Christopher Sharp, your comments reflect to me that you know nothing about
molecular gas cloud fragmentation process (see *minimum Jeans mass* and
stellar mass distribution).  go ahead and keep promoting evolution
legends----Rod

Hi, Rod.

I'm trying to get this particular point clarified. I seems like
you're jumping around the point without actually addressing it. Here
is the point regarding the fact - the FACT, Rod - that the YEC
lightspeed decay idea is known to be wrong by direct observation:

The YEC lightspeed decay idea implies a "slow motion" effect, on the
order of millions of times reduction of the *original* rate. The
whole idea is proposed for the sole purpose of getting energy from
currently observed (i.e., not extrapolated back in time) far distant
entities and processes in the universe to the earth in less than
10,000 years. This *implies* that processes are *observed* today
occurring at a rate that is much, much slower than the *original*
rate of occurrence at the actual time of occurrence in the past (less
than 10,000 years ago). (Thus, when you say the criticism is based
on "lightspeed constant" values and is thus not valid, you are wrong.)

So, for example, *assuming* the YEC radical lightspeed decay within
the last 10,000 years, a current observation of a pulsar spinning at
a particular rate is actually a "slow motion" view. Thus, if we have
a current observation of pulsars spinning at dozens of times a second
(and we do), then this means - according to the YEC radical
lightspeed decay idea - that the actual spin rate of the pulsars was
much, much faster less than 10,000 years ago when the light actually
started on its way to earth.

What you are claiming, according to the YEC radical lightspeed decay
idea, is that it is perfectly possible to have pulsars spinning at
thousands or even millions of times a second without them literally
flying apart. Now if you wish to propose this for some kind of "other
universe" with fundamental properties exotically different from our
own, that's perfectly okay with me Rod, but we are discussing *our*
universe, and we have to have something that's compatible with life
on earth 6,000 years ago (you know, when the Chinese and Egyptians
were around).

In an earlier post, I also mentioned another example related to decay
rates observed of radioactive material in supernovae. I pointed out
to you that the "slow motion" effect implied by the YEC lightspeed
decay idea would vary in proportion to the distance of the source
from the earth. Thus, according to the YEC lightspeed decay idea what
astronomers should observe is *different* decay rates for supernovae
based on the fact that supernovae are observed from widely varying
distances (for example, SN1987A at only 168,000 light-years, while
other supernovae are observed in galaxies millions, even billions, of
light-years from earth). Do astronomers observe varying decay rates,
Rod? No, they do not. The observed rates are exactly the same,
regardless of whether the supernovae is 168,000 light-years away or a
billion light-years away.

This is just another example of the fact that the YEC lightspeed
decay idea is wrong. It is wrong, Rod, because direct observations
contradict it. The truth is that lightspeed, as observed about that
part of the universe's past that can be directly observed right now
(which covers billions of years), has been constant or at least very,
very close to the observed speed right here on earth.

I really hope Marc Gibson - and some other YECs - are paying
attention to this, Rod, because you are providing such a good example
of one of the fundamental problems with the entire "scientific
creationism" attitude. You do everything you possibly can to avoid
acknowledging the obvious fallaciousness of the lightspeed decay
idea - the wrongness of which has, by the way, been realized by non-
YECs who took notice of it almost the very time when Barry
Setterfield first brought it up - which is the adamancy demonstrated
in propagating wrong information. Here we are in the year 2000, and
you yourself have said you do not suppport lightspeed decay, and yet
here you are still propagating it and making efforts to support it
anyway just like any other YEC, and the result is that a perfectly
intelligent man like you who is scientifically literate is throwing a
whole blanket of confusion over this for people like Marc Gibson. You
have successfully led Marc (and others, I'm sure) to believe that "we
are just dealing in human speculation." Now, Marc is perfectly
intelligent, too, but he is not scientifically literate. I do not at
all state this in order to be insulting, but simply make the
statement in light of the fact that people are familiar with
different areas. (Marc could know an awful lot about Shakespeare, for
example, whereas I know virtually nothing.)

So it is your responsibility as one who claims to have respect for
the truth to clear this matter up for Marc. Rod, you really need
to "come clean" about the fallaciousness of the lightspeed decay idea
and stop trying to use it to obfuscate things and confuse the issue
for people like Marc Gibson. I know why you don't want to do so,
because of SN1987A itself which provides such a beautiful example of
how we directly observe the fact that the universe is ancient, and
believing in a literalistic interpretation of the Bible as you do you
have a difficult time accepting this fact.

But I'm here to tell you, Rod, as a former YEC, you don't have any
excuse for obfuscating the truth from people. SN1987A (among other
examples) proves that YEC is wrong, and it's time to either modify
your biblical hermeneutics (a la Davis A. Young, or John Sailhammer,
or Hill Roberts, or Tom Couchman), or stick with the literalistic
interpretation and then admit that the Bible has been proved wrong.
In the face of the truth about the antiquity of the universe and
earth, these are the only two ways out of the YEC dilemma.

Very sincerely,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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 equations 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.


######## Tom Couchman ########
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.


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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?

Todd, what is the distance to the farthest pulsar so far documented as
observed from earth?----Rod

Gentlemen:

Rod has stated that he does not accept Setterfield's cDK notion, yet for
some reason we're still discussing it.  We have bashed this thing to pieces,
and not in slow motion either.  Could we just *drop* the whole cDK thing
completely?  Is that ok with you guys?  (Silence gives consent; silence is
golden!).

