why the story of Joshua's long day (and the four-legged insects, and the
mustard seed, and a bunch of other stuff) are *not* intended to be
scientific statements, but the story of creation in Genesis 1-2 *is*
intended to be scientific.  The solution to that conundrum is what I am
waiting to hear.  It is the only thing I am waiting to hear.  When I hear it
I will be satisfied.  Until I hear it nothing much else really matters:  we
are arguing peripheral issues until you (or Marc, or anybody else) has a
response to this one.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

tom, please do not act like this.  I have stated my position clearly in the
Hosea 6:2 post.  No need to debate, for me it is a settled issue,
thanks----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Various Points of Scripture

Rod:

You're not going to answer my question, are you?  I asked, *first*, before
you started trying to distract everybody:

But Rod, what is the *scientific* interpretation of all statements in
scripture about the relationship of earth and sun?  If the scriptural
account of creation in Genesis is scientifically true, what about the
scriptural descriptions of the earth-sun relationship?

You may ask for time to think about it or study the issue ... I don't have
any objection.  But if you can't answer this question, you can't address the
issue, and the only person who is wandering on this matter is you.  I'm
still intent on getting a response from you to this question.  I will
persist until you respond or admit that you are unwilling to respond.  We
are going to stick to the subject.

Marc, you too.

tom

> Tracy, the CEN TJ published an extensive article on the 'firmament' in
> Genesis 1.  I suspect from you comments you did not read the report, it
> was detailed in analysis of Hebrew and Greek as well as the usage in
> other texts.  The CEN TJ showed your position to be a common
> misconception (including your earlier quotes from Josephus who had the
> same problem), thanks----Rod

Are you saying Josephus did not know how to read Hebrew and Greek
properly?  Yet he was able to read Gen 1-2 "properly" (you were the
one who brought Josephus as how people of the time read Genesis).

This is pretty sad.

Tracy P. Hamilton

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher, the point I was making to the newsgroup, the extreme
> fast pulsar spin rate as an argument against cDK using the slow
> motion effect is based upon equations of state for neutron star
> matter that apply to a *c constant* universe.  *This was not brought
> out when the argument was advanced*.  I feel it should have.
>
> Will you agree to this?
>
> ----Rod

Rod,

Tom has essentially answered your question for me.  As Tracy has
shown, you can't juggle all the constants of nature to cancel out all
the effects of c-decay.  As soon as you change say h or e (charge of
the electron) to cancel out some particular effects you create new
problems.  There is no way around it, c-decay is pure fantasy with no
observational support at all, so please stop wasting everbody's time
with it.

Even if you somehow cancelled out the time effect and ignored the
other effects, you are talking about factors of millions, and
uncertainties in the nuclear equation of state for pulsars are not
going to be that large.  You would also have to deal with normal
pulsating stars and eclipsing binaries for which the effects in
changing c are different.  However, as has been made very clear,
there is no evidence for c-decay at all, so you are arguing on pure
fantasy, but then YECs don't look at the reality anyway.

Christopher

Rod,

What happened to my request for one bad date to be
discussed here?  Is there any reason you can't do it,
rather than cast aspersions and to back them up say that
somebody else (Woodmorappe) said so in a paper
that is generally not accessible?  If you have seen such a
great critique, is it asking to much to discuss it just
a little?

I highly recommend just reading the links that Todd gave.

To ask him to come up with a great list is ridiculous,
since he is not the one claiming to have a list of
bad ones - you are.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod,

Some 2 or 3 weeks ago you said you would send me a
CEN TJ article on the age of Jupiter.  I even gave you
my address, but it still hasn't arrived.  Did you send
it, or did it get lost in the US Mail?

I'm getting suspicious, I said that I can check up the
contents of that article with people here in Tucson who
really are experts on the planets, and have done
detailed calculations.  I'm beginning to wonder if in
fact you don't want to send the article because you
fear it will be debunked by people who really are
experts?

Please either send the article you promised, or give a
reason why you have not sent it - many thanks.

