Hello Everyone,

I venture to guess that more pages of text and more correspondence
over the Age of the Earth has occurred during the last two years than
during any previous decade among the brotherhood.

If the present issue was of such slight concern during previous
times, perhaps this should indicate that Christians need not engage
in strife over this matter.  This is not to suggest that we should
not disagree, I am merely opposing strife.

Disagreements among Christians are healthy and beneficial when they
provoke each of us to study the doctrine intensely for the purpose of
finding, learning or conveying the truth as we understand it.

Contentions are not beneficial.  Contention merely serves to divide
brethren while generating anger and bitterness which endures long
after the controversy is forgotten.

I oppose contention but support disagreement.  I support your right
to disagree, and am willing to hear your disagreement.

But why should anyone seek to damage another Christian either by
removing him or her from employment, making accusations against his
or her character or by misrepresenting and stereotyping his or her
viewpoint?

I can find no justification for any of these behaviors.  I would not
want to see Harry Osborne lose his preaching position or Shane Scott
lose his teaching position.  Harry Osborne should preach and Shane
Scott should teach.

I would much rather see in the church both Harry Osborne and Shane
Scott than neither.  Accept and applaud diversity.

When then this anger, even if legitimized as righteous anger?  No
anger, no strife, no division.

Just a suggestion, submitted for your approval or rejection.

David Mathews

From: David Mathews

Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 11:28 PM

Hello Everyone,

I venture to guess that more pages of text and more correspondence
over the Age of the Earth has occurred during the last two years than
during any previous decade among the brotherhood.

If the present issue was of such slight concern during previous
times, perhaps this should indicate that Christians need not engage
in strife over this matter.  This is not to suggest that we should
not disagree, I am merely opposing strife.

Disagreements among Christians are healthy and beneficial when they
provoke each of us to study the doctrine intensely for the purpose of
finding, learning or conveying the truth as we understand it.

Contentions are not beneficial.  Contention merely serves to divide
brethren while generating anger and bitterness which endures long
after the controversy is forgotten. 

I oppose contention but support disagreement.  I support your right
to disagree, and am willing to hear your disagreement.

But why should anyone seek to damage another Christian either by
removing him or her from employment, making accusations against his
or her character or by misrepresenting and stereotyping his or her
viewpoint? 

I can find no justification for any of these behaviors.  I would not
want to see Harry Osborne lose his preaching position or Shane Scott
lose his teaching position.  Harry Osborne should preach and Shane
Scott should teach.

I would much rather see in the church both Harry Osborne and Shane
Scott than neither.  Accept and applaud diversity.

When then this anger, even if legitimized as righteous anger?  No
anger, no strife, no division.

Just a suggestion, submitted for your approval or rejection.

David Mathews

Hello Todd,

There was a time when I became emotional about beliefs, ideas and
people and that caused me to react in a negative manner to perceived
threats to my faith.  That was before I became secure in
understanding myself, understanding what I believed and why I
believed it.

Since that time, I have governed all my responses to other people by
the principle: Your sins are my sins, your faults are my faults and
your weaknesses are my weaknesses.  To become upset about someone
else was to become upset with myself.

At first, this principle was applied quite easily to those who
formerly were the most terrible enemies: atheists, humanists and
followers of the non-Christian religions.  Applying the same
principle to Christians was much more difficult because there is, as
it were, a much deeper emotional connection with family than with
strangers.

Over a period of several years I sought out various controversies
among Christians for the purpose of provoking an argument.  I
monitored myself to see how I reacted internally and how that
reaction expressed itself in my responses to other people.

I do not know yet whether or not I have attained to an ideal.
Perhaps I have, or maybe tomorrow an argument will arise which will
reveal the persistance of weakness.

David

Hello Everyone,

I have visited the South Livingston congregation for many years, even
when it was the Fletcher ave congregation.  I have utmost respect for
that congregation.  I am confident that Harry Osborne is an effective
and edifying preacher.

Why would I go out of my way to criticize Harry Osborne, or
discourage anyone from attending South Livingston or desire for some
harm to befall any other Christian?

Argue all that you want, but argue as a Christian.  Christ has
commanded that we love one another.  If I love my opponent, I will
not attempt to harm him or her for any reason.

And if my next door neighbor is a sinner, a pervert or an evil person
I am also responsible to love him or her as well.  However offensive
a person's behavior may be that is not a justification for
unchristian thoughts, words or behavior on my part.

If I must love my enemy, I must love my fellow Christian as well.  If
I do not love my fellow Christian, how much less likely is it that I
will love my enemy?

Seek no harm, speak no slander, allow mercy to overwhelm judgment.