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves
YEC

Todd, what is the distance to the farthest pulsar so far documented as
observed from earth?----Rod

I concur Tom, thanks----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves
YEC

Gentlemen:

Rod has stated that he does not accept Setterfield's cDK notion, yet for
some reason we're still discussing it.  We have bashed this thing to pieces,
and not in slow motion either.  Could we just *drop* the whole cDK thing
completely?  Is that ok with you guys?  (Silence gives consent; silence is
golden!).

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Yes, SN1987A Directly Disproves
YEC

Todd, what is the distance to the farthest pulsar so far documented as
observed from earth?----Rod

Hi, Rod.

Uh... You are the one who, like other YECs, advanced the false claim
that geophysicists are simply fudging the data. Thus, the burden lies
upon you to back up your claim. You cited Woodmorappe as your source,
and I simply pointed out that it has already been demonstrated that
Woodmorappe's "criticisms" are unreliable. If you simply wish to not
back up your claim that geophysicists fudged, that is perfectly okay
with me. In which case I shall point out explicitly that YECs love to
attack radiometric dating, because they know how seriously it
disproves YEC, but their criticisms are entirely fallacious because
they build a "straw man" conception of the process and attack that
rather than attacking the real thing. (Of course, Tracy Hamilton
happens to be far more qualified than I am to point out relevant
details on this.)

You could, of course, just post a few specific examples of what you
believe consists of problems for an ancient date. Let's dig into the
details on some of those, and see what we find out.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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.

Todd, no need for me to repeat AIG or ICR material----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 4:30 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Radiometric Dating

Hi, Rod.

Uh... You are the one who, like other YECs, advanced the false claim
that geophysicists are simply fudging the data. Thus, the burden lies
upon you to back up your claim. You cited Woodmorappe as your source,
and I simply pointed out that it has already been demonstrated that
Woodmorappe's "criticisms" are unreliable. If you simply wish to not
back up your claim that geophysicists fudged, that is perfectly okay
with me. In which case I shall point out explicitly that YECs love to
attack radiometric dating, because they know how seriously it
disproves YEC, but their criticisms are entirely fallacious because
they build a "straw man" conception of the process and attack that
rather than attacking the real thing. (Of course, Tracy Hamilton
happens to be far more qualified than I am to point out relevant
details on this.)

You could, of course, just post a few specific examples of what you
believe consists of problems for an ancient date. Let's dig into the
details on some of those, and see what we find out.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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.

Hi, Tom.

I am not the one who raised the YEC lightspeed decay idea in the
first place. Rod brought it up in reference to SN1987A, as
a 'possible' criticism of SN1987A being a direct observation of an
event that occurred 168,000 years ago. Rod used the YEC lightspeed
decay idea for the specific purpose of trying to 'cast doubt' on
168,000 years ago for SN1987A. I want Marc and other YECs in this
forum who are not as scientifically literate as Rod is to understand
that this YEC lightspeed decay idea is a bad one, and that it indeed
does not cast any doubt on the fact that SN1987A occurred
approximately 168,000 years ago, and that it should not be used to
obfuscate the fact that alterations in the speed of light have not
occurred to affect the SN1987A observation. Tom, it is my very
sincere belief that people like Marc, in the 'YEC community' who are
not scientifically literate and who have thus little basis on which
to judge claims like this by "scientific creationists," have
been 'bamboozled' by just such claims as this lightspeed decay idea,
and so it desparately NEEDS to be hashed, bashed, and slashed to
pieces, because otherwise it just keeps 'making the rounds' in YEC
circles. People deserve better than this.

If Rod will freely acknowledge that this lightspeed decay idea - that
he brought up - cannot be considered a decent criticism against the
SN1987A proof, as he originally intended to use it as, then, of
course, I will be more than happy to never mention the YEC lightspeed
decay idea again in this forum. :-)

But people like Marc need to have these matters made clear for them,
otherwise how will they know?

Sincerely,
Todd


######## Tom Couchman ########
Gentlemen:

Rod has stated that he does not accept Setterfield's cDK notion,
yet for some reason we're still discussing it. We have bashed this
thing to pieces, and not in slow motion either. Could we just
*drop* the whole cDK thing completely? Is that ok with you guys?
(Silence gives consent; silence is golden!).

> Gentlemen:
>
> Rod has stated that he does not accept Setterfield's cDK notion, yet for
> some reason we're still discussing it.

Then the game is over.  SN1987A exploded 168,000
years ago, unless one resorts to Omphalism.

>  We have bashed this thing to pieces,
> and not in slow motion either.  Could we just *drop* the whole cDK thing
> completely?  Is that ok with you guys?  (Silence gives consent; silence is
> golden!).

Tracy P. Hamilton

> Todd, no need for me to repeat AIG or ICR material----Rod

Why not?  Even just one case from Woodmorappe's paper?

Then again, if SN1987a shows the universe is 168,000 years
old, then there is no point in discussing radiodating here at all.

Perhaps you didn't understand what was at stake here.
Perhaps you just thought this was a forum for being argumentative,
as evidenced by your bringing up another argument as a response
to a problem.

