Marc:

Thanks for your reply, and for the brotherly tone of this exchange.

A prophecy is itself a miracle.  When God inspired Hosea to predict the
restoration of Israel, that prophecy was itself a part of the ongoing work
of God, involving a combination of miracle and providence, which occurred
over an extended period of time.  The prophecy of Isaiah naming Cyrus, which
is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Hosea, was 100 years before
Cyrus was born.  In order for these two prophecies to be fulfilled God must:

1.  Raise up the Babylonian nation to overthrow Egypt and Assyria.

2.  Deliver Israel into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.

3.  Insure that the captivity did not involve the loss of the Judean
identity, as had been the case with Israel.

4.  Preserve the Davidic lineage.

5.  Raise up the Persian nation to overthrow Babylon

6.  Raise up a king named Cyrus within Persia.

7.  Insure that Cyrus believed in God.

8.  Raise up and inspire the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Daniel and others.

9.  Insure that certain laws prevailed within the Persian system so that a
degree once made could not be rescinded.

10.  Insure that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel were in the right place
at the right time.

11.  Give Ahasuerus an attack of insomnia.

...

I could go on.  All these things had to happen so that an "insignificant"
prophecy in Hosea could be fulfilled.  And look at that prophecy:  it allows
only *three days* for these things to happen.  Furthermore, it is obvious
that each one of these works of God might be sub-divided into "sub-works,"
and so on down to some very granular works, all of which God had to carry
out (nobody else could!).  And this doesn't even count other things which
God had to be making happen, like upholding the physical universe
continuously, working out the future rise of Greece and Rome, etc.  Marc,
I'm glad God was around to figure all that out, and that I didn't have to do
it; aren't you?

So the point is that a single work of God--the fulfillment of a prophecy in
Hosea over a span of "three days"--involved many works of God both
miraculous and providential over a period of hundreds of years, maybe more.

Now please remember the original contention of the OL:

1.  All works of God must be miraculous.

2.  All works of God must be immediate in their commencement and their
conclusion.

Does this *one* example not refute that claim definitively?

As far as "gaps," that subject has been the source of much posturing and
clarifying by James Needham recently.  The charges I have seen in the papers
about Hill's position are not lodged against the position he actually takes,
and that was my point.  Hill can speak for himself, but I think he would
claim there is *no gap required* in his position.  When God commands the
separation of the waters and the appearance of dry land, the combination of
miraculous and natural forces which will effect that conclusion begins
*immediately*.  It will be billions of years before they are concluded, but
there is no "gap" in the operation of God's command.  The same point would
apply to the creative acts of every other day.

A couple of additional points here ...

What Hill, I and the other OECs are trying to do is to extend to God's
nature the treatment we give to different books in God's scripture.  In
other words, we're trying to work out a harmony between what nature seems to
be telling us and what scripture seems to be telling us in a manner which
honors both, under the conviction that God is the author of both.  When we
encounter teachings in James and Ephesians which *seem* to be in
contradiction, we use each text to help us understand the other better.  We
are applying the same concept to scripture and nature.  But we cannot treat
nature like "the 67th book of the Bible"; we have to use the right tools to
interpret each, and try to work out a "harmony" which honors both.  People
who are determined to hold to a certain interpretation of scripture which
will not allow billions of years of cosmic history will, of course, reject
any scientific findings which contradict their interpretation, just as
people who believe that "putting your hand on the radio" will save them will
reject what James says.  I am grateful to note that Needham says that no
findings of science about the age of the earth will contradict what the
Bible says.  All he needs to tell us now is where his "gap" is, since there
has to be one somewhere.  But I don't think we'll get that point out of him,
do you?

Second, I have made the point in this space that I am an old-earth
*creationist*.  That means that I am not only *open* to the demonstration
that things have happened in the development of the universe which cannot be
explained by natural laws or by chance, I *expect* to find phenomena like
that.  And we are finding them, not just in biology but in the other
sciences as well.  That's why Fred Hoyle has complained about a
"superintellect" which "has monkeyed with physics."  So what I expect
science to tell us is that it may have taken the universe billions of years
from the original creative event to get to where it is today, but there were
things that happened along the way which just should not have happened.  And
that's what we see, and I am confident will continue to see.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Gibson
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [CreationProcessAge] Instantaneous miracles

Tom,

Hello again. Let me take up what you wrote:

>>No, I don't want to quibble about a few minutes, but I will ask:
How long, from the first prophecy, did it take God to bring about the birth
of His son?
For how long has Jesus been upholding the creation by the word of His power?
How long did it take God to accomplish the prophecy given in Hos 6:2?
How long did God work to accomplish the prophecy in Gen 49:10?  In Psalm 2?
Any other Messianic prophecy?<<

Prophecies stating the future work of God should be distinguished from the
actual time that a miracle takes place. The spoken commands of God in
Genesis
one were not prophetic statements. Hos. 6:2 may not refer to any miraculous
activity in regard to physical Israel.