"Speak quietly to everyone, and they too will be gentle in their
speech.  Harsh words hurt, and come back to the speaker."
(Dhammapada 133)

"If you have no wound on your hand you can touch poison without being
harmed.  No harm comes to him who does no harm.  If you harm a pure
and innocent person, you harm yourself, as dust thrown against the
wind comes back to the thrower."
(Dhammapada 124-125)

David Mathews

Some notes about the big bang I have compiled over time.  For Christians to
throw out or modify the Biblical record of Genesis Chapters 1-11 for this
type of 'science' lacks wisdom in my opinion.  See Romans 1:18-22.  The
material is organized into the following short topics:

1. Antimatter in the big bang model
2. Bang in the big bang, what put it there?
3. Untested features of the big bang or questionable data in the paradigm
4. Fine tuned parameters in the universe
5. Inflation theory
6. Neutrinos
7. The universe has no center or boundary
8. Scientific American website answers

For those interested inflation theory is not the moment of the big bang.
The big bang happens everywhere!  Inflation takes place shortly after the
big bang.  Beyond the cosmic horizon (from earth we cannot see beyond this
point), inflation theory predicts a universe very different from what
astronomers observe today.  From our frame of reference on earth, we cannot
measure or see this.  See item 8.  Also see Adams, F.C. and Laughlin, G.,
the Future of the Universe, Sky & Telescope 96(2):33, 1998.  Inflation
begins 10^-37 of a second after the big bang and ends 10^-32 of a second
after the big bang.  This is not the big bang that creates 3D space in the
universe.  The S&T report also shows origin of Population III stars about
10^6 years after the big bang.  See pages 34-35.

----Rod

1. Antimatter in the big bang model -

"One of cosmology's greatest mysteries is why we're here at all.  One reason
is that scientists have yet to explain how matter particles came to
outnumber antimatter ones in the ultrahot inferno of the early Big Bang.
Had they been present in equal numbers, as the simplest theories predict,
matter and antimatter particles would have annihilated one another
completely, leaving a sea of pure radiation."

Ref: NewsNotes, Antimatter Finding Has Cosmological Implications, Sky &
Telescope, October 1999, Vol. 98, No. 4, p. 27.

My observation > this report does not specify exactly where during the
10^-43 to 1 second after the big bang this issue occurs.  The report is
about a possible solution pending but one which still contains gaps "But the
discovery falls several steps short of solving the matter-antimatter
mystery...At least that's how things stand at present; accelerators in
California and Japan are currently generating even more ephemeral particles,
called B mesons, in the hopes of shedding new light on this outstanding
cosmic puzzle."----Rod

2. Bang in the big bang, what put it there?

From: Bernitt, Mr Roderick
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999
To: Frank Sherwin, ICR
Subject: Give Peas a Chance
by Tom Yulsman, Astronomy, September 1999, pp. 38-46.

Interesting article on cosmology Frank.  Efforts by Neil Turok and Stephen
Hawking to answer what put the bang in the big bang.  Turns out to be a pea
instanton.  This sidesteps the dreaded singularity in the big bang and
inflation model.  "One can predict everything about the universe from this
initital instanton", Turok says, "The calculations are very precise", p. 38.
Of course critics like Andrei Linde dismisses the instanton as an abstract
of higher math with no reality to it.  So we have numerical religion I
guess----Rod

3. Untested features of the big bang or questionable data in the paradigm -

	1. initial singularity for the origin of everything including
physical law and physical constants in the universe
	2. inflation model predicts abundance of magnetic monopoles
	3. 1 second after big bang, universe is filled with primordial
neutrinos
	4. 1st stars in the universe are Population III stars
	5. 1st supernovae in the universe, progenitors are Population III
stars
	6. Where are the white dwarfs on the H-R diagram from Population III
stars?
	7. big bang model predicts a Hubble law featuring a smooth increase
in red shifts for remote galaxies but astronomer Halton Arp data shows many
discordant red shifts and astronomer William Tifft data indicates many red
shifts may be quantized or proceed in jumps.

You could expand this list but I will leave it at the 7 for the moment.  The
big bang does appear to provide (on the surface) a good explanation for the
origin of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), abundance of light elements
observed in the universe (H/He ratio), and redshifts observed in distant
galaxies and quasars which are the traditional 3 pillars that are used to
support the big bang cosmology and justify it in science.  However
contradictory data as well as untested features are generally ignored when
presenting the model to the public.  This includes how the topic of origins
is covered in the public school system.

"The singularity is what you'd see if the classic movie of the Big Bang and
subsequent cosmic evolution were run in reverse to the opening frame.  All
the planets, all the stars, all the galaxies, all the intergalactic gas and
dust, in short, all the matter and energy in the universe, would zoom
backward in time and converge into an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense-and
singularly unexplainable-speck.  Here, all the laws by which scientists
explain nature would break down...'The problem we have is that every
particle in the universe originated in the singularity,' says Neil Turok, a
mathematical physicist at Cambridge University in England.  'That's
unacceptable because there are no laws of physics that tell you how they
came out of it.'  And so scientists are seeking to refine their explanation
of the ultimate origin of the universe."[1]

The latest efforts by Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking are efforts to side
step the singularity in the big bang model and evolve the universe by
natural laws (but the singularity still survives in their model but is
considered "mild").  However their efforts still can't answer where physical
law came from "But what created those laws?  Says Turok: 'We don't know how
to create physics from nothing." [2]

For those who accept the Biblical record of origins, we have the answer to
Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking's problem - Job 28:26-27, Isaiah 45:18, and
Jeremiah 31:35-36, the laws of physics originated with the Creator.

