Marc said:

> Hello Todd,
>
> Thank you for responding. Let me consider some points you made...
>
> You said...
> ..The thousands of professional geologists and astronomers are quite
> agreed that the universe and earth are ancient. <<
>
> So? A majority does not make it right, especially when they are working
> off naturalistic-based studies that do not consider the supernatural
> activity of the Creator. They do not consider all the information
> available on the subject. That is why science cannot correctly answer
> questions of origin and antiquity -- they subtract God and His activity
> out of the equation.

Think of what your last sentence implies.  If science by itself
can't come to the correct conclusion, then where does that leave
the creation scientists who claim that it does?

[snip]

>We can see from nature that a superior, divine intelligence is
> responsible for all that we see, but the natural realm cannot
> tell us how or when that Creator did the creating.
> That information is only known and understood by faith (Heb. 11:3).

Heb. 11.3 does not say this.  It says what *Todd* said.
Only *that* things were created.

> The
> record of Gen.1-2 gives us information that nature can not give us.

Why couldn't it?

[snip]

> You said...
> >>Please tell me what the "variables
> and assumptions" are regarding SN1987A occuring about 168,000 years
> ago that renders that observation unreliable. I have been asking this
> question of young earth creationists for several years, and I have
> yet to receive an answer that does not directly contradict the real
> world itself.<<
>
> This "real world" of today is projected into the past on the assumption of
> uniformitarianism. That is how you get a date of 168,000 years. If nature
> is all that there is, I would agree with this assumption about the ancient
> past. But nature is ruled by a Creator that created it supernaturally and
> has intervened at various times for various purposes.

This is a fancy way of saying I dunno, unless you have something
more to say about why God would intervene in SN1987a.
Not a very effective answer if one is going to make the age of the
universe part of one's doctrine.

[snip]

> You write, "We can take the testimony of scripture...as the truth
> without the need to change, add, update, revise, or manipulate it in
> any way to fit modern theories or supposed conclusions."
> I can easily disprove this with one simple historical example: Who
> learned that geocentrism was wrong, theologians or astronomers, and
> when did theologians seek to modify biblical hermeneutics on the
> issue, before the truth about the real world was discovered through
> scientific examination or after?<<
>
> Todd, just when and how did they change, add, update, revise, or
> manipulate the testimony of Scripture when geocentrism was disproven? The
> scripture never taught geocentrism, man did.

Actually, the Israelites viewed the universe as a domed stadium, where
the stars are in the roof, and the sun and moon moved along it.

Josh 10:13.4 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the
nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book
of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten
to go down for about a whole day."

If Gen 1-2 is a historical record, so is this.  The question, can one
say science is mistaken about their conception of the universe?

Isa 40:22.8 "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its
inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens
like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

This is a major problem that you should think on more deeply, or
else apply the same exegesis to those passages as you would
to Gen. 1-2.  To do otherwise would be to be a hypocrite.

> Faulty theories of man will always fall by
> the wayside, whether theological or scientific. Now explain how this
> affects the historical record of creation in Gen.1-2. It teaches universal
> truth to men of every age about the who, how, and timing of creation. Can
> we not understand the truth based on the testimony of the text itself?
> What more can we understand about this matter than what the Israelites at
> Mt Sinia understood about it in Exodus 20:11? The truth is the same for us
> today as it was for them way back then in the "ignorant, pre-scientific"
> days.

And the Isrealites understood the earth to be like a domed stadium,
and the truth is the same for us today, so....?

> As to Psalm 33, when does something described poetically necessarily
> become non-literal? Cannot literal, historical events be described in
> poetic language?

You need to make the case that the language *is* poetic.  Good luck.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod:

> Anyone who believes in an old earth must also accept as factual the
> existence of the geologic column.  Young earth creationists have been
> presenting evidence for many years now that the geologic column is not
> factual.  Evolutionists in biology must accept the geologic column as
> factual otherwise their story of origins and the age of the earth falls
> apart----Rod

I will briefly explain what the geologic column *IS*, before looking
at these "misconceptions" (whose misconceptions, you have
to wonder).

Early geologists found that layers that were characteristic
by their fossils always appeared in a certain order.

That is, A was always below B.
B was always below C.  That gives the geologic column

C
B
A

Of course strata do not always build up, but also erode.
So In one location one could have A then B to give

B
A

Then B erodes, and then C deposits to give

C
A

All the silly argument about the column not existing is
saying that there are few places where there is a stratum
from each era.  Whoop-ti-doo!  Not to be expected.