I had read Hill Roberts' material before and looked over it again. Would I
be
more precise to say that Hill says that God proclaimed what He would do on
each day and then it took however long to be fulfilled? Would this not be
six
creative proclamation days with gaps of time for their fulfillment in
between? What am I misunderstanding?

I read over your treatise on Ex. 20:11 and the comparison of the week of
Gen.1 and the Sabbath week. I want to respond to a few points on that, but I

am up against it in time. I must be away from my computer for a week, and so

I will take it up when I return. I will still get whatever mail you send in
the meantime. I will read it when I return.

Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

Marc Gibson

Hi, Rod.

Thank you for acknowledging that the Russian reports do not genuinely
lend support to your discredited YEC lightspeed decay idea. That is
something I wanted to be clear to Marc Gibson and others reading
this, because in the confusion I didn't want them getting any false
impressions about that.

You write, "...if c was decreasing in velocity in the unobserved
past, time may have dilated or expanded in the universe too." So now
you try to support one pure speculation contradicted by observation
of the real universe with another "ad hoc" pure speculation - which
is also contradicted by observation. In other words, instead of
acknowledging that the YEC lightspeed decay idea is wrong, now you're
proposing a radical time dilation (at least within the last 168,000
years for relevance to the example of SN1987A). Are you now, perhaps,
delving into Humphreys cosmology? The fact remains that none of these
ideas (lightspeed decay, cosmological time dilation within the last
168,000 years) have any observational support whatsoever, and,
indeed, the observations contradict you.

So let's get the facts straight: YECs don't have a shred of evidence
on which to base any objective to the fact that SN1987A occurred
approximately 168,000 years, *because* not only do they not have a
shred of evidence indicating that lightspeed has been anything but
uniform, but all of the observations are consistent with the fact
that lightspeed has been uniform. That's what I said to begin with a
number of weeks ago. Nothing has changed.

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Tom and Rod.

I always thought that among OECs (and theistic evolutionists as well)
who were advocates of biblical inerrancy there has been a variety of
views regarding the interpretation of Genesis 1 which at the most
general level have been called "concordist" and "nonconcordist"
views. The concordists are those who do continue to interpret Genesis
1 as a sequence of historical events, but who take the "days" to be
ages or who interpret according to some kind of gap concept. In other
words, these OECs and TEs still believe that chronology is an aspect
of Genesis 1. The nonconcordists are perhaps even more varied in
interpretations, but are consistent in believing that chronology is
not intended by Genesis 1. There are a number of examples of various
kinds of views within these two categories. Davis A. Young, for
example, discusses the views of a variety of historical concordists
(see Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 1)
and
Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 2)). I
believe a contemporary concordist view is that of Hugh Ross. And
Meredith Kline (and Tom Couchman, I believe) provides a contemporary
example of a nonconcordist view (see
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html).

Therefore, Rod, I respectfully disagree that chronology is
necessarily a distinct difference between YEC and OEC interpretation
of Genesis 1, because chronology is a critical aspect of the general
concordist perspective which is advocated by many OECs and TEs who
are biblical inerrantists.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Tom, you said here
[13. While we affirm the creation as a historical event, the
description of the "creation process" in Genesis may not be taken as
a sequence of "historical" events.]

In my opinion, I believe this is probably the biggest difference
between YEC and OEC interpretations of Genesis chapter 1.

Hi, guys.

But, hey, let's not miss the crucial points. It is a fact that the
earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. It is a fact that
this was discovered through a scientific process, NOT biblical
interpretation (please, don't anyone try to pretend otherwise). It is
a fact that Christians (and, no, not just Catholics, but also all
manner of biblical inerrantists besides Catholics) argued
against "the fallibility of human wisdom" in thinking that the earth
revolved around the sun, based on the geocentric interpretation of
the Bible. It is a fact that this scientific discovery was, by the
way, the result of a technological "jump" (the telescope) which
provided highly relevant, detailed information which was never
previously available. It is a fact that biblical inerrantists
modified their interpretation once the fallacy of geocentrism became
more widely appreciated (outside of a small elite), because to
promote the idea that the Bible should be interpreted in regard to
geocentrism actually lent support to the skeptical point of view. So
according to the biblical inerrantists themselves, the literalistic
interpretation of the Bible was false, and it was the discoveries
of "secular science" that provided the primary impetus for
the "necessary" changes in biblical hermeneutics (dare I use the
word "paradigm"?). And, finally, it is a fact that the universe has
been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years (as seen, for
example, by SN1987A).