References

1.Tom Yulsman, "Give Peas a Chance", Astronomy, September 1999, Vol. 27, No.
9, p. 38.
2.Tom Yulsman, p. 46.

4. Fine tuned parameters in the universe

See the July 2000 Astronomy report [1].  Martin Rees argues that physical
constants and physical law in our universe originated by chance because
there have been numerous big bangs with an infinite variety of universes
that have evolved.  We just happen to be in this universe.  Because so many
other universes exist with different physical laws, our universe is just
chance, not by creative design.  Martin Rees is promoting string theory with
a multiverse featuring many episodes of eternal inflation.

Reference
1. Rees, M. Just 6 Numbers, Astronomy 28(7):54-59, 2000.

5. Inflation theory -

When evolutionists began investigating the universe's origin based upon the
big bang model for the time period < 1 second after the big bang, a number
of problems emerged.

'When the standard big-bang model is extended to these earlier times,
various problems arise.  First, it becomes clear that the model requires a
number of stringent, unexplained assumptions about the initial conditions of
the universe.  In addition most of the new theories of elementary particles
imply that the standard model would lead to a tremendous overproduction of
the exotic particles called magnetic monopoles (each of which corresponds to
an isolated north or south magnetic pole).  The inflationary universe was
invented to overcome these problems.' [1]

'Extrapolating the big bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a
cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in
which the known laws of physics do not apply.  The instant of creation
remains unexplained...Recently there has been some serious speculation
that the actual creation of the universe is describable by physical laws.
In
this view the universe would originate as a quantum fluctuation, starting
from
absolutely nothing...Quantum fluctuations of the structure of space-time can
be discussed only in the context of quantum gravity, and so these ideas must
be considered highly speculative until a working theory of quantum gravity
is
formulated.' [2]

References

1.	Guth, A.H. and Steinhardt, P.J., The Inflationary Universe,
Scientific American, June 1984, p. 116.
2.	Guth, A.H. and Steinhardt, P.J., Ref. 1, p. 128.

Inflation theory in the big bang model may be in trouble.  The COBE
satellite data has been analyzed by many teams and claim to find a Gaussian
distribution (bell curve) to the CMBR tiny variations observed.  This
Gaussian distribution is claimed as supporting inflation theory.  However 4
teams this year claim to have found non-Gaussian distribution signals.
Additional follow up observations after COBE using more sensitive
measurements for the CMBR from ballon-borne instruments, this data appears
to support non-Gaussian distribution of CMBR variations.  Inflation theory
may be in real trouble.  "As usual, cosmologists need more data.  NASA's
Microwave Anisotropy Probe, scheduled for launch late next year, should
settle the matter." [1]

Reference
1.	Science and the Citizen, "Skewing the Cosmic Bell Curve", Scientific
American, September 1999,
Vol. 281, No. 3, p. 29.
----------
From: 	Bernitt, Mr Roderick
Sent: 	Thursday, December 31, 1998
To: 	Frank Sherwin, ICR
Subject: 	Inflation in a Low-Density Universe

ref: Scientific American, January 1999 article by Martin A. Bucher and David
N. Spergel, starts on p. 62.  I know I commented on this in an earlier email
to you but here is a quick follow up.

Overall, this month's Scientific American 'Special Report' on cosmology was
very interesting reading for me.  The subject line article has a very clear
presentation of the horizon problem in the sbb model on p. 64

"Two regions on opposite sides of the sky look broadly the same, yet they
are separated by more than 24 billion light-years.  Light has been traveling
for only about 12 billion years, so the regions have yet to see each other.
There has never been enough time for matter, heat or light to flow between
them and homogenize their density and temperature."

This problem shows up in the sbb model when you apply relativity and c as a
constant extrapolated back to < 1 second after the big bang.  From what I
can tell, the bbi model dumps relativity and all physical constants except
one.  That is Planck constant, h.  h is assumed to be constant before,
during, and after the big bang right through the present.  I admit this is a
wonderful simple assumption.  I don't see how these 'inflation
evolutionists' could do the quantum math and inflation field theory without
this assumption.

Note what this article says on p. 68 about challenging assumptions used in
calculations - "Last year Hawking and Neil G. Turok, also at Cambridge,
suggested the spontaneous creation of an open inflationary bubble from
nothingness.  This new version of open inflation bypasses the need for
false-vacuum decay, but Vilenkin and Andrei D. Linde of Stanford University
have challenged the assumptions in the calculation."

What???  Where is the challenge to the assumption of Planck constant being
the only real constant throughout the history of the universe including
predating its origin (big bang)?  My guess - if someone challenged this
assumption, the game could be over for the bbi model.

This article on the bbi model did not point out the size of the universe for
these quantum calculations.  I believe it is near or smaller than the
Planck-Wheeler length.  I believe this is a diameter or radius (can't
remember off top of my head) of about 10^-33 cm.  That is right, the
exponent is -33 not +33.