However, the strata always (with overturning as exceptions)
appear in order.  Of course, the lower ones are older,
using that absolutely ridiculous uniformitarian assumption
that newer rock layers don't deposit under ones that already
exist (making assumptions that they don't hover in mid-air?).

> "It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column
> when it is absent 99% of the time...Finally, the geological column is a
> hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading."

Now is my description above special pleading for why B is absent?

>Obviously it is
> the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten
> Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the
> earth.  It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological
> column when it is absent 99% of the time...Finally, the geological column
> is a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading.
> A number of standard explanations are used to account for missing
> geological periods, including erosion and non-deposition...There is no
> escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially
> non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers,
> that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts.  The
> geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific
> creationists are correct to point this out." [1]

I have a question:  *WHO* is insinuating that the geologic
column should be present most places?  That will tell you
a good deal about who is misrepresenting what.

> "The ten strata systems that geologists use (Cambrian, Ordovician,
> Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic,
> Cretaceous, and Tertiary) compose the 'standard geologic column' and are
> claimed by many to contain the major proof of evolutionary theory.
> Several erroneous notions have been attached to the geologic column.  The
> following are the ten most common misconceptions." [2]
> "Misconception No. 3.  The strata systems of the geologic column are
> worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below
> any point on the earth's surface."

Is it the geologists who have this misconception, or the
creationists?  Perhaps a geology course is in order if
misconceptions about geology are so important to them.

[snip]

 "Misconception No. 4.  Strata systems always occur in the order required by
> the geologic column."
> Hundreds of locations are known where the order of the systems identified
> by geologists does not match the order of the geologic column.

How many locations where they are *IN* order?

> to be inverted, repeated, or inserted where they
> do not belong.  Overturning, overthrust faulting, or landsliding are
> frequently maintained as disrupting the order.  In some locations such
> structural changes can be supported by physical evidence, while elsewhere
> physical evidence of the disruption may be lacking and special pleading
> may be required using fossils or radiometric dating." [4]

I notice something lacking here.  Criticisms 5-7.  Perhaps
they don't exist!

Not to mention evidence of what they say about lack of
evidence for overthrusting or overturning.  Surely people have
seen sideways strata.  Is it special pleading to say that
they were deposited horizontally?  Maybe so.

> "Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply 'absolute ages' in
> millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column."
> Geologists and geochronologists assert that radiometric dating verifies
> that individual strata systems and their strata are millions of years old.
> When asked to document the most reliable radiometric age dates, geologists
> usually point to isochron and concordia plots which employ multiple
> isotopic analyses, which they claim will remove the effects of original
> 'contaminants,' and display the 'age' of a rock in graphical form.
> However, we find geologists often reporting isochron plots which are
> discordant with the accepted 'ages' of strata systems.  Frequently, these
> discordant isochron plots 'date' strata systems much older than even the
> accepted old ages customarily assigned to the systems of the geologic
> column. Geologists should be asking which, if any, of the isochron plots
> should be accepted as 'absolute ages,' and if the discordances do not
> falsify the assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based.
> Geologists need to consider radiometric methods which indicate ages of
> thousands of years for strata systems, as well as general indicators
> supporting young age." [5]

Again, a particular case is noticeably absent.  Note that
radiodating is sometimes used to determine the age of
a *source* of material.

> "Misconception No. 10.  The geologic column and the positions of fossils
> within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution."
> All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in
> the Cambrian System.

But not all the phyla.  Allow me to quote what is created first:
"[Gen 1:11] And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation,
plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their
 seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so."

How interesting that plant phyla are not mentioned.  Could
somebody be pulling a fast one?  Is that a thing to be
quoted with approval?

[snip last red herring]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Thanks Tas for this interesting information.  The newsgroup has charged ICR
and AIG with much misleading information about Green River varves.  Others
interested can read my comments following yours.  The fact that numerous
fossils are documented in these varves, the full extent to which I have no
data on, looks suspicious to me.  Fossils chiefly form from abrupt and rapid
sedimentation rates and the Petrified Forest layers at Yellowstone, ICR has
addressed this topic too.  Either ICR and AIG has much explaining to do
(based upon newsgroup comments I have received) or this newsgroup and
advocates of the old earth model are in serious error.  Both geology and
astronomy feature what I consider to be cherised beliefs supporting an old
earth and old universe model.  As young earth creationists who accept the
Biblical record at face value examine their claims, much error is uncovered
that generally goes unreported by the advocates of evolution and an old
earth model-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tas Walker
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 10:04 PM
To: Bernitt, Roderick Mr USACCSA
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions

Rod,

We use the Mt St Helens deposits to illustrate how layers can form rapidly
under the right conditions.   We realise they are sub-aerial deposits and
have not said that they are varves.   It was long argued that a catastrophic
process would produce jumbled sediments, not layers.  Mt St Helens
demonstrates otherwise.  The sedimentation experiments Berthault reported in
the Technical Journal, and on video, also demonstrate that layers form
naturally as sediment is deposited from a moving fluid, air or water.