Tracy P. Hamilton

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher Sharp, your comments reflect to me that you know
> nothing about molecular gas cloud fragmentation process (see
> *minimum Jeans mass* and stellar mass distribution).  go ahead and
> keep promoting evolution legends----Rod

Rod,

Uh, hum, as part of my original studies in astronomy, I studied the
minumum Jeans mass, and I even have a book by the author himself.
Although some of his theories are now out of date, I may this evening
if I have the time pull out one or two books I have on a shelf here
and look through them.  In the mean time you may wish to show me your
own versions of Jean's equations.

BTW, this has nothing to do with biological evolution, so I still
don't know why you keep on bringing up the word "evolution"?

Christopher M. Sharp

This question is addressed to the Young Earth advocates:

I want to know if there are any objective standards by which one may
ascertain that an object or entity possesses apparent rather than
actual age.  If there are any objective standards, please specify
them and provide some example of their use in the real world.

Thanks,

David Mathews

Hi, Rod.

I don't think you understand what I'm asking of you. Out of the
"hundreds" or "thousands" you think pose some kind of problem, I want
you to pick, say, the three, or five, or ten that you think are the
best examples to substantiate the criticism you are trying to make.
Then we can dig into the details of these particular examples. What I
am predicting right now is that, whichever examples you pick, as we dig
into the actual details we will find that geophysicists have very good
reasons for their conclusions (which is what you are disputing) and
that there is no "fudging the data" going on (which is what you have
claimed). That is all I'm asking of you. Until such time, having had
much experience with numerous unsubstantiated (aka, false) and bad
criticisms from YEC sources (like the shrinking sun, ocean salinity, or
deep moon dust criticisms, for example; and not to mention... well, you
know), I will simply stick with pointing out the sheer lack of
credibility of YEC sources like the pseudonymous "John Woodmorappe."

I'm sorry to be so "mistrusting," Rod. But you must remember that I am
a *former* young earth creationist, and one of the things that really
"burned me up" about YEC "scientific creationists" was their being so
misleading to me about the details. Besides the ancient universe/earth
subject (the fact of which I accepted based on the unequivocal direct
astronomical observations of the universe alone), one of the
substantial reasons why I rejected the rest of young earth creationism
is that in every single case where I expended the time and effort to
dig down into the minute details of a particular matter, I found that
these wonderful YEC "scientific creationists" whom we should trust so
much because, after all, they are the true blue biblical creationists,
had simply twisted the facts around either by directly misrepresenting
what the facts were and/or mishmashing relevant information with
irrelevant information so much as to entirely obfuscate the matter.

I read books like *The Genesis Flood* (TGF) by Whitcomb and Morris,
and *Evolution: The Fossils Say No?" by Gish, good solidly YEC
material. Remember the Lewis overthrust in TGF? When I was at the
Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan (northwest of Detroit), I
tracked down the original source that was cited in TGF and read it
for myself, and saw how Whitcomb and Morris had taken that out of
context and presented the quote as saying the exact opposite of what
the original authors actually said in the context of their
discussion. I won't claim intentional deception, but it was in fact
a blatant misrepresentation of what the original authors said. Now
multiply this by a few dozen, and you can see why, no, Rod, I don't
trust people like "John Woodmorappe." They "know" the proper
conclusion so much without having the data to back it up, that when
it comes times to examine the data, their "level of predisposition"
is turned up so high that they fail to be careful with the details.
I mention these things, because as a former YEC I have the right to
point them out from my own personal experience, and I want people
like Marc Gibson to be aware of it.

Thanks,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/21/00 4:31 ########
Todd, no need for me to repeat AIG or ICR material----Rod


######## Todd GreeneSent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 4:30 PM
Hi, Rod.

Uh... You are the one who, like other YECs, advanced the false claim
that geophysicists are simply fudging the data. Thus, the burden lies
upon you to back up your claim. You cited Woodmorappe as your source,
and I simply pointed out that it has already been demonstrated that
Woodmorappe's "criticisms" are unreliable. If you simply wish to not
back up your claim that geophysicists fudged, that is perfectly okay
with me. In which case I shall point out explicitly that YECs love to
attack radiometric dating, because they know how seriously it
disproves YEC, but their criticisms are entirely fallacious because
they build a "straw man" conception of the process and attack that
rather than attacking the real thing. (Of course, Tracy Hamilton
happens to be far more qualified than I am to point out relevant
details on this.)

You could, of course, just post a few specific examples of what you
believe consists of problems for an ancient date. Let's dig into the
details on some of those, and see what we find out.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

Young earth creationists advocate a religious creed that has been
devised by fallible human beings based on a particular interpretive
approach to the Bible that they have fallibly chosen to use, and
which yet they take great pains to rhetorically equate their fallible
human creed with the testimony of God Himself because they refuse to
recognize the fallible nature of their own human perspective. It is
because of this adamant refusal to consider that their literalistic
approach is itself based on fallible human thinking that their
rhetoric is replete with references based on the idea that not
accepting their creed is the same thing as not accepting God's Word.
I see this particular fallacy expressed frequently, even by "non-
exclusivist" YECs.

So what we have is some human begins promoting their fallible,
humanly-inspired, literalistic interpretation of biblical texts while
directly ignoring the inherently idiomatic and metaphorical nature of
the language that is used. Based on one particular human-devised
hermeneutic, these humans have formulated a religious creed, and yet
they adamantly refuse to even consider the possibility that this
literalistic hermeneutical approach can be fallible. They refuse to
acknowledge any element of fallible human reasoning in their
approach, implicitly placing their approach on a pedestal of divine
wisdom. Their discussion is almost always couched in terminology that
is based on *assuming* this literalistic interpretive approach that
is the very thing being questioned, and they reject all evidence to
the contrary by *assuming* the very interpretation that according to
objective examination contradicts their own doctrine of biblical
inerrancy. In other words, they *assume* the issue for which we are
looking for independent verification (or falsification), and based on
their *assumption* they arbitrarily reject the very information that
demonstrates why their literalistic approach is wrong.