At least the authors on p. 68 admit - "Unfortunately, it may be very
difficult (though perhaps not impossible) for astronomers to test any of
these ideas.  Inflation erases almost all observational signatures of what
preceded it."

A reader needs to put this picture together with the sbb and bbi model
features of:

	a. magnetic monopoles in bbi (Inflation 'erases' evidence here).
	b. dark matter invoked to help aid structure formation.
	c. first stars are Population III stars.  What role do these play in
the origin of cosmic structure after the big bang?  It would appear that the
first organized structures like open star clusters and galaxies would be
composed only of Population III stars.  Population III stars would also give
birth to the first supernovae.
	d. cosmic history features at least 12 billions years of expansion
since the big bang.  This means plenty of multiple generations of Population
I stars (like spectral class O and B types).

Frank, you may want to share this report from me with Dr. John.  Happy New
Year and God bless----Rod

6. Neutrinos -

"Events in the universe within the first one-thousandth (10^-3) of a second
after the big bang are not well understood, principally because they are
dominated by interactions of nuclear particles that are not well understood.
Up until a hundredth (10^-2) of a second after the big bang neutrinos and
anti-neutrinos are plentiful; they easily interact with photons and other
particles.  Thereafter the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos do not interact
further, and so they play little part in subsequent physical processes.
From 10^-2 second until 100 seconds after the big bang the universe consists
mostly of photons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos, antineutrinos and a
trace of protons and neutrons.  During this time and continuing somewhat
thereafter all the positrons combine with electrons; in addition neutrons
combine with protons to make helium nuclei.  Most of the helium in the
present universe was synthesized at this time." [1]

My observation > you cannot have this nuclear fusion phase of the big bang
during 10^-2 of a second to 100 seconds after the big bang without creating
a universe full of primordial neutrinos.  These primordial neutrinos remain
untested so far.

Research
1. New Frontiers in Astronomy, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1975, p. 335.  Reprint
of  "The Cosmic Background Radiation" by Adrian Webster, August 1974
Scientific American article.

The Super-K neutrino detector is checking to see if neutrinos have mass and
its application to dark matter.  As one report indicates, "Another
implication is that the neutrino mass should now be considered in the
bookkeeping of the mass of the universe...The neutrino mass suggested by our
result is too small to resolve this mystery by itself.  Nevertheless,
neutrinos created during the big bang permeate space and could account for a
mass nearly equal to the combined mass of all the stars.  They could have
affected the formation of large astronomical structures, such as galaxy
clusters." [1]

Reference
1.	Edward Kearns, Takaaki Kajita and Yoji Totsuka, "Detecting Massive
Neutrinos", Scientific American, August 1999, Vol. 281, No. 2, p. 71.

 In reference to neutrinos changing flavor Astronomy recently had this
report -

"...the universe is believed to be full of neutrinos released approximately
one second after the Big Bang.  Calculations show that every cubic inch of
space now contains about 1,600 primordial neutrinos, which should come in an
equal mix of all three flavors.  By combining the results of a variety of
neutrino experiments over the coming years, scientists are planning to
gradually narrow the uncertainties in neutrino mass.  Meanwhile, primordial
neutrinos are a tantalizing quarry for astronomers because they can reveal
what conditions were like in the universe a mere heartbeat after the Big
Bang.  However, the low energies expected from primordial neutrinos puts
them beyond the range of any existing or planned neutrino detector.  'It's a
challenge for the next century,' says Kolb." [1]

My observation - the big bang (bb) model is missing primordial neutrinos
created in abundance about 1 second after the bb.  The bb model is also
missing primordial stars - Population III stars.

Reference

1. Ivan Semeniuk, "Catching Cosmic Ghosts", Astronomy, June 1999, Vol. 27,
No. 6., p. 43.

7. The universe has no center or boundary

"As counterintuitive as it may seem, the universe has no center, and it has
no boundary.  The idea of a Big Bang acting like a giant fireworks explosion
hurtling matter and energy outward is pervasive but misleading.  As bizarre
as it sounds, it wasn't 'stuff' that exploded outward, it was space itself!
In essence, the Big Bang happened everywhere...In fact, there's no reason
why there has to even be a center anywhere." [1]

Compare such claims with the South African cosmologist, George Ellis who has
written on this topic.  He argues that if you place the earth at the center
of a spherical, symmetrical universe, modern astronomers could not tell the
difference.

"'People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain
the observations,' Ellis argues.  'For instance, I can construct you a
spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot
disprove it based on observations.'  Ellis has published a paper on this.
'You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.  In my view there is
absolutely nothing wrong in that.  What I want to bring into the open is the
fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot
of cosmology tries to hide that.'" [2]

Recently, Robert V. Gentry has proposed an alternative to the big bang
model.  It is called "New Redshift Interpretation".  Evolutionists have
rejected it as an alternative to the big bang but his effort as a
creationist does demonstrate something about the red shift explanation.  The
Gentry model shows a "spherical universe described by Einsteinan General
Relativity with a definite center which neither expands nor contracts". [3]

Apparently a static universe model with a center can be developed which
explains many (but may be not all) of the red shifts observed in various
galaxies and quasars.  I have also found on the NASA ADS on the INTERNET,
other authors who argue for a static universe model with red shifts.  Halton
Arp continues to publish discordant red shifts, i.e. the red shifts don't
necessarily mean an expanding universe.  Robert Gentry is not new at this
argument although his approach features a universe with a center.