Christopher M. Sharp

Tom,

Let me insert a couple of comments:

You wrote to Rod...
>>I appreciate your willingness to discuss
these matters, in stark contrast to the sixty-seven who professed to be so
eager to debate on their terms but have vanished like smoke on the wind when
a real opportunity arose.<<

In case you had not noticed, I am one of the "dreaded" sixty-seven, and I am
discussing it. I do not like this terminology because I expressed my
agreement with the letter as an individual, regardless of whoever or how many
others did. Whoever else signed did so for their own reasons. I cannot speak
for the others who signed. Many of them are discussing this issue with others
in various venues. Some may choose not to pursue it in this one. That is
their perogative. We all have different opportunities to pursue our
objectives, and have to make choices. I chose to take some time to discuss it
with you fellows on this list. That does not make me better, or anyone else
worse. We should not cast aspersions on others when we do not know their
hearts or situations.

You wrote...
>>The solution to that conundrum is what I am
waiting to hear.  It is the only thing I am waiting to hear.  When I hear it
I will be satisfied.  Until I hear it nothing much else really matters:  we
are arguing peripheral issues until you (or Marc, or anybody else) has a
response to this one.<<

The scriptural argument from Heb. 4 is not peripheral, but goes right to the
heart of whether Gen. 1-2 should be understood as a literal, historical
account or not. Other passages may be idiomatic, but that might have no
bearing on the true understanding of Gen. 1-2. Scripture will definitely help
interpret scripture.

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

Tom, no matter what you are using cDK of Setterfield.  Given the fact that
Martin Rees and Andre Linde believe there are multiveres with many other
different configurations of natural law after the inflation epoch, this
makes your case weak.  However, the equatins of state for neutron star
matter used against cDK are still based upon *c constant* values and perhaps
other equations of state could be developed.  That is enough of this
subject, thanks-==Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: pulsar spin rates vs. cDK

Rod:

Christopher can reply for himself, but I will not agree.

One of the "features" of the cDK hypothesis is that both the gravitational
constant G and gravitational mass m vary with the variation in c so that
there is *no net difference* in the behavior of physical objects as c
varies.  That's why distant objects which we see as they were in the past
appear to work just the way nearby objects which we see in the near-present
work. And it's why there can be *no net difference* in the behavior of
neutron stars or pulsars in a universe with cDK.  All features of any object
must appear to us just the way they would appear if there were no cDK,
according to Setterfield.  The mass and spin characteristics of a pulsar or
neutron star would be, on a net basis, *identical* to what we observe them
to be in our universe with our measurement of c.  Therefore, we would
observe a slow-motion version of a spinning star, the actual speed of which
would be too fast to allow it to be real in a universe with *any* value of c
which is fast enough to propagate light over a GLY in 10,000 years or less.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: pulsar spin rates vs. cDK

Christopher, the point I was making to the newsgroup, the extreme fast
pulsar spin rate as an argument against cDK using the slow motion effect is
based upon equations of state for neutron star matter that apply to a *c
constant* universe.    *This was not brought out when the argument was
advanced*.  I feel it should have.

Will you agree to this?

----Rod

Tom, it is clear to me that you do not accept Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a
historical record of creation which teaches a finished creation.  Genesis
2:1 sums it up nicely so no need for any debate here----Rod

just apply these same words to Martin Rees and Andre Linde claims about
eternal inflation and other universes with other laws and different
constants----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 6:42 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: pulsar spin rates vs. cDK

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher, the point I was making to the newsgroup, the extreme
> fast pulsar spin rate as an argument against cDK using the slow
> motion effect is based upon equations of state for neutron star
> matter that apply to a *c constant* universe.  *This was not brought
> out when the argument was advanced*.  I feel it should have.
>
> Will you agree to this?
>
> ----Rod

Rod,

Tom has essentially answered your question for me.  As Tracy has
shown, you can't juggle all the constants of nature to cancel out all
the effects of c-decay.  As soon as you change say h or e (charge of
the electron) to cancel out some particular effects you create new
problems.  There is no way around it, c-decay is pure fantasy with no
observational support at all, so please stop wasting everbody's time
with it.