The Genesis creation account is clearly metaphorical, containing many
references to metaphorical language and symbols common to the culture
of the ancient Israelites (you know, the original audience), with
some parts of the metaphorical language being used in other places in
the Bible as well. Young earth creationists completely ignore these
other biblical passages that discuss creation using similar language
in an obviously metaphorical manner, because they have arbitrarily
chosen to *assume* that the Genesis creation account does not use
metaphor.

Realizing the metaphorical nature of the Genesis creation account
renders many young earth arguments completely irrelevant. For
example, the whole "debate" about whether "yom," the Hebrew word
for "day," in Genesis is a literal 24-hour day or a symbol for a
great age is really irrelevant to the context of the creation story,
because a historical, technical chronology is not the purpose and
intent of the creation account. The "days" of the "creation week" are
simply a metaphorical structure (a very purposeful one) upon which
the account is hung. Thus, to argue over whether or not "yom" means
only a literal 24-hour day holds little real meaning for properly
interpreting the creation account since the account itself is
metaphorical and does not have the purpose or intent of teaching
historical and scientific details.

Does the Hebrew word for "wings" in Ezekiel 17:7 really mean wings?
Does the Hebrew word for "eagle" really mean an eagle? Yes. Of
course. But so what? Does this prove that we must interpret
these "eagle's wings" as referring to eagle's wings? It is ludicrous
to even consider that such an interpretation could be credible. To
interpret the phrase literalistically would be to totally
misunderstand the text.

Do the words "gnat" and "camel" in the phrase "straining out a gnat
and swallowing a camel" in Matthew 23:24 really mean "gnat"
and "camel"? Does the word "mountain" in Matthew 17:20 really
mean "mountain." Yes, they do. So what? The words are used
metaphorically. To interpret them literalistically is to misinterpret
the text and to make the Bible "teach" absurdity.

Yet with the Genesis creation account we see young earth
creationists - and many old earth creationists, for that matter -
arguing about the meaning of "day," as if the literal meaning of the
word was somehow relevant to whether or not the creation story is a
metaphorical account. To argue about the literal meaning of the
word "yom" is to entirely miss the point. It is used in the context
of metaphor. To analyze the literal meaning of individual words
divorced from the metaphorical context of the account is to distort
and misunderstand what is being taught. Thus, by imposing a
literalistic, technically-oriented interpretation on the Genesis
creation account that is foreign to its context, young earth
creationists distort and misunderstand its meaning. Then by ignoring
the fact that they have imposed their own fallible humanly-devised
hermeneutic on the text, they formulate the young earth creationism
creed.

A young earth creationist might pose the question "How, in an 'old
universe' view, would plants have been created before the Sun, Moon,
and stars?" But this question doesn't even make any sense unless you
already assume a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation
account. It is only from a literalistic interpretation that
chronology has any specific meaning in the account. However,
chronology is not its purpose. The "days" are simply part of a
literary formula used to structure the account. Recall my point
regarding "wings" and "eagle" in Ezekiel. Yes, we know the literal
meaning of the words, but understanding the meaning of the words does
not mean we understand the overall meaning of the text. Furthermore,
to insist on a literalistic interpretation would be to genuinely
*misunderstand* the text.

The creation story of Genesis is written in the language of the
ancient Israelites, uses elements and symbols that they would
typically understand (and that are very foreign to us today), and is
concerned with providing an accurate portrayal of the nature of the
relationship between God and nature, God and humans, between the
Divine and the created. All about the Israelites were mythologies of
entire families of gods and the corresponding religious worship of
idols. The primeval gods were chaos, the waters, darkness, light, and
so on. Other gods were the sun, the moon, the winds, and so on. In
this milieu, the religion of the Israelites was rather unique. There
was One God (monotheism), and nature was not divine but was created
by and subject to the power of the One God.

   By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
   and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
   He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle;
   he put the deeps in storehouses.
   Let all the earth fear the LORD,
   let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
   For he spoke, and it came to be;
   he commanded, and it stood forth.
   The LORD looks down from heaven,
   he sees all the sons of men;
   from where he sits enthroned
   he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth,

   -- Psalm 33:6-9,13-14

How different is the creation account of Genesis from the mythologies
of the surrounding cultures. Chaos is not a god! God simply takes the
chaos and molds it as He wills. The sun, the moon, and the stars are
not gods! God commands them into existence and appoints them to their
place. They are created things just as are the fish, the trees, the
grass, the birds, and human beings. Creation is not the result of
warfare between a pantheon of gods! There is no violence. Tiamat
(chaos) is not a god that fights the will of other gods! Nature
succumbs to the power of God without question.

   "The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall
   perish from the earth and from under the heavens." It is he
   who made the earth by his power, who established the world by
   his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the
   heavens. When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters
   in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of
   the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he brings
   forth the wind from his storehouses.