References

1. Ask Astro, Astronomy, March 1999, Vol. 27, no. 3, p. 102.
2. Profile: George F. R. Ellis by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American,
October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
2.	Ryan Scranton, "Debunking Robert Gentry's New Redshift
Interpretation" Cosmology, October 8, 1998, p. 1.  Posted at
www.talkorigins.org URL on the INTERNET.

8. Scientific American website answers
According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If
space is expanding, into what is it expanding?

B. C. Dozier
Kerrville, Tex.

More
Astronomy
Questions

Back to
Ask the
Experts

		Joel R. Primack, a cosmologist at the University of
California at Santa Cruz, notes that
		the big bang involves physical processes quite unlike those
of everyday experience. For that
reason, people often find it quite difficult to grasp what astronomers mean
when they refer to an Rexpanding universe.  One common misconception,
Primack says, is "that the big bang is an explosion that occurred at some
point in a preexisting static space-which is not a picture in accord with
our modern theory of space-time and gravity." He explains why this image of
the big bang as an explosion in space,
like the detonation of a bomb, is incorrect:

	"According to modern cosmological theory, based on Einstein's
General Relativity (our modern theory of gravity), the big bang did not
occur somewhere in space; it occupied the whole of space. Indeed, it created
space. Distant galaxies are not traveling at a high speed through space;
instead, just like our own galaxy, they are moving relatively slowly with
respect to any of their neighboring galaxies. It is the expansion of space,
between the time when the stars in these distant galaxies emitted light and
our telescopes receive it, that causes the wavelength of the light to
lengthen (redshift). Space is itself infinitely elastic; it is not expanding
into anything."
The lengthening, or redshifting, of light that Primack describes was first
observed by Edwin
Hubble in 1929. This phenomenon is often referred to, incorrectly, as a
Doppler shift. A
Doppler redshift results from the expansion of light emitted by a receding
object. Cosmological
redshifts result from the expansion of space (and the light moving through
that space) between us and a distant galaxy or quasar. Space is expanding
everywhere, so the more distant an object is, the more rapidly it appears to
be moving away.

	Primack then considers another aspect of the reader's question: What
lies beyond our cosmic horizon, the visible "edge" of the universe?
	"Every observer in the universe is surrounded by a sphere beyond
which nothing can be seen: the observer's cosmic horizon (the point at which
the apparent recessional velocity equals the speed of light). Because it is
the expansion of space rather than the high velocity of distant galaxies
that prevents us from seeing beyond our cosmic horizon, there is no reason
to suppose that galaxies outside it are any different from those inside it.
Indeed, the extreme isotropy, or smoothness, of the cosmic background
radiation (it appears to have the same temperature in all directions, to
about one part in 100,000), together with the law of General Relativity and
other physical assumptions that seem reasonable, implies that the universe
must remain pretty much the same out to a considerable distance beyond our
horizon.
		"The theory of cosmic inflation, a recent elaboration of the
big bang, suggests that at still greater
		distances, the universe is very different from the way it is
locally. Although we cannot check this
		prediction directly, other predictions of inflation are
being tested by new observations, especially
		those to be made by the astronomy satellites that NASA and
the European Space Agency plan
		to launch in the next five to 10 years. There are many books
that discuss current theories of the
		expansion of the universe and related topics. Of these, my
favorite one is Cosmology, by Edward R. Harrison (Cambridge University
Press, 1981)."

	Takamasa Takahashi of St. Norbert College adds a few comments:
	"Many scientists do not ask 'What came before the big bang?' because
it is beyond the scope of our physical theories. Usually we consider the big
bang to be the beginning of time and space, and so it is meaningless to ask
what existed before or what lies beyond the expanding universe.
	Because space itself is intimately connected with matter in the
universe, as matter was created in the big bang, so was space. There is no
'empty space' that the universe is expanding into."
RELATED LINKS:
	Cosmology questions and answers
	Expanding universe tutorial

Hi, Tom.

Thank you for your response.

You wrote, "The problem is the 100 million years which (apparently)
preceded the entry of the human race, and how to reconcile the fossil
record with the history (anthropological and Biblical) of people."

I know this a minor point, but all that's throwing me off here is the
number. I can't figure where the 100 million years comes in. The
Cambrian started almost 600 million years ago. There was the
Ediacaran fauna before that. And before that was just simple life
like algae and bacteria, with some paleontologists proposing that
simple life like this goes back more than 3 *billion* years. The
other thing is that the fossil record of humans (Homo
erectus, "archaic" humans, and Neanderthals) before "modern humans"
(Cro-Magnon type) goes back over 1 million years, and your mention in
your sentence of the fossil record of people just made me wonder if
you had meant to write "1 million," and by mistake typed "100
million."