Even if you somehow cancelled out the time effect and ignored the
other effects, you are talking about factors of millions, and
uncertainties in the nuclear equation of state for pulsars are not
going to be that large.  You would also have to deal with normal
pulsating stars and eclipsing binaries for which the effects in
changing c are different.  However, as has been made very clear,
there is no evidence for c-decay at all, so you are arguing on pure
fantasy, but then YECs don't look at the reality anyway.

Christopher

Christopher, start reading the CEN TJ for yourself, it is a published
document----Rod

Tracy, I did not ask for a list of 'bad readings' from Todd, just a complete
list on the meteorites that also show their cosmic ray ages and the time
delta.  This is not about bad readings, it is about putting all the cards on
the table first rather than dealing from a deck under the table-----Rod

FYI, for Christopher about the CEN TJ news item----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tas Walker
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:06 AM
To: Bernitt, Roderick Mr USACCSA
Subject: RE: The age of the jovian planets CEN TJ 14(1):3-4,2000 by Ron
Sa mec

I'm not sure, Rod, but I think it comes from the 'few million years'
mentioned by Ouyed et al. in the previous paragraph.  A few ~= 3 and
3/4600*100 ~= 0.07%.

BTW, I'll be in the UK for the whole of October.

Take care,

Tas


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
> [SMTP:Roderick Bernitt]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:43 PM
> To: 'CEN TJ Letters'
> Cc:  Tas Walker, AIG
> Subject: The age of the jovian planets CEN TJ 14(1):3-4,2000 by Ron
> Samec
>
> CEN TJ editors, I have a quick question.  In the subject report the
> statement was made about the age of Jupiter 'But the uniformitarian
> planetary geologist or astronomer would find that quite unacceptable.
> Jupiter's age would only be 0.07% of the assumed 4.5 billion year age of
> the
> solar system.' p. 3.
>
> Q:Where did this figure come from?
>
> It is only 31.5 x 10^6 years old and the same report indicates that
> '...the
> present core tempertaure of Jupiter in 'mature' (billion-year) models is
> less than one-eighth of that needed to support D-D fusion.', p.3
> This figure is about 125 x 10^6 years old.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rod Bernitt
> USA
> Upper Marlboro MD 20772

> Tracy, I did not ask for a list of 'bad readings' from Todd, just a
> complete list on the meteorites that also show their cosmic ray ages
> and the time delta.  This is not about bad readings, it is about
> putting all the cards on the table first rather than dealing from a
> deck under the table-----Rod

You obviously think they will be different.

There may be reasons why.  I would expect if you applied
all radiodating methods to most rocks you will get some
different ages.

Solution: know how to properly apply them - that is, which
ones will work (if any) for which rocks and why.  There are
no mindless experiments.

Tracy P. Hamilton

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> just apply these same words to Martin Rees and Andre Linde claims
> about eternal inflation and other universes with other laws and
> different constants----Rod
>

As has been repeatedly pointed out for the umpteenth time, different
values of c in other universes, if they exist, are completely
irrelevant, we are talking about the universe we are living in and
can study.  Also, any possible change in c very early during the
inflationary epoch of our own universe is not relevant either.  We
saw SN 1987A explode in 1987, and we can see the expanding gas cloud
now.  SN 1987A is about 168,000 light years from the earth, and this
is a very small fraction of the most distant galaxies seen.

I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of c-decay.  If
you continue to argue on a point that has been shown to be completely
false, or at best irrelevant, you are like a chicken that has its
head cut off and is still running around.  There is NO evidence of c-
decay, and you have completely failed to produced any.  Why you
continue rehasing this dead argument, I really don't know.

Christopher M. Sharp

why do evolutionists go after eternal inflation and multiverse ideas?