   -- Jeremiah 10:11-13

   To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare
   with him? The idol! a workman casts it, and a goldsmith
   overlays it with gold, and casts for it silver chains. He who
   is impoverished chooses for an offering wood that will not
   rot; he seeks out a skilful craftsman to set up an image that
   will not move.

   Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told
   you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the
   foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle
   of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who
   stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them
   like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nought, and
   makes the rulers of the earth as nothing. Scarcely are they
   planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in
   the earth, when he blows upon them, and they wither, and the
   tempest carries them off like stubble.

   To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him?
   says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: who
   created these? He who brings out their host by number,
   calling them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and
   because he is strong in power not one is missing. Why do you
   say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, "My way is hid from the
   LORD, and my right is disregarded by my God"? Have you not
   known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God,
   the Creator of the ends of the earth.

   -- Jeremiah 10:11-13

These are the kinds of lessons that Genesis was teaching and is
teaching, and the young earth creationists in their fallible human
thinking have imposed a fallible interpretation on the text and then
tried to judge everyone else by their fallible humanly-devised creed.
The Bible warns against adding to the Word of God. Jesus rebuked the
Pharisees for using their rule books by which to judge who was and
was not worthy.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Nature itself shows us its age, in
every nook and cranny where people care to take the time and effort
to dig into the relevant details to examine it thoroughly.
Many "young earthers" try to just "pooh-pooh" even considering the
relevant detailed information from astronomy and geology, running to
hide behind their personal belief in the fallible humanly-devised
creed. To them I just have to say: Study your Bible better,
especially your Old Testament, because you've obviously missed the
bucketfuls of metaphorical language that is used. Being blinded by
your own personal cultural predispositions, the nature of the
biblical language has never made it through your mental filters.

Truth-seekers have nothing to fear from the truth. SN1987A alone
proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that the universe has been around
for at least about 168,000 years. And SN1987A simply confirmed the
distance estimations that astronomers had already made of the Large
Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy based on magnitude measurements of,
among other things, Cepheid variable stars. And the LMC galaxy is the
second closest galaxy to the earth (the Sagittarius galaxy is the
closest) - in a universe consisting of literally millions of
galaxies! So the universe is far older than just 168,000 years!

Trying to use the Bible to justify fallible religious creeds that
imply false things about the real world only discredits the Bible and
Christianity.

Then, for a person to take it even one further step and judge those
who do not agree with the young earth doctrine, and who reject this
fallible "young earth" interpretation, as rejecting the testimony of
God Himself is to become a hypocrite, for refusing to acknowledge his
own fallibility, and a Pharisee, for trying to place his fallible
human ideas on a divine pedestal and imposing them on others even to
the extent of trying to exclude them by claiming that they can't be
good Christians unless they accept this young earth doctrine.

There are a whole lot of YECs in many churches who find rejection of
the young earth creed to be intolerable. Much of the "exclusivist"
rhetoric is still used by the more tolerant YECs, phrases such as "if
you reject what the Genesis creation account says, then you are
rejecting the testimony of God." Well, no, that's not true. That is a
mischaracterization. Here is a correct portrayal: "If you reject a
literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation account, then you
are rejecting a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation
account." The "rejecting the testimony of God" is nothing more than
prejudicial rhetoric. It is a fact that there are a great many
Christians who accept the Bible - yes, the entire thing - as the
testimony of God, who also accept and acknowledge the facts that the
universe and the earth are ancient having been compelled by what they
have learned of the relevant astronomical and geological information.
Obviously, the "old earthers" do not accept the literalistic YEC
interpretation, but that is certainly not the same thing as rejecting
the testimony of God, and it is only YEC arrogance that continues to
portray it this way in this day and age.

Augustine dug into the details of the Genesis creation account on no
less than three separate occasions over a period of several years,
starting with a literalistic approach and ending up "going
allegorical" due to the quandaries that the literalistic approach
raises. Today, there are people like Hugh Ross (astrophysics), Hill
Roberts (quantum physics), Davis Young (geology), Howard Van Till
(astrophysics), just as a few examples, who are quite dedicated
Christians (and who, by the way, are also strong advocates of the
doctrine of biblical inerrancy) and who have realized that the
literalistic interpretive approach cannot be correct. There are
others, such as John Willis (Old Testament professor at Abilene
Christian University), who have realized, at least, that the
literalistic interpretive approach has some serious problems and that
one should not be dogmatic about a literalistic approach. (Actually,
to parse out a philosophical implication here, a fuller analysis
would be to say: If the literalistic interpretation is the correct
one, then biblical inerrancy cannot be correct, because we already
know that the universe and the earth are ancient. A parallel to this:
If the literalistic interpretation of Joshua is the correct one, the
biblical inerrancy cannot be correct, because we know that the earth
revolves about the sun.) To judge these people as rejecting the
testimony of God is extremely presumptuous. In effect, what YEC
exclusivists are doing, without realizing it, is subverting their own
doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

A few weeks ago, a young earth creationist asked me, "Do you believe
we get to pick and choose, based on whatever factors we individually
deem relevant, what portions of the Scriptures we are to accept as
God's truth?" Here, again, the prejudicial rhetoric is embedded as an
assumption right in the question. The very wording of the question
assumes, consciously or unconsciously, the exclusivist YEC party line
that rejection of the literalistic interpretation is rejection of
God's truth. The very nature of this rhetoric precludes even the
possibility that any differing interpretive approach can possibly be
valid.