It is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy that requires biblical
inerrantists to do one of two things: Harmonize or symbolize. This
approach is forced on you not by objective discoveries about how the
real world really is, but by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy
itself. Surely this implication is clear to everyone.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Thanks Tom, some good comments on your part. For me, YEC folks would
likely say the same applies to OEC who use big bang and geology and
then go back and re-examine the Bible.


######## Tom Couchman ########
Rod: And the mistake you guys are making today is using
AiG/ICR/Morris to interpret the scripture, and then using the
scripture to "prove" that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Yes Tom, Galileo was arrested because of *Church Doctrine* but the
YEC maintain that this *doctrine* was the direct result of using
Ptolemy Almagest as the basis for secular science. Once secular
science adopted the geocentric system, the Church simply read this
back into the Scripture passages and used Scripture to defend secular
science. When Copernicus and Galileo arrived, the Church doctrine was
threatened. The mistake was the Church using Ptolemy to interpret the
Bible for nearly 1500 years.

Hi, Tom.

Not to distract from the primary focus of discussion, but just to
emphasize a clarifying distinction between how YECs paint OECs and how
OECs actually are, I comment on your statement that:

     ...I have made the point in this space that I am an
     old-earth *creationist*. That means that I am not only
     *open* to the demonstration that things have happened in
     the development of the universe which cannot be explained
     by natural laws or by chance, I *expect* to find phenomena
     like that. And we are finding them, not just in biology but
     in the other sciences as well. That's why Fred Hoyle has
     complained about a "superintellect" which "has monkeyed
     with physics." So what I expect science to tell us is that
     it may have taken the universe billions of years from the
     original creative event to get to where it is today, but
     there were things that happened along the way which just
     should not have happened. And that's what we see, and I am
     confident will continue to see.

Thus, while you and I (you being the OEC, me being the skeptic) agree
on the fact about the real world that the earth revolves around the sun,
this hardly makes you a skeptic, or "inspired by atheistic thinking." In
fact, I happen to completely disagree with what you have stated in this
paragraph. I believe it contains a number of conceptual flaws. Of
course, to get into that discussion would take us away from focus on
the issues of the "Open Letter," so I'm not going to do it. But your
comments reveal a critical philosophical dinstinction in our perspectives. It
is obvious that old earth creationism and skepticism are not the same thing.

Regards,
Todd

Todd, you have not shown what the predictions for cDK and slow motion effect
should be although you have *repeatedly claimed we would observe various
effects today* from the slow motion effect if cDK and slow motion effect as
Setterfield model had occurred in nature (e.g. pulsar spin rate changes,
cepheid period changes).  Your claims are nothing but speculation Todd.  You
need to prove what these predicted changes should be and you did not.  I at
least *offered some metrics*, you have provided *none*.  Please remove me
from this newsgroup, I have no more time to debate with people as
unobjective as you are.  Thank you----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:03 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: The Fallacy of Lightspeed Decay

Hi, Rod.

Thank you for acknowledging that the Russian reports do not genuinely
lend support to your discredited YEC lightspeed decay idea. That is
something I wanted to be clear to Marc Gibson and others reading
this, because in the confusion I didn't want them getting any false
impressions about that.

You write, "...if c was decreasing in velocity in the unobserved
past, time may have dilated or expanded in the universe too." So now
you try to support one pure speculation contradicted by observation
of the real universe with another "ad hoc" pure speculation - which
is also contradicted by observation. In other words, instead of
acknowledging that the YEC lightspeed decay idea is wrong, now you're
proposing a radical time dilation (at least within the last 168,000
years for relevance to the example of SN1987A). Are you now, perhaps,
delving into Humphreys cosmology? The fact remains that none of these
ideas (lightspeed decay, cosmological time dilation within the last
168,000 years) have any observational support whatsoever, and,
indeed, the observations contradict you.

So let's get the facts straight: YECs don't have a shred of evidence
on which to base any objective to the fact that SN1987A occurred
approximately 168,000 years, *because* not only do they not have a
shred of evidence indicating that lightspeed has been anything but
uniform, but all of the observations are consistent with the fact
that lightspeed has been uniform. That's what I said to begin with a
number of weeks ago. Nothing has changed.

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

Sorry to see you go. I have merely "held your feet to the fire" on
this issue of lightspeed decay, Rod. All I have expected you to do is
either back up your claim, or relinquish it when faced with the
explicit information that shows that the idea is discredited. I was
(and am) more than willing to no longer discuss this particular
discredited idea, and, indeed, I stopped discussing this issue by
your own request - and then you would later bring the issue back up.
I did not and do not have the intention of "running you out" of the
discussion forum, and I think it's a shame you have quit it. (At the
same time, I have every intention of criticizing false ideas and
challenging their proponents to back them up.)