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:20 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: pulsar spin rates vs. cDK

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> just apply these same words to Martin Rees and Andre Linde claims
> about eternal inflation and other universes with other laws and
> different constants----Rod
>

As has been repeatedly pointed out for the umpteenth time, different
values of c in other universes, if they exist, are completely
irrelevant, we are talking about the universe we are living in and
can study.  Also, any possible change in c very early during the
inflationary epoch of our own universe is not relevant either.  We
saw SN 1987A explode in 1987, and we can see the expanding gas cloud
now.  SN 1987A is about 168,000 light years from the earth, and this
is a very small fraction of the most distant galaxies seen.

I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of c-decay.  If
you continue to argue on a point that has been shown to be completely
false, or at best irrelevant, you are like a chicken that has its
head cut off and is still running around.  There is NO evidence of c-
decay, and you have completely failed to produced any.  Why you
continue rehasing this dead argument, I really don't know.

Christopher M. Sharp

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> why do evolutionists go after eternal inflation and multiverse
> ideas?

As far as I know, evolutionists study biological evolution, which has
nothing to do with the Big Bang and inflation.  In any case, this has
absolutely nothing to do with c-decay, which is completely false and
has no evidence to back it up.

Christopher M. Sharp

For Christopher Sharp.  See my confession about cDK at the end before the
brief news item.  I hope you are happy.  Also I still use 'evolutionists'
because I know they are not Biblical creationists, thanks----Rod

> The Taurus-Auriga molecular cloud about 138-pc distance from earth is a
> well studied region where evolutionists believe star formation takes place
> along with many T Tauri stars visible (most considered to be 1-10 million
> years old which exhibit rapid erosion of stellar disks.  These
> observations place real constraints on the planetesimal accretion models
> for the origin of our solar system.)  The report indicates that XZ Tauri
> is only 1 million years old.  How the H-R diagram plot for XZ Tauri could
> distinguish between a 6,000 - 10,000 years old star dating back to the 4th
> day of creation in Genesis 1 and a star one million years old could
> involve some interesting equations for hydrogen gas clouds.
>
> The system is a binary as the S&T reports indicates which to me suggests
> that the date of one million years old could have a large error bar.  The
> Taurus-Auriga molecular gas cloud needs a well-established minimum Jeans
> mass defined and also prediction for stellar mass distribution that would
> evolve from it.  This stellar mass distribution would need predictions for
> how many binary or multiple star systems could evolve from the collapsing
> gas cloud and fragmentation process.  Without this type of analysis, I am
> not sure how the 1 million years old age could be assigned or even
> defended as accurate.  Such an age claim may be nothing but using the
> lower limit for the age of various T Tauri disks observed in the region
> based upon stellar wind erosion rates (my speculation).  For this
> observation to work with the YEC model, YEC folks do not need cDK type
> models to explain.  Relativity does just fine.  It is the observation of
> much more distant stars that is the real problem----Rod
>
> http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml
>
> Thursday, September 21
> A Newborn Star Squirts a Bubble
> Left: This animation was assembled from three false-color images taken by
> the Hubble Space Telescope over a a period of five years.  The gas
> erupting from XZ Tauri is traveling at 150 kilometers per second. Courtesy
> J.  Krist/STScI/NASA. Click on image for a larger view of the individual
> frames.
> The huge Taurus-Auriga molecular cloud is the nearest large star-forming
> region, centered about 450 light-years away. It is full of newborn, highly
> variable stars with low or moderate masses that are surrounded by disks of
> gas and dust - how our Sun looked a few million years after its birth. One
> such star is million-year-old XZ Tauri, varying from 10th to 16th
> magnitude behind the Hyades. The Hubble Space Telescope
> resolved it into a binary star with a separation of at least 40
> astronomical units, Pluto's average distance from the Sun -and saw much
> else besides.  An enormous spray of gas is erupting from the inner disk
> around one of the two stars (astronomers can't yet tell which) at 150
> kilometers per second. The plume is only about 30 years old and grew
> substantially in just five years, as Hubble's series of images shows. The
> plume's rim brightened from 1995 to 1998, a sign that the rim was cooling
> and becoming less ionized and hence more able to emit light.  "We are
> seeing how outflows from stars evolve shortly after
> they are created," says John Krist (Space Telescope Science Institute).
> "Seeing the edges become brighter gives us clues to how hot the gas is and
> its density, allowing us to refine our models of stellar outflows." As the
> outer bubble expanded and cooled a second seemed to be taking shape
> farther down its stem, perhaps a sign of repeated mass ejections.
>
> ® Home | Sky & Telescope | S&T Store News | Sights | Tips | Imaging |
> Resources  © 2000 Sky Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.  Please read
> our copyright and permissions policy.
>
>