1 Kings 7:23 doesn't have a proper pi (especially since it's not
blueberry), but then why should it? It is only if you were trying to
treat it as being absolutely scientifically accurate by taking some
kind of incorrect literalistic approach that you would even worry
about the matter in the first place. There are many, many places in
the Bible where the language is not "scientifically accurate." Who
cares? Does Job 38:31-32 use astrological terminology? Yes. Does it
teach astrology? Of course not. Can a man swallow a camel whole?
Obviously not, but, fortunately, the idiomatic nature of that
statement is at least clear enough that you don't try to think that
it should be.

The Genesis account is embedded in the cultural metaphors of the
ancient Israelites, and today the religious motifs simply go over
most people's heads. Chaos, waters, darkness, abyss, Adam (man) and
adamah (ground). The Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, Eve (living; Genesis 3:20), the serpent, cherubim with a
flaming sword. Step by step the creation account takes primitive
religious idolatry apart and places God (the One God) and the
creation in their proper perspectives. The next account goes further
and places human beings in perspective to God. The motifs are ancient
and ones that the ancient Israelites would have intuitively
understood as a common part of their religious heritage (and in
contrast to the idolatrous religions of the cultures surrounding
them). They would not have tried to treat this as a literal history
any more than you would think Paul Bunyon really lived or that a
witch really built a house out of candy and gingerbread (though I
realize my examples are quite a bit more mundane than Genesis).

Does it matter that the waters are divided by a dome (see also Job
37:18 and Job 26:11), with water above and water below? Does it
matter that there are three days of morning and evening while there
are no sun, moon, or stars? Is it relevant that God creates humans
male and female on day six, while in the next account considerable
time passes while Adam examines the various creatures and determines
that none are suitable as a companion and then Eve is created? You've
got to understand that troubling yourself about such questions,
wondering, for example, about whether or not they are "scientifically
accurate," just makes no sense when you are dealing with a account
that has no intention or purpose of being science or history. It's
like hashing out the schematics of the Beatle's yellow submarine. Why
would you do it? It makes no sense. To do it is a waste of time and
is to totally and completely miss the point.

In regard to the real world, as determined by several independent
lines of objective examination of the real world, it is a fact that
the universe and the earth have been around far, far longer than just
6,000 or 10,000 years. The interpretive approach to the Genesis
creation account is not something to be a Pharisee about, yet despite
this there are YEC Pharisees on every hand (and finger, and foot, and
toe). The primary issue for many Christians, and YECs and old earth
creationists especially, is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Yet
in my experience what most YECs fail to understand is that *because*
the antiquity of the universe, for example, has been proved beyond
all shadow of a doubt, to insist on a literalistic interpretation of
Genesis and reject all alternative interpretive approaches is to,
literally, disprove the doctrine of biblical inerrancy itself.

What an interesting turn of events!

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

   The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
   the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

   Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do
   and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4.17)

   The heavens are telling the glory of God;
   and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
   Day to day pours forth speech,
   and night to night declares knowledge.
   There is no speech, nor are there words;
   their voice is not heard;
   yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19.1-4a)

Hi, everyone.

I wish to "second" David's motion. There is a clear distinction
between creating a "fully functional" universe and earth, and having
a universe and earth which we see definite marks of age on. Just for
one example: You can have a "fully functional" earth without having
an impact crater on it where a large meteorite (asteroid?, comet?)
smacked into the earth something like 200 million years ago
(Manicouagan Crater in Canada). Of course, there's also the obvious
example of fossils. What are fossils but the "leftovers" of organisms
that lived (and died) hundreds of thousands, and millions, of years
ago. Then, of course, there's SN1987A, the explosion of a star about
168,000 years ago. Is all of this stuff really just illusion?
Obviously, things like 200 million year old craters and fossils are
not necessary for a "fully functioning" universe.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene


######## David Mathews ########
This question is addressed to the Young Earth advocates:

I want to know if there are any objective standards by which one may
ascertain that an object or entity possesses apparent rather than
actual age. If there are any objective standards, please specify them
and provide some example of their use in the real world.

FYI for those interested.  If the Milky Way is 10^10 years old, based upon
observations of Type I and Type II SNs, it should have experienced > 4 x
10^8 SNs since its birth (since Kepler in 1604 only 1 SN observed in the
Milky Way) and if the star formation rate is 1-10 new stars/1-year, the
Milky Way gives birth to 10-100+ billion new stars since its origin.  I find
the comments from some on this newsgroup to be very unobjective and
extremely biased.  Much of the disinformation I have received from this
newsgroup does not check out (yes I am in contact with other physicists too,
like fsc in spectra of SN 1987A proves constant c and using equations of
state for neutron star matter developed in *c constant* universe against
slow motion effect in cDK where those same EOS may not apply).----Rod

I consider these to be objective statements about star formation theory
today.  The comments do not apply to the origin of primordial star forming
clouds or Population III stars.  That is another problem area.  The issue of
the minimum Jeans mass in cloud fragmentation is not discussed.  Large
molecular gas clouds (M42 in Orion for example) have gravitational potential
energy.  Converting this potential energy into the myriad stars we do
observe today is not easy.  Evolutionists invoke the paradigm that stars
take millions and millions of years to form and Biblical creationists need
to examine the data to see if evidence for an abrupt and rapid formation
process could be documented (more consistent with Biblical creation as
recorded in Genesis 1:14-2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11.)  Current stellar evolution
theory invokes immense pre-main sequence time spans to explain the myriad
stars visible today.