Thanks for you clarification.

Regards,
Todd

Todd:

My mistake.  I haven't ever paid much attention to the precise number of
years, since it doesn't really matter to me.  If the Cambrian started 600
MYA, that's okay with me.  The point is that it's the "relatively recent"
stuff that gives concordists problems, not the more-distant.

tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 10:30 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Velocity of Light



Hi, Tom.

Thank you for your response.

You wrote, "The problem is the 100 million years which (apparently)
preceded the entry of the human race, and how to reconcile the fossil
record with the history (anthropological and Biblical) of people."

I know this a minor point, but all that's throwing me off here is the
number. I can't figure where the 100 million years comes in. The
Cambrian started almost 600 million years ago. There was the
Ediacaran fauna before that. And before that was just simple life
like algae and bacteria, with some paleontologists proposing that
simple life like this goes back more than 3 *billion* years. The
other thing is that the fossil record of humans (Homo
erectus, "archaic" humans, and Neanderthals) before "modern humans"
(Cro-Magnon type) goes back over 1 million years, and your mention in
your sentence of the fossil record of people just made me wonder if
you had meant to write "1 million," and by mistake typed "100
million."

Thanks for you clarification.

Regards,
Todd

FYI on this URL for those interested-----Rod

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4352news7-28-2000.asp
08/30/00 access
The Speed of Light:
		What do Recent Experimental Results Reveal?
		by Physicist, Dr. Russ Humphreys

Hello Roderick,

What would you say is the oldest possible age for the Earth
consistent with your own understanding of the Bible and of science?

Thanks,

David Mathews

short and sweet here.

Based upon the Bible, 6,000-10,000 years old.  Secular science has too many
holes for me to use confidentally.

Your question can be framed differently.  For those who accept an old earth
and claim to believe in the Bible, what is the upper limit for the time
interval from Adam until Abraham in Canaan?

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mathews
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:57 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Addressed to Rod


Hello Roderick,

What would you say is the oldest possible age for the Earth
consistent with your own understanding of the Bible and of science?

Thanks,

David Mathews

Hello Rod,

In answer to your question:

> Your question can be framed differently.  For those who accept an
old earth and claim to believe in the Bible, what is the upper limit
for the time interval from Adam until Abraham in Canaan?

I would place the majority of Earth history prior to Adam, meaning
that the time span between Adam and Abraham would fall within 10,000
years.  Of course, I could be wrong in saying so.

Thanks,

David

Thanks David.  You can see my short notes below.  I don't think YEC folks
would complain much about 10,000 years between Adam and Abraham but they
would complain much about having all the meating history in the animal world
as well as death reigning long before Adam and the Fall described in Genesis
chapter 3.  ICR and AIG see real problems with this approach to science and
the Bible.  My figures that follow could be seen as a lower limit
figure---Rod.

Pre-Flood history time span -

Using the Hebrew Massoretic text and the KJV translation, the time interval
in Genesis 5:3-7:11 was 1656 years (the Flood came when Noah was 600 years
old.)  Also you would have the time interval from the 1st Day through Day 6
of creation week, including Day 7.  If we use the Greek Septuagint or LXX
[1] and the same time interval in the Bible, we have 2242 years.  So using
rounded figures we could be looking at some 1700 to 2200 years of Pre-Flood
history (covering the time span of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden until
the Flood of Noah).

Post-Flood history until Abraham enters the land of Canaan -

Using the KJV text based upon the Hebrew Massoretic we have the time
interval in Genesis 11:10-12:5.  Arphaxad was born 2 years after the Flood
and Abraham was 75 years old when he entered the land of Canaan.  Time
interval from the Flood until birth of Abraham (Genesis 11:27) = 292 years.
Time interval from the Flood until Abraham enters Canaan (Genesis 12:4-5, 75
years old) = 292+75 = 367 years.  The same period covered in the LXX. [1]
Time interval from Flood until birth of Abraham = 1172 years.  Time interval
from the Flood until Abraham enters Canaan, 1172+75 = 1247 years.   So using
rounded figures, we have 370 - 1250 years for the time period after the
Flood until Abraham enters the land of Canaan.

Time span from Adam until Abraham enters Canaan, according to Hebrew
Massoretic text = 1656+367 = 2023 years.  Same interval using the LXX [1] =
2242+1247 = 3489 years.  If Abraham entered Canaan about 2000 BC, The
Massoretic text could place Adam about 4023 BC and the LXX [1] could place
Adam about 5489 BC, so Adam could have been on the earth some where about
6,000-7500 years ago.


References
1.	The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Zondervan Publishing
House, 1970.
Author Rod Bernitt
updated 10/21/1999



-----Original Message-----
From: David Mathews
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 4:26 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Addressed to Rod

Hello Rod,

In answer to your question:

> Your question can be framed differently.  For those who accept an
old earth and claim to believe in the Bible, what is the upper limit
for the time interval from Adam until Abraham in Canaan?

I would place the majority of Earth history prior to Adam, meaning
that the time span between Adam and Abraham would fall within 10,000
years.  Of course, I could be wrong in saying so.