Tas


Rod's comments here -

Yesterday on this newsgroup 2 evidences were cited in support for a very old
earth and slow and gradual sedimentation cycle by old earth advocates.

a. The multiple layers of Petrified Forest at Yellowstone Park
b. The Green River varves

I am not a geologist but I checked some references I have readily available
in my home library -

Morris, J.D., Ph.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, p. 112-117, 1994 about
item a.
Austin, A.A., Ph.D., Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, p. 37-39,
1994 about item b.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. Th.D. and Morris, H.M. Ph.D., The Genesis Flood, The
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., p. 424-428, 1961 about item b.
Apparently these varves at Green River, the shale formation also contains
numerous plant and animal fossils such as fish and various insects.  What?
The AIG URL I supplied also commented on this issue at Green River.

After briefly reading material posted at AIG website on the Green River
varves (I supplied the URLs yesterday to the newsgroup) and reviewing my
references, I have reached a conclusion.  Either AIG and ICR must be grossly
wrong about their data on the Petrified Forest layers of Yellowstone and
Green River varves or the data I received from this newsgroup contains
serious misconceptions being used to promote an old earth model.  I don't
have the time to sort the truth out but to illustrate how evolutionists'
teaching about origins frequently contains misconceptions I present the
following.

The origin of various heavy elements on the Periodic Table has problems and
also the origin of planets in our solar system.  I find it amusing that
evolutionists rely heavily upon the U-Th radioactive clock to establish that
the earth is 4.6 Gyrs old.  However, the origin of the clock based upon big
bang cosmology may be unknown.  How do you know the clock's original reading
of time for the earth shortly after the events of Creation day 3 in Genesis
1:9-13?  My guess no one knows the original clock's reading.  If this
critical radioactive clock did not originate by the r-process in stellar
evolution than an 'old age' reading may have been there from the start,
possibly collapsing billions of years of alleged earth history.  I find this
situation similar to the difference in interpretation for the Petrified
Forest and Green River varves.  The presuppositions of the old earth club
colors how they explain the observations and so too the presuppositions of
the club who advocate a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11
(young earth creationists.)  Both groups can look at the same data in nature
and arrive at radically different conclusions.

 ---Rod


Note the figure of 110,000 neutron star mergers is too low.  Should be 10^6
in a galaxy that is 11 billion years old.  However 10^5-10^6 is okay for
10-11 billion year old galaxies.


From: Roderick Bernitt
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000
To: Robert V. Gentry - D.Sc.Hon. ESA; Russell Humphreys, Ph.D; Frank
Sherwin, ICR; Tas Walker, AIG; Carl Wieland, AIG
Subject: r-process woes

"Astronomy textbooks say the r-process happened in certain Type II
supernovae.  That scenario, however, increasingly seems not to work-and
astronomers have been hard-pressed to come up with any alternative.  So
where were the heaviest elements, such as most of the gold in your wedding
ring, actually born?

Three physicists at the University of Basel, Switzerland, think they may
have the answer.  Christian Freiburghaus, Stephan Rosswog, and
Friedrich-Karl Thielemann modeled what happens when two neutron stars spiral
together and merge, something that should happen roughly once per 100,000
years per galaxy.  They found that about one percent of the neutron stars'
material is flung away.  As it expands and turns into ordinary matter, it
provides a sufficiently neutron-rich environment for the r-process to create
the observed array of heavy isotopes.  'Sufficient material is ejected to
explain the amount of r-process nuclei in the Galaxy by decompression of
neutron-star material,' they write in the November 10, 1999, Astrophysical
Journal Letters.  If so, some of the world around us was forged in a much
stranger place than ever imagined." [1]

My observation > We see an admission in this brief news item that stellar
evolution theory invoked to explain the origin of the elements may not work
as previously advertised.  Evolutionists believe and often claim that they
have worked out how all the elements on the Periodic Table formed, starting
with the lightest elements like H, He, and some Li forged during big bang
nucleosynthesis and later, cooking up the heavier elements in the stars.
This is why the late Carl Sagan could claim we are made out of star stuff.
However, I have seen evidence that this picture is not as rosy as commonly
presented.