"Moreover, the actual stellar initial mass distribution is clearly
influenced by the dynamics of collapse.  This circumstance is made
particularly clear by the fact that many stars form as binary or even triple
stellar systems with varying orbital radii.  The smallest-scale structures
in molecular clouds are undoubtedly caused by turbulence.  Magnetic fields
can also influence protostar collapse by transporting angular momentum and
affecting the directionality of gas motions.

Molecular clouds (or complexes of clouds) as massive as 10^5-10^6 M-sun do
not collapse all at once, but rather regions of a cloud collapse at somewhat
different times.  Much of the turbulence in interstellar space is caused by
supernova explosions from young, massive stars.  It is therefore plausible
to assume that supernova outbursts following the collapse of a particular
region of a cloud trigger star formation in nearby molecular gas.
Cloud-cloud collisions which are more frequent in spiral arms are also
believed to induce star formation." [1]

"As is generally the case with stage magicians, the gas clouds seem to
understand the process considerably better than do we, the audience.
Somehow, the mass of a cold cloud, the distribution in it of magnetic
fields, turbulence, dust, and probably other things suffice to determine
when stars will form, how many, what their masses will be, and how many will
be parts of binary systems of different types.  We cannot currently
calculate any of these very persuasively." [2]

Here is a comment from a YEC -

Donald DeYoung stated the situation concisely - "Astronomers have looked far
and wide for indications of cloud collapse, but as yet have not found any.
On rare occasions it may occur, as perhaps in compact globules of gas.
However, this slight possibility falls far short of explaining the existence
of the myriads of existing stars, most of which are located light years
apart and far from gaseous nebulae.  It should also be remembered that
astronomers have no satisfying formation mechanism for the vast nebulae
themselves, from which stars are assumed to grow spontaneously.  To make the
popular assumption that the gas and dust came from preexisting stars is
simply to reason in a circle." [3]

"Another puzzle is how molecular clouds survive for as long as they do.
Gravity is trying to force them to collapse, and without support they should
implode within about a million years.  In practice, however, clouds seem to
have endured for a few tens of millions of years.  What holds them up?
Thermal pressure is woefully inadequate because the clouds are far too cold,
just 10 or 20 kelvins.  Turbulence might do the trick, but what would
generate it?  In giant molecular clouds such as Orion, winds and shock waves
produced by embedded massive stars would stir things up, but many smaller,
sedate clouds have no massive stars...Studying regions such as the Orion
molecular cloud at millimeter wavelengths-a previously unexplored part of
the spectrum sandwiched between the infrared and radio bands-astronomers
identified dense, cold clumps typically measuring a light-year across.  Such
clumps, known as molecular cores, contain as much as a few suns' worth of
gas...As is often the case in astronomy, new mysteries immediately emerged.
Although a few of the molecular cores seem to be in the process of
collapsing, most of them are stabilized by means that are not entirely
understood.  What triggers their eventual collapse is equally uncertain, but
it may involve some outside push from, for example, a nearby supernova
explosion." [4]

Not all young stars have disks, only about 50%, the others without the disks
are assumed to have formed with disks but the disks may have formed planets
or dissipated rapidly like the proplyds identified in Orion will (lifetime
only about 1 million years) [5]

"Another problem in star formation is the distribution of stellar masses.
Why is the ratio of high to low-mass stars pretty much the same irrespective
of location in the galaxy?  This ratio seems to be a fundamental property of
the way molecular clouds fragment, but for unknown reasons.  On a related
note, researchers know little about the early life of high-mass stars-partly
because they are rare, partly because they evolve faster and are difficult
to catch in the act of forming." [6]

Compare the difficulty of explaining the origin of high-mass stars and what
the big bang cosmology needs -

'On the other end of the scale, the main-sequence lifetime of the most
massive stars (those with more than 11 solar masses) is 10,000,000 years or
less.  As a result, thousands of generations of those heavy weights have
come and gone since the Big Bang.  Note that when we say these stars have
'come and gone,' usually that means only that they have been transformed
into a 'dead' remnant that no longer feeds on nuclear energy.'  [7]
References
1.  William K. Rose, Advanced Stellar Astrophysics, Cambridge University
Press, 1998, p. 30.
2.  Virginia Trimble, "A Year of Discovery: Astronomy Highlights of
1999", Sky & Telescope, 99(2):35, 2000.
3.  Don B. DeYoung, "NEW STARS, NEW PLANETS?", ICR Impact No. 274, April
1996, p. ii.
4.  Ray, T.P., Fountains of Youth: Early Days in the Life of a Star,
Scientific American 283(2):44, 2000.
5.  Ray, T.P., Ref. 1, p. 46.
6.  Ray, T.P., Ref. 1, p. 47.
7.  Iben Jr., I. and Tutukov A.V., The lives of stars: from birth to
death and beyond (Part I), Sky & Telescope 94(6):39, 1997.

Hi, Rod.

If the "disinformation" does not check out, then why is it you are
unable to demonstrate this, or at least discuss it? This is exactly
what I was talking about, Rod (Tom and Marc, you pay attention too).
You say you do not support the YEC radical lightspeed decay idea, yet
here you are again arguing in support of it. You can't have it both
ways. Tom, Christopher, and I have pointed out reasons why the
lightspeed decay idea can't be true. Yet here you are calling
it "disinformation" even though you are unable to explain what
is "dis" about it.