With regard to your specific comments, I must point out that uniform
supernovae radioactive decay rates, pulsar cycles, Cepheid variable
star luminosity cycles, galactic rotation rates, and so on are quite
objective, thus showing how invalid is your statement that my "claims
are nothing but speculation." It is an objective fact that
astronomers observe uniform rates, and it is a corresponding
objective fact that astronomers do not observe varying rates, and
since the YEC lightspeed decay idea implies that astronomers should
observe rates that vary in proportion to their distance from earth
(due to the implied slow motion effect), observations thus disprove
the YEC lightspeed decay idea. (By the way, Rod, you yourself
acknowledged the slow motion effect implied by the lightspeed decay
idea quite a few weeks ago. It is only now that you are trying to
backtrack on this.)

I close this post by simply quoting what Dave E. Matson wrote five
years ago, also on this specific topic
(http://www.secular.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-
earth/additional_topics/supernova.html):

     When the smoke blown about finally drifts away and the
     debate hall falls silent, the young-earth creationist
     finds himself back on square one. He is looking at stars
     many millions of light-years away, stars putting out
     light which takes many millions of years to reach us!
     Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink
     down the universe have come to naught. What does remain
     is the old age of our universe.

Take care, Rod.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

   He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
      (Proverbs 12.17)

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


######## Roderick Bernitt, 10/02/00 8:07 am ########
Todd, you have not shown what the predictions for cDK and slow motion
effect should be although you have *repeatedly claimed we would
observe various effects today* from the slow motion effect if cDK and
slow motion effect as Setterfield model had occurred in nature (e.g.
pulsar spin rate changes, cepheid period changes). Your claims are
nothing but speculation Todd. You need to prove what these predicted
changes should be and you did not. I at least *offered some metrics*,
you have provided *none*. Please remove me from this newsgroup, I
have no more time to debate with people as unobjective as you are.
Thank you----Rod

Todd, I asked to be removed from this newsgroup and you did not or the
chairman did not.   You said here about cDK and slow motion effect [and
since the YEC lightspeed decay idea implies that astronomers should observe
rates that vary in proportion to their distance from earth (due to the
implied slow motion effect), observations thus disprove the YEC lightspeed
decay idea.]

First the Russian work is not by YEC folks so something is wrong with your
claims.  2nd you have again failed to provide a metric to support your claim
that we would observe spectra that *vary in proportion to distance* that
describes what we would observe in stellar spectra so I consider such a
claim on your part false and a good example of your intentions at promoting
disinformation.  Yes Todd, this is tantamount to a lie if you don't have the
metrics to prove your case and you do not!  Stop email to me now!  I also
recommend that this newsgroup remove you from the discussions because of
your clear lack of objectivity and in my opinion, intent to spread
disinformation, thanks-----Rod

Rod said:

> Todd, I asked to be removed from this newsgroup and you did not or the
> chairman did not.

Did you try doing what is at the bottom of each of the messages
you received?

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>

> You said here about cDK and slow motion effect [and
> since the YEC lightspeed decay idea implies that astronomers should
> observe rates that vary in proportion to their distance from earth (due
> to the implied slow motion effect), observations thus disprove the YEC
> lightspeed decay idea.]

They should.

> First the Russian work is not by YEC folks so something is wrong with your
> claims.

How does this follow?  Did the Russian work address this?  Have you
read it?  Have you followed papers that cite the Russian work?
Was it accepted, refuted, or (the horror!) ignored?

>  2nd you have again failed to provide a metric to support your claim
> that we would observe spectra that *vary in proportion to distance* that
> describes what we would observe in stellar spectra so I consider such a
> claim on your part false and a good example of your intentions at
> promoting disinformation.

Tom Couchman understands the argument perfectly well,
and he is not particularly expert in physics.

It is not one of spectra, but of *processes*.  That is, if one
watches a movie, one sees things happen.  If one speeds
up the rate at which images arrive at the eye, the movie
looks faster.  If the speed of light was faster in the past, then
images are arriving spread out in time, i.e. slower.  And if it
looks slow, then it must actually *be* fast.

No metric is necessary for such an argument.

>  Yes Todd, this is tantamount to a lie if you don't have the
> metrics to prove your case and you do not!  Stop email to me now!  I also
> recommend that this newsgroup remove you from the discussions because of
> your clear lack of objectivity and in my opinion, intent to spread
> disinformation, thanks-----Rod

Patience is a virtue.  If this is taking too much of your time, recall who
has raised most of the topics that are irrelevant.  Jupiter formation,
missing matter, heavy nuclei synthesis, type III supernovae,
inflation, etc.

And who was it who said on Aug 29 "My only comment about c-decay, I don't
advocate it, just find some of the debate interesting."

What is required to get at the root of matters is to find a simple
argument that is a bellweather for what the truth is.

Todd has chosen the geometric argument from SN1987a.
Why?  Because it is based on two things, and two things
only.  Trigonometry.  Is that fallible?  Speculation?  Hah!
The other is a constant speed of light.  Is that fallible?
Yes.  Speculation?  No.  Not at all.  Have you studied
relativity? (yes, I want an answer).