"Supernovae are obvious plausible sites for r-process nucleosynthesis
because high temperature and nonequilibrium conditions exist at the time of
a supernova outburst.  The propagation of a supernova shock wave through the
helium zone of a massive star is a plausible mechanism for r-process
nucleosynthesis.  However, it is not entirely certain that neutron fluxes
sufficiently high to synthesize very heavy elements such as Th and U can be
caused by such a shock wave...The original suggestion (1957) that r-process
isotopes are formed in mass just outside the pre-neutron star core and then
ejected during a supernova outburst along with other elements synthesized by
hydrostatic thermonuclear reactions has not been supported by detailed
calculations."  [2]

Yes, stellar evolution theory may have problems when it comes to the
r-process and explaining the origin of various heavy elements.  Creationists
need to be aware of this and document these problems.  Such issues could
point the finger at trouble with big bang nucleosynthesis claims for the
early universe.  The newer model proposed uses 2 neutron stars that merge,
taking place 1/100,000 years per galaxy.  This mechanism could be plausible
when extrapolated over billions and billions of years, creationists would
need to evaluate for a young Earth cosmology.  If a typical galaxy is about
11 billion years old, than there could be as many as 110,000 neutron star
mergers that took place since the galaxy's origin, increasing the heavy
element abundance.  Using the Biblical creation record (6,000 to 10,000
years old Earth model), the Milky Way galaxy has not existed long enough for
110,000 neutron star mergers.  Much of the abundance of the r-process heavy
elements could be primordial when interpreted within the Biblical framework.

References
1.	News Notes, Heavy Elements from Neutron Stars, Sky & Telescope
99(3):25, 2000
2.	Rose, W.K. Advanced Stellar Astrophysics, Cambridge University
Press, p. 231, 1998


From: Roderick Bernitt
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000
To: Robert V. Gentry - D.Sc.Hon. ESA; Russell Humphreys, Ph.D; Frank Sherwin,
ICR; Tas Walker, AIG; Carl Wieland, AIG
Subject: Birth of Uranus and Neptune

FYI here.  "Pssst...astronomers who model the formation of the solar system
have kept a dirty little secret:Uranus and Neptune don't exist.  Or at least
computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas
giants could form so far from the sun." [1]

"Uranus and Neptune have long posed a problem to solar-system theorists.
The two 'ice-giant' planets shouldn't exist-not if they formed in their
present locations.  At their current orbits, 19 and 30 astronomical units
from the Sun, they would have taken longer than the age of the solar system
to grow in the newborn Sun's proto-planetary nebula.  However, recent models
may clear up the paradox." [2]

The first is from the April Astronomy and the second is from the April Sky &
Telescope.  Apparently evolutionists have known for some time that they
could not explain the origin of these bodies in our solar system.  Keep in
mind that evolutionists also believe that it took 1 billion years to make
Jupiter but more recent computer models could go as low as 3,500 or 3,000
years according to Alan Boss.

What I see in reports like this, the evolutionists science database is broad
and large with many holes that exist and may not be disclosed until
evolutionists have a plausible answer or at least an answer they believe
they can work on.  Both Astronomy and S&T show in their reports that the
newer models have skeptics and as Astronomy notes, "It's clear that our
level of sophistication of studying planet formation is relatively
primitive,' concedes Duncan.  But he adds, 'So far it's been very difficult
for anybody to come up with a scenario that actually produces Uranus and
Neptune.'"[3]

The newer model proposed starts with Uranus and Neptune as larger
planetesimals that form about 4 to 10 AU, then are ejected outwards due to
encounters with Jupiter and Saturn.  This newer model has a number of
critics in the astronomical community so the final solution may not be found
in it for the evolutionists.  Keep in mind that the observations of what
appear to be hot Jupiters around nearby stars contradicts this model.  The
hot Jupiters would have to form much farther out from the host star (where
it would be much cooler in the disk) and then migrate inwards, much closer
to the host star (the opposite of what is proposed to make Uranus and
Neptune)-----Rod

References
1. AstroNews, Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000
2. NewsNotes, Creating Uranus and Neptune, Sky & Telescope 99(4):24, 2000
3. Ref 1, p. 30.

Hi, Marc.

I thank you for discussing this issue and for pressing your case (as
I shall press mine). It is only in working through the details, the
clarifications, the criticisms, and so on that a greater
understanding can be acquired.


--- Marc Gibson wrote (9/6/00 5:21 pm):
> Hello Todd,

> Thank you for responding. Let me consider some points you made...

You said...
>> ..The thousands of professional geologists and astronomers are
>> quite agreed that the universe and earth are ancient.