Radioactive decay rates in supernovae are observed to be the same
regardless of the distance of the supernovae from the earth. This is
a fact, Rod. It is quite objective and unbiased, and you should stop
trying to confuse this issue for the benefit of Marc Gibson and
others.

If you are in contact with "other physicists," then what in the world
are they telling you? Are they arguing in support of this discredited
lightspeed decay idea, too, that they don't really support? What is
this critical information they are feeding you that shows that the
lightspeed decay idea is correct and is what is observed? Please clue
us in on what "good information" they are giving you that
demonstrates that what we have stated is "disinformation." The
details are important.

Again (Tom, take note), I will be more than happy to not discuss the
discredited YEC lightspeed decay idea as soon as you no longer
continue to bring up this incorrect idea.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
I find the comments from some on this newsgroup to be very
unobjective and extremely biased.  Much of the disinformation I have
received from this newsgroup does not check out (yes I am in contact
with other physicists too, like fsc in spectra of SN 1987A proves
constant c and using equations of state for neutron star matter
developed in *c constant* universe against slow motion effect in cDK
where those same EOS may not apply).----Rod

Todd I concur that the cDK of Setterfield has problems and may be *many
more* that no one has uncovered.  However if you look at the relationship of
fsc to c:

fsc/c   (1.0)

What would you expect to observe in SN 1987A if c was much faster when the
star exploded using a spectrum measured today from earth?  I may expect to
observe fsc as measured against equation (1.0) today, even if c had
decreased in velocity, no surpise here.  I accept that the observation of
fsc in SN 1987A and in quasar spectrums makes for a *good interpretation*
that supports the Special Theory of Relativity, but to present the argument
as a *sound case* against Setterfield cDK and the slow motion effect, the
argument has its own problems too (areas of bias.)  I don't have time for
anymore such issues about cDK or uncovering areas of bias that someone
failed to disclose in this newsgroup that is why I make the charge of
disinformation.  An objective argument in my opinion would have clearly
disclosed this.  You don't have to agree with my position.

Thanks-----Rod

Hi, Rod.

Or, perhaps, you are simply making an argument which I do not
understand. I am certainly not all-wise nor all-knowing. Since
radioactive decay rates (for example) are the same for all observed
supernovae regardless of their distance from earth, and since the YEC
lightspeed decay idea implies that such rates would appear to vary
due to slow motion effect proportional to distance, this shows me
that the lightspeed decay idea is wrong. I see no "bias"
or "problems" in this. Where is it? And what is it I am supposed
to "clearly disclose" that I have not disclosed? (I.e., what am I
supposedly covering up?) We observe constant radioactive decay rates,
regardless of distance, whether 168,000 light-years or 2 billion
light-years from the earth. No variation in the rates is observed.
And if you extrapolate current pulsar spin cycles backwards based on
the lightspeed decay idea of a slow motion effect which you reverse,
you get pulsars spinning at rates that are impossible.

If there is something that needs to be "uncovered" about this, then
please help out my understanding here by uncovering it.

There is a distinct difference between "outstanding astronomical
questions and problems with hypotheses and model" and "ideas that
have been discredited by unequivocal information from observations."
Any model based on the idea that the sun revolves about the earth
instead of the other way around is false. It is false. The lightspeed
decay idea is false. There are no two ways about it. Why is there
equivocation on this?

Thanks,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Todd I concur that the cDK of Setterfield has problems and may be
*many more* that no one has uncovered. However if you look at the
relationship of fsc to c:

  fsc/c   (1.0)

What would you expect to observe in SN 1987A if c was much faster
when the star exploded using a spectrum measured today from earth? I
may expect to observe fsc as measured against equation (1.0) today,
even if c had decreased in velocity, no surpise here. I accept that
the observation of fsc in SN 1987A and in quasar spectrums makes for
a *good interpretation* that supports the Special Theory of
Relativity, but to present the argument as a *sound case* against
Setterfield cDK and the slow motion effect, the argument has its own
problems too (areas of bias.) I don't have time for anymore such
issues about cDK or uncovering areas of bias that someone failed to
disclose in this newsgroup that is why I make the charge of
disinformation. An objective argument in my opinion would have
clearly disclosed this. You don't have to agree with my position.

Thanks-----Rod

Todd, I have said all I am going to say on this subject, thank you-----Rod

Rod proposed a "Bernitt Standard Version" translation of Job 38 in an
attempt to get around the statement in that text that the creation of the
"morning stars" preceded God's establishment of the "footings" and
"cornerstone" of the earth.  Apparently there is only one Hebrew word for
star:  "kokab," so the same word is used in all places-Job as well as
Genesis.  I could not find any other occurrence specifically of "morning
stars."  I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I don't know how this verse ought to
be translated.  The best I can do is give several translations.

"On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-while the
morning stars sang together ." (NIV)

"On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning
stars sang together ." (NASB)

"On what do its supporting pillars rest?  Who set its corner-stone in place,
when the morning stars sang together ." (NEB)

"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?  Or who laid the corner
stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together ."  (AV)

"Upon what were the foundations of it fastened, or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together ." (AMP)

"To what were its foundations fastened?  Or who laid its cornerstone.  When
the morning stars sang together ."  (NKJV)

Not a single published translation that I can find agrees with the BSV.  The
Job creation account says the stars were in place when God created "the
foundations of the earth."

tom