The young earth creationists have a huge problem *right here*.
How they deal (or not deal ) with it is quite revealing
of one's character.  It is an acid test of one's character.  Some
pass, some fail.

The passing or failing is *not* dependent on whether the
scientific argument is accepted or not.  For Marc Gibson
to say that he will go with his faith, that is quite acceptable.
What he avoids (and what is all too commonly *not*
done in the Church of Christ) is making "scientific" arguments.
That puts them in the position of relying on others (How
much can a minister expect to understand about science?)
who do not deserve trust.

What is not acceptable is to pretend the argument is
not there, or that it is not a strong argument.  Marc Gibson
and others will have to deal with the fact that this argument
will be out there.  Even if they don't accept it, they can see
just how compelling it is.  Nevertheless, their position
has problems, too (see below).

Many of the responses you have made have been to go on the
offensive - what about issue X, or Y?  It is a simple fact that
some things are well known in science, and some are quite
uncertain.  To bring up what is uncertain shows nothing either
way.  That may fool some, but in actuality it is an admission
of indefensability on SN1987a.

The issue is quite simple.  If you are going to accept science,
then you have to show that the speed of light changes, or that the universe
is at least 168,000 years old.

That is *ALL* that is required here.  The YEC here, if this is demonstrated
to their satisfaction, would simply say "I was wrong" or "I will put the
Bible
above science".  At least they had better.

But then they have this problem.  They accept science when it says the
earth is round and orbits the sun.  Will they reject that, too?  It is based
on arguments about as simple and straightforward.  I have not noticed
anybody
really addressing this at all.  One certainly can't claim that the Hebrews
knew these things, and that therefore the Bible is speaking figuratively.

Galileo was brought up earlier.  Do you know why he was persecuted?
Not for saying that the earth went around the sun, but for saying that
scripture supported his argument!

Josephus was brought up (by guess who!) as someone who read
Genesis literally, but when I pointed out Josephus did the same
for the description of earth, heaven and hell, well what acknowledgement
of that simple fact did you make?  Did you want to confront the
truth there?  I didn't see it happen.  What I saw was someone who presented
a type of evidence as being valid when it agreed with what they already
believed, and ignored when the same type of evidence *from the same
person* did not agree.

If you go away, what will be lost?

Tracy P. Hamilton

Hi, everyone.

First of all, I do not apologize for stating the truth. I do not
apologize for strongly pressing my case (in this case, regarding the
fact that SN1987A disproves the young earth creationist notion that
the universe cannot have existed for more than about 10,000 years). I
do not apologize for pointing out flaws in arguments made by those
who disagree with my position. I do not apologize for pointing out
flaws in their criticisms. I do not apologize for pointing when
people adamantly adhere to error when I believe this is what they are
doing. I do not apologize for refusing to correct myself when no
error in my statements and claims has been pointed out. This is the
nature of discussion. I know that young earth creationism is wrong,
because I understand some of the unequivocal reasons that disprove
it. I will criticize those who fail to substantiate their claims and
criticisms, and I will take them to task when they refuse to
acknowledge error. This is my reponsibility, because I respect truth
more than I respect the beliefs of particular people.

Second, Rod has indeed been removed from the email distribution list,
per his request (though, as a matter of fact, he still
retains "posting authorization" should he wish to post additional
comments), and this action was performed at exactly .

Third, *I* am the primary "moderator" of this discussion forum, and
it is an intentional and primary policy of mine that people are NOT
to have posting authorization removed against their will based on
whether they agree or disagree with any particular position on any
particular issue. (Indeed, I hold up this policy as a matter of pride
in that it distinguishes me from some YEC moderators with whom I have
engaged in discussion in their forums. Gil Yoder and Ron Cosby,
moderators of the notoriously YEC "Let Us Reason" forum, come to mind
as a couple of examples from my own personal experience. And now we
know that Rod supports a similar censorship policy.)

Fourth, it is a matter of fact that the YEC lightspeed decay idea
implies a slow motion effect. The specific amount of the effect
depends on the specific decay model that is proposed, so, frankly, I
don't see why Rod thinks I - who disputes that *any* of the decay
models are correct since there are no slow motion of any degree is
observed - somehow have the responsibility to pick one particular
decay model and calculate a particular slow motion amount. My point
all along has been that since no slow motion effects of any kind are
observed, then *none* of the YEC lightspeed decay models are
possible. The degree of the slow motion effect is not the issue,
since it is a fact that zero is what is observed. (It is also true
that Rod himself began his discussion and support of the lightspeed
decay idea by acknowledging the fact that it implies a slow motion
effect.)