Thanks,

David

David, you said [I would place the majority of Earth history prior to Adam,
meaning that the time span between Adam and Abraham would fall within 10,000
years.  Of course, I could be wrong in saying so.]

I have 3 quick questions here.  If Abraham was about 4,000 years ago then
Adam would be about 14,000 years ago.

Q:What do you do with the Neolithic and other stone age dates that go back
much earlier? 20,000 to > 100,000 years ago for example and even earlier.
Q:What do you do with the fossil hominid record in Africa that shows 3-4
million year old ages?
Q:Is the human population living today, descended only from Noah and his 3
sons after the Flood?

Thanks-----Rod

Hello Rod,

In answer to your questions:

> Q:What do you do with the Neolithic and other stone age dates that
go back
> much earlier? 20,000 to > 100,000 years ago for example and even
earlier.

If these remains are those of homo sapiens (and there is good reason
for saying so) these evidences could push Adam's existence to the
greatest extent consistent with the evidence.  I would have no
problem accepting Adam's existence hundreds of thousands of years ago.

> Q:What do you do with the fossil hominid record in Africa that
shows 3-4 million year old ages?

These fossils are not those of Homo Sapiens so I suppose that they
are not directly relevant to Adam.

> Q:Is the human population living today, descended only from Noah
and his 3 sons after the Flood?

This is a good question which I do not have a satisfactory answer
for.

Thanks,

David Mathews

Marc Gibson to David Mathews,

You wrote answering one of Rod's questions:

>>> Q:Is the human population living today, descended only from Noah
and his 3 sons after the Flood?<

This is a good question which I do not have a satisfactory answer
for.<<<

Apparently inspired Biblical answers are not satisfactory enough for you
anymore. Have ye not read the inspired record of Genesis 7:21-23? If every
man was "destroyed from the earth" and "only Noah and those who were with him
in the ark remained alive," from who else would the human population living
today descend from? The question has a most satisfactory answer - why don't
you accept the inspired testimony that only eight souls were saved from the
flood?

The acceptance of human wisdom has clouded our judgments to where we cannot
see the simple truths of God's revelation. This is indeed a serious problem
today - eyes that will not see, and ears that will not hear what God has
revealed to man in His word.

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

Hi, Marc.

I wish to draw attention to what I believe is an implicit flaw in
your statement: "The acceptance of human wisdom has clouded our
judgments to where we cannot see the simple truths of God's
revelation. This is indeed a serious problem today - eyes that will
not see, and ears that will not hear what God has revealed to man in
His word."

What I believe you are failing to recognize is that "human wisdom"
(human fallibility) is involved in biblical interpretation just as
much as in science. You raise concern about "eyes that will not see,
and ears that will not hear" in regard to the biblical text, yet you
don't seem to recognize that when a person ignores truths about the
real world itself he is demonstrating blindness and deafness just the
same.

After John Byl, a young earth creationist, made some comments very
similar to yours in criticism of an article by Davis A. Young (who
advocates biblical inerrancy and who is a professional geologist;
Davis' father is Edward J. Young, the well-known conservative Old
Testament scholar) several years ago, Young responded to him very
explicitly and eloquently on this specific point. I shall end my post
by simply quoting Young's response.

Here, by the way, are online references to the articles for your
further perusal, should you be interested:
  Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 1)
  Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 2)
  Scripture and Geologists
  Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

From: Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl

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

Is Interpretation of the Bible Unproblematic?
---------------------------------------------

Because Byl was troubled that established geological theories
conflict with literalistic or concordistic interpretations of parts
of Genesis 1-11, he questioned the validity of the
allegedly "secular" geological theories. He asked, "Is it not more
plausible that any deficiency lies in our fallible scientific
theories rather than in God's written Word?" (p. 147). He asserted
that "rather than modifying the contents of Scripture, a better
approach would be to base our science on biblically valid
presuppositions" (p. 150). And he said that "since Genesis deals with
the distant past, it can conflict not with our present geological
data but only with certain theoretical extrapolations of that data"
(p. 145).

The quotations imply that interpretation of the Bible is
unproblematic. The content of the Bible was repeatedly confused with
his interpretation of it. Byl seemed to assume that "Scripture" is
identical to "the traditional understanding of Scripture." In
response to the three quotations we may assert that, of course, there
is no deficiency in God's written Word. Maybe, however, the
deficiency lies in our fallible theological theories rather than in
God's creation. My original article suggested that not God's written
Word but our exegesis of parts of that Word may be deficient.9 I no
more advocated any modification of the contents of Scripture than Byl
advocated a change in the contents of the created world. I advocated
the possibility of a modification of interpretation of those
contents. And Genesis can't conflict with the realities of creation,
but our fallible exegesis can conflict with our fallible scientific
interpretation.

Byl's critique implied that natural science, especially geology, is
the only discipline that needs to distinguish between observation and
theory. He ignored the fact that our understanding of the biblical
text is also filtered through theoretical frameworks. All one needs
to do is to look at the profession of biblical studies to realize how
value-laden and subjective is that discipline! Exegesis and theology
are as strongly affected by the approach one takes as is science.
There is more consensus among geologists about the proper
interpretation of rocks than there is about the proper interpretation
of the Bible among theologians and biblical scholars, even among
those guided by the Holy Spirit.