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> For Christopher Sharp.  See my confession about cDK at the end
> before the brief news item.  I hope you are happy.  Also I still
> use 'evolutionists' because I know they are not Biblical
> creationists, thanks----Rod

Thanks, but that means much of the world are by your definition
evolutionists, even though they don't study biological evolution.
Are you also counting Qo'ranic creationists as evolutionists?

>> The Taurus-Auriga molecular cloud about 138-pc distance from earth
>> is a well studied region where evolutionists believe star formation
>> takes place along with many T Tauri stars visible (most considered
>> to be 1-10 million years old which exhibit rapid erosion of stellar
>> disks.  These observations place real constraints on the
>> planetesimal accretion models for the origin of our solar system.)
>> The report indicates that XZ Tauri is only 1 million years old.
>> How the H-R diagram plot for XZ Tauri could distinguish between a
>> 6,000 - 10,000 years old star dating back to the 4th day of
>> creation in Genesis 1 and a star one million years old could
>> involve some interesting equations for hydrogen gas clouds.

A (proto)star that is still only 6000 years old would be hidden by
dust.  Indeed, the time of formation of a protostar as it collapses
from the gas is going to be much longer than 6000 years, let alone
the subsequent main sequence lifetime.  There is no exact time zero
to define when the protostar is a protostar, and no longer a blob of
gas, so it's quite meaningless to talk about it's position on the HR
diagram.  In a period of 100,000 or million years you can talk
meaningfully about the age of a star or protostar, but not for such
small periods of time.  Can you find to the nearest millisecond when
an acorn becomes an oak tree?

>> The system is a binary as the S&T reports indicates which to me
>> suggests that the date of one million years old could have a large
>> error bar.  The Taurus-Auriga molecular gas cloud needs a
>> well-established minimum Jeans mass defined and also prediction for
>> stellar mass distribution that would evolve from it.  This stellar
>> mass distribution would need predictions for how many binary or
>> multiple star systems could evolve from the collapsing gas cloud
>> and fragmentation process.  Without this type of analysis, I am not
>> sure how the 1 million years old age could be assigned or even
>> defended as accurate.  Such an age claim may be nothing but using
>> the lower limit for the age of various T Tauri disks observed in
>> the region based upon stellar wind erosion rates (my speculation).

As you say, your speculation, and you have shown no calculations
to support your claim.

>> For this
>> observation to work with the YEC model, YEC folks do not need cDK
>> type models to explain.  Relativity does just fine.  It is the
>> observation of much more distant stars that is the real problem
>> ----Rod

Indeed, the much more distant stars falsify YECism, so YECism is
wrong, and irrelevant to use as any argument, as it wrong, plain
wrong, period.  Relativity is also irrelevant, as the velocities and
gravitational fields are too small to have significant effects.
Again, where are your equations.  I've studied both Special and
General Relativity (lots of nasty maths), I suspect you have not, so
you don't know what you are talking about.

>> http://www.skypub.com/news/news.shtml
>>
>> Thursday, September 21

[SNIP] Interesting material which can be obtained from the website.

BTW, I subscribe to "Sky and Telescope".

With YECs claiming they know about physics and astronomy by studying
the Bible, but not studying physics or astronomy, is completely
absurd.  Gee wiz, I think I want to be a doctor, I'll just study the
Bible and become a doctor, this will avoid all the time, trouble and
expense of going to medical school - great, how easy!

Christopher M. Sharp