Far from being "tantamount to a lie," as Rod describes it, this is
simply the truth of the matter. It is too bad that YECs who are so
adamant in their error stoop to describing empirical observations
as "unobjective" and "lies," as Rod has done, but since the YEC
position is contrary to reality, I suppose this is what we should
expect, since there are only two ways to reduce the cognitive
dissonance and this is one of them.

Fifth, with respect to the Russian and German reports ("Physical
constants and the evolution of the universe" [1986] and "Physical
constants and evolution of the universe" [12/1987] by V. S.
Troitskii; and "The general metrical fundamental form of the de
Sitter universes" by H.-J. Treder [1975]), Rod attempts to
misrepresent what I said. My point to Rod was:

     Your Russian reports do not provide any support for your
     discredited idea. Frankly, I don't like the confusion you
     promote with this information that is at best tangentially
     related to your proposal but not actually relevant to
     substantiating what you are trying to support. If those
     astronomers are presenting information and explanations
     that genuinely imply that the stellar explosion SN1987A
     could have occurred less than 10,000 years ago rather than
     about 168,000 years ago, then please...contact them and
     invite them to present their information to us and discuss
     it. Since you and I both know that their discussion has
     *absolutely* nothing to do with proposing this about
     SN1987A, your citations of them is nothing more than the
     smoke-and-mirrors of rhetorical obfuscation. I'm being
     completely honest and forthright with you, and everyone
     else, when I state this. I am being as forthright about
     this as I am, because it is my sincere belief that it is
     wrong for you to continue to present these citations of
     legimitate astronomers as being somehow in support of your
     discredited YEC lightspeed decay even though we all know
     that these astronomers are not actually presenting
     anything in support of this already discredited idea.

In fact, Rod's proposal is the YEC lightspeed decay idea that
manipulates, purely by imagination, the speed of light for the
purpose of getting light from astronomical entities that are billions
of light-years away to the earth in less than 10,000 years. (This
idea directly implies either a radically higher lightspeed in the
recent past - say, 10,000 years ago - on the order of millions of
times faster than it is now, or a radical time dilation in the recent
past with time rates having changed by the same degree. Neither of
these implications has any empirical support, and there are empirical
observations that contradict both.) Rod knows fully well that the
Russian and German reports have absolutely nothing to do with
supporting this radical YEC idea, which is why it was wrong for him
to try to cite them *as if they did* support the YEC lightspeed decay
idea. His citing of them thus has the effect of obfuscating the fact
that (1) his support of the YEC lightspeed decay has no empirical
justification, and (2) he has no basis on which to establish genuine
criticism of the stated empirical examples that contradict, and thus
discredit, the YEC lightspeed decay idea.

Sixth, even though I told Rod: "you could easily 'blow a hole' in my
criticism of your support of lightspeed decay: Simply provide
examples where astronomers observe the predicted slow motion
effects," it remains the fact that Rod never produced a single
example to substantiate his claim. But, then, how could he?
Astronomers have already made many kinds of observations by which
they see that lightspeed has been uniform in the distant past with
what it is now. That is the point. Too bad that Rod in his adamant
belief (a fallible human belief) in lightspeed decay (a fallible
human belief) refuses to accept reality.

Seventh, and finally, with the empirical examples that others and I
pointed out in regard to showing the uniformity of lightspeed in the
past (as examples of uniform rates, or rates already close to an
upper limit in the case of millisecond pulsars, are observed - and
not any slow motion effects; examples like supernovae radioactive
decay rates, Cepheid variable star luminosity cycles, galaxy
rotations, and so on), I wish to emphasize the point that Rod
disputed only one of the empirical examples (regarding light spectra,
an argument actually made by correspondents other than myself) and
failed to account for any of the others. The fact remains that Rod
cannot show variation, and thus cannot provide data that
substantiates the implied slow motion effect of lightspeed decay, and
he in turn has not been able to explain the data showing uniformity,
which contradicts lightspeed decay.

But now that the lightspeed decay advocate has chosen to no longer
discuss this particular topic in this forum (or any other topic, for
that matter), I shall not discuss it any longer either. (Okay, Marc,
your series of questions regarding the Genesis creation account and
metaphorical interpretation is on my list of issues for me to focus
on next. No, I never forgot them. ;-) )

  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

But let's step back up a bit and look at where we got here from. What
I had discussed was SN1987A, and how this particular stellar
explosion shows us that the universe has been around for at least
168,000 years. What Rod was trying to do was to produce some idea by
which it might be possible to understand that SN1987A could have
occurred substantially less than 168,000 years ago (less than 10,000
years ago, to be more precise). If he, or any other YEC, could do
this successfully, then this would represent a legitimate criticism
of such an example as SN1987A as disproving YEC. On this general
principle, this is indeed what a YEC should try to do (rather than
simply ignoring the implications of things like SN1987A, as many YECs
do). I certainly have no problems with Rod, or any YEC, in general,
trying to criticize this point regarding SN1987A (or other kinds of
similar astronomical examples). I expect them to attempt to come up
with a good criticism.