Christians do well to remember that church history is rich in
examples of scientific discovery and theory assisting the church to
arrive at an improved interpretation of the text. Ps 93:1 says: "The
world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." But we do not
question the rotation of the earth, its revolution about the sun, or
its movement through the galaxy. Although the heliocentric theory of
solar-system mechanics flagrantly violates the literal interpretation
of the text, it is compatible with the Bible. Ps 93:1 does not affirm
heliocentricity, but the verse's pronouncement about the immobility
of the earth is not a comment on the physical motion of the planet,
so there is no inconsistency. Heliocentric theory "agrees" with
Scripture by not being inconsistent with it. Heliocentricity and Ps
93:1 are complementary.

We could insist that any valid theory from the realm of physics,
chemistry, or geology must also be consistent with biblical
knowledge. A scientific theory, for example, the kinetic theory of
gases, may not necessarily be in clear harmony with Scripture for the
simple reason that Scripture may say nothing directly relevant about
that theory. Nevertheless a valid theory must not be inconsistent
with the biblical data properly interpreted.

Given the rapid developments today in biblical studies we need
caution in making pronouncements about what is certain in Genesis 1-
11. We cannot always assume ahead of time that we already have the
correct biblical interpretation when a new scientific theory comes
along. Frequently it has required establishment and acceptance of a
valid scientific theory to point out that what was thought to be
valid biblical knowledge needed to be rethought and that a new
interpretation of the Bible had to be developed. Such may be the case
in the matter of geology and the early chapters of Genesis.


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


###### Marc Gibson, 9/1/00 8:53 am ######
Marc Gibson to David Mathews,

You wrote answering one of Rod's questions:
>> Q:Is the human population living today, descended only from Noah
and his 3 sons after the Flood?<<

>This is a good question which I do not have a satisfactory answer
for.<

Apparently inspired Biblical answers are not satisfactory enough for
you anymore. Have ye not read the inspired record of Genesis 7:21-23?
If every man was "destroyed from the earth" and "only Noah and those
who were with him in the ark remained alive," from who else would the
human population living today descend from? The question has a most
satisfactory answer - why don't you accept the inspired testimony
that only eight souls were saved from the flood?

The acceptance of human wisdom has clouded our judgments to where we
cannot see the simple truths of God's revelation. This is indeed a
serious problem today - eyes that will not see, and ears that will
not hear what God has revealed to man in His word.

Hello Todd,

Thank you for your comments. Let us be clear on exactly what we are talking
about.

Indeed it takes the effort of the thinking part of man to come to an
understanding of the text of inspiration. But there is difference between the
process of exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is the effort to bring out of the
text the original and proper meaning of the text. Eisegesis is the effort to
import outside human wisdom into a text to manipulate its meaning. The proper
methods of interpretation do not filter the text of scripture through our
fallible wisdom and background. They seek to bring out the truth of God's
word so that we may know, understand, and be transformed to its pattern. To
say that this is not universally possible is to deny that God has spoken
objective truth to all men that they can understand alike.

When we observe the natural realm, we can see the glory, handiwork, power,
and divinity of the Creator. Beyond these things the natural realm alone
cannot take us. It is by faith (special revelation) that we understand how
the worlds were framed (Gen. 1-2). Human wisdom and philosophy have no place
in the realms of God's revelation. That is the realm of faith (the evidence
of things not seen). When there is a conflict, it is not the Bible that
should take the hit, but fallible human conclusions. This was the teaching of
Davis Young's father, Edward, in his excellent book, Studies in Genesis One.

You might even note 2 Peter 1:19 where Peter identified the written
revelation of God through the prophets as "more sure" than even the
eyewitness testimony of the apostles (vv. 16-18). Why? The scripture came
directly by the Holy Spirit, not as a product of human interpretation (vv.
20-21). We can take the testimony of scripture (including Gen. 1-2) as the
truth without the need to change, add, update, revise, or manipulate in any
way to fit modern theories or supposed conclusions. There are too many
variables and assumptions involved in human calculations and conclusions
about the ancient past to be anything close to reliable. And definitely not
close to the testimony of God himself.

When anyone suggests that Bible study is just too subjective to be relied
upon to know truth, then we have crossed a significant bridge. Any Biblical
subject can be manipulated at will according to the whim of human studies and
philosophy. The honest Bible student will be able to distinguish betweent
truth and error. It is no surprise that many "Bible scholars" disagree. Not
all seek to know the truth or submit to it. Not all accept the inspiration of
Scripture. Not all respect the simple message of the text itself to not add
nor take away from it. Not all have given the text the examination needed.
The text teaches truth - there may be many "interpretations," but there will
only be one faith. Jesus said we can know the truth, and we are to contend
for the faith. No subjective reasoning involved here, only humble submission
to His revealed word.

Thanks,
Marc Gibson