> So? A majority does not make it right, especially when they are
> working off naturalistic-based studies that do not consider the
> supernatural activity of the Creator. They do not consider all the
> information available on the subject. That is why science cannot
> correctly answer questions of origin and antiquity -- they subtract
> God and His activity out of the equation.

I agree with you completely that a majority does not make it right.
And I was certainly not trying to pretend otherwise. There are, in
fact, many examples in the history of science where are particular
view about something is overturned by a single person. And how does
he do it? With the data. Even a beautiful theory ends up going no
where if confirming data is not forthcoming.

Einstein's theory of relativity got a boost from Mercury's orbital
precession, but if starlight was not seen to bend around the sun as
was observed, and if time dilation effects were not observed,
Einstein would simply be a footnote today. "The majority" of
physicists today accept relativity not because it is accepted by the
majority of physicists, but because relativity has explained,
predicted, and been confirmed by the data.

The same is true of the antiquity of the universe and the earth. The
reason I pointed out the fact about astronomy in particular being so
unanimous is that even in science usually, with so many millions of
people around the world making up "the community of professional
scientists," even with well-confirmed theories there is the
occasional hold-out and even some crackpots. What I want you to be
aware of - and it is a factual matter, so I stated it - is that I am
not aware of a single professional astronomer anywhere in the world
who disputes the idea of the antiquity of the universe. This is not
at all "truth about the real world is 'dictated' by 'the majority.'"
I'm sure you are aware that this is not at all what I was advocating.

I was and am informing you that now in the year 2000 (and already for
several decades, in fact) the relevant empirical information that has
been acquired is so extensive, so consistent, and so clear that it is
impossible for the universe to be merely 10,000 years old.
Astronomers observe the antiquity of the universe directly, so there
is not even any occasion for doubt, and *this* is why all
professional astronomers accept that the universe is ancient, because
this happens to be a genuine truth about the real world - just as it
is the truth that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other
way around.

*Thus*, I tell you that when preachers, and the people they
influence, dispute the facts of astronomy, they are actually arraying
their lack of knowledge and lack of understanding against what is
known about the real world quite obviously and clearly by
professional astronomers and many, many others (like myself).


> You said...
>> You write, "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." This is clearly
>> hyperbole, and the sentiment behind it is demonstrably false.
>> Medicine, meteorology, and physics, among other areas of science,
>> tell us very much about the real world.
>
> You missed my point by a mile, but maybe I did not make myself as
> clear as I should have. The natural realm alone cannot take us
> beyond these matters to describe to us the work of the Creator in
> creation. We can see from nature that a superior, divine
> intelligence is responsible for all that we see, but the natural
> realm cannot tell us how or when that Creator did the creating.
> That information is only known and understood by faith (Heb. 11:3).
> The record of Gen.1-2 gives us information that nature can not give
> us. For the details as to how God created all things we must give
> a "thus saith the Lord." Of course, science has done many wonderful
> things in so many areas of study. It has its proper role, but as to
> origins and antiquity, we must hear God's revelation and consider
> His activity.

I really do not believe that I missed your point. I believe that you
did not understand my criticism of your point. There are several
problems with this paragraph of yours alone: (1) You have failed to
take into account the fallibility of human interpretation. (2) You
have failed to take into account the fact that the antiquity of the
universe is known by direct observation. And (3) the statement
that "how and when [the] Creator did the creation...is only known and
understood by faith" is patently false.

What are "the details as to how God created all things" that are
provided in Genesis 1-2, Marc. In fact, there are absolutely
no "details" regarding "how" God created anything. The "how" is not
discussed at all. I would acknowledge to you that the "when" is more
problematic in approaching the text from our modern perspective, but
my point here is simply that it is only through science that you can
actually acquire the details, let alone examine them, when
the "realm" we are talking about is the empirical real world that we
live in, that we can go to and check things out and dig into the
details of things, and poke and prod and dig up and peer at intently.
The solar system, the galaxy, the universe that we find ourselves in
*is* the realm of science, and when we look at it carefully, we
literally see, right now, events all over the universe wherever we
look that took place thousands, millions, and even billions of years
ago, the reason for the time lapse being the simple fact that it took
the energy from these events these long periods of time to reach the
earth (like hearing the thunder after the elapsed travel time of the
sound from the lightning to our ears).


> You said...
>> Please tell me what the "variables and assumptions" are regarding
>> SN1987A occurring about 168,000 years ago that renders that
>> observation unreliable. I have been asking this question of young
>> earth creationists for several years, and I have yet to receive an
>> answer that does not