The problem is that this particular idea - the lightspeed decay idea -
 has already been shown to be wrong empirically. It is a discredited
idea, so it is the responsibility of YECs who are genuinely
interested in truth-seeking to abandon this false idea. (But, then,
we still see, routinely, the promotion of discredited ideas like the
shrinking sun, ocean salinity, and the Moon & Spencer conjecture in
YEC circles because of a serious *lack* of responsibility. Otherwise,
why are such discredited ideas still making the rounds? YECs are
habitually careless about the details and highly tolerant of people
using defunct ideas in support of the YEC creed because, after
all, "We know YEC must be true.")

Yes, SN1987A directly disproves young earth creationism. Young earth
creationism is wrong, because reality itself shows us that YEC is
wrong. The earth revolves around the sun, and the universe has
existed far, far longer than just 10,000 years. YEC is thus an
impossible belief.

Regards,
Todd

   He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
      (Proverbs 12.17)

   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)

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

   "As those whose lives and teachings revolve around
   the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do
   all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous
   material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or
   the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we
   should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use
   error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is
   not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome
   responsibility as well."
      (Bert Thompson; Reason & Revelation, 2/99)


######## Roderick Bernitt, 10/3/00 8:23 am ########
Todd, I asked to be removed from this newsgroup and you did not or
the chairman did not. You said here about cDK and slow motion effect
[and since the YEC lightspeed decay idea implies that astronomers
should observe rates that vary in proportion to their distance from
earth (due to the implied slow motion effect), observations thus
disprove the YEC lightspeed decay idea.]

First the Russian work is not by YEC folks so something is wrong with
your claims. 2nd you have again failed to provide a metric to support
your claim that we would observe spectra that *vary in proportion to
distance* that describes what we would observe in stellar spectra so
I consider such a claim on your part false and a good example of your
intentions at promoting disinformation. Yes Todd, this is tantamount
to a lie if you don't have the metrics to prove your case and you do
not!  Stop email to me now! I also recommend that this newsgroup
remove you from the discussions because of your clear lack of
objectivity and in my opinion, intent to spread disinformation.

Whoops! I left out the reference. My sentence was supposed to
read: "Rod has indeed been removed from the email distribution list,
per his request..., and this action was performed at exactly 10/2/00
11:36 pm EST."

Marc and others:

Sorry about the delay.  Crazy times lately.

I had asked, QUOTE:
Are you willing to apply the same technical rigor to all statements in
scripture about "foundations of the world" and "God's work" that you are
trying to apply to the text in Hebrews?
UNQUOTE

And you replied, QUOTE:
Sure, if the immediate context will allow it. In Job 38:4, the "morning
stars" could refer to spiritual being (angels).
...
and
...
The word "world" in Heb. 4:3 is "kosmos" and can refer to the whole
created universe unless the context limits it. Nothing in the context
here would limit it to something less than all of the physical creation.
A parallel context is Rom. 1:20 "since the creation of the world (kosmos)"
 - this would take in all of God's creation in the observable heavens and
earth. Heb. 4:3 is a precise statement about the historical six day work
of creation. It supports the literal understanding of Gen. 1-2. The entire
work of creation was accomplished "at the foundation of the kosmos,"
at the beginning. This would include man's creation. He is no late-comer
on the creative calender.
UNQUOTE

My contention, and I think Tracy at least would agree, is that the *context*
of scripture *specifically EXcludes* "literal-scientific" explanations for
God's work.  The two reasons I have given for this conviction are:

1.  That if we interpret *one* text of scripture in a "literal-scientific"
manner, we must allow *all* texts of scripture to be so interpreted, and the

Bible becomes *nonsense*.  Several examples have been given:  the sun
standing still, insects with four legs, the mustard-seed being the smallest
of seeds, waters above the sun, moon and stars being responsible for rain.
If you wish to defend a "literal-scientific" interpretation of Genesis you
must defend a "literal-scientific" interpretation of Joshua's long day.
Since Rod has decided not to participate any more I will issue you the
same challenge I issued to him.  Marc, I dare you to deal with the story
of Joshua's long day, or with any other of these texts of scripture.

2.  That miracles may not be described scientifically.  The creation-story
is the story of a miracle-in-progress, and therefore any "scientific"
account is "literally" nonsense.

Why do you insist that the "morning stars" in Job 38 are not literal, but
rather are a figurative way of describing spiritual beings (when spiritual
beings are mentioned in the next phrase--"the sons of God shouted for
joy"), but insist that the "days" of Genesis 1 must be exactly 24-hour
days?

Why do you insist that the sequence of creation described in Genesis
1 is scientifically true, but balk at the sequence described in Genesis
2:18-19, which says,
  "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should
  be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.'
  Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of
  the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to
  Adam to see what he would call them ..."

Remember Rod's "waw consecutive" construction?  This is it!

If there were literally six 24-hour days, then the "foundation of the world"

took place less than one-12th of the way from the beginning of creation
until the creation of humankind and marriage.  That's the "scientific fact"
with which you have to deal, and you're not dealing with it.  "Foundation of

the world" means "six days of creation" in Hebrews 4, but it means "on or
before the first day of creation" in Job 38.  Why?

Why is the creation-story in Genesis, which as I have demonstrated
contains *many* poetic elements, *literal-scientific*, while the creation
story in Job must be viewed as figurative?

Why, as the OL you signed claimed, is the statement in Psalm 33:9--
"He commanded, and it stood fast"--a *literal* denial of the possibility
of "progressive creation," while the statement in Psalm 33:7--"He lays
up the deep in storehouses"--is intended to be taken figuratively?

How can you claim that creation must have taken no more than 144
consecutive hours, and refuse to deal with the fact that Genesis 1:1
takes place before the creation of light and therefore before the
first day started?  How can you possibly *know* that there was no gap
of any kind between the creation of heavens and earth and the creation
of light?  How can anybody (I do not hold you responsible for what King
has written) call a belief that some time passed "between" the creation
of heavens and earth and the creation of light a "damnable heresy"?

You make the statement:
"The entire work of creation
was accomplished 'at the foundation of the kosmos,' at the beginning.
This would include man's creation. He is no late-comer on the creative
calendar."

As you are well-aware, less than one-twelfth of the story of creation is
the story of mankind.  Why don't you deal with this fact?  You claim that
it's important for us to accept that "foundation of the world" refers
literally to the creation of Adam and Eve, but it doesn't matter that
Adam and Eve were not literally created "at the beginning of creation."
You claim (and I agree with this claim) that it's important that we
accept that God created heavens and earth "in the beginning," but it's
not important that God did not create marriage "in the beginning,"
unless the latter "beginning" is *defined* as "the beginning of marriage."

You see, Marc, there's a double-standard being applied here.  When it fits
the interpretation you want to impose on the text, we must take the text
as a "literal-scientific" description.  But when it doesn't fit the
interpretation, it's intended to be taken figuratively.  We are supposed to
be able to see from the text in Hebrews that Adam and Eve were created
a literal 144 hours from the creation of the earth, but we are also supposed
to be able to see that they were not created literally at "the foundation
of the world."  In other words, what is *not* literally true--that Adam
and Eve were created at the same instant as the world--*is* what is
meant, but what *is* literally true--that Adam and Eve were created in
the last part of the last day of creation--*is not* what is meant!  In fact,

if I accept the statements in the OL, the same text (Psalm 33) must be
taken to indorse 144 hours of creation--anything else is a "damnable
heresy"--but I suppose that if I claimed that God really had put the ocean
into "storehouses" *that* would be a "damnable heresy."  Can't you see
the inconsistency here?

As for the seventh day, you make a good point.  However...

God rested on the seventh day, and it was the fact of His rest which
consecrated the seventh day and made that day a "sabbath."  When Israel
rested, they did so for one day, and then returned to work.  Their rest did
indeed cease.  But God's "sabbath-rest" continues.  In fact, "there remains
a sabbath-rest" for the people of God," and the "sabbath-rest" which
remains for God's people is in fact the same "sabbath-rest" into which God
entered after His creative work.

That this rest is not "temporal" is demonstrated by the fact that
two of the creative Personalities--the Father and the Son--continue
to work.  And yet the rest is still in existence and is indeed available
for God's people.

"God set a certain day, calling it today," but that "today" is not
another day of rest:  it is another day in which we may respond to
the call and "make every effort to enter that rest."  For those who
heard the call during the "Today" of Joshua were those who "heard and
rebelled."  They heard the call in that "Today," but "I declared on oath
in my anger, They shall never enter my rest."  The "today" we have in
our time is not a "today" of rest; it is a "today" of invitation:
"Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."  Those who
have already entered God's rest are not subject to the hardening of their
hearts.

And yet God's "sabbath" was the seventh day of creation, and His
"sabbath" continues, for us to enter if we "hear his voice, [and] do not
harden [our] hearts."  If His rest was the seventh day of creation,
and His rest has not ended, then why does that seventh day not continue,
and why do we not enter that seventh day:

"For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day day in these
words:  'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'  And
again in the passage above he says, 'They shall never enter my rest.' ...
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.  ... Let us,
therefore, make every effort to enter that rest."

It is, perhaps, not an ineluctable conclusion.  But I do find it compelling.

Thanks again for your willingness to discuss these matters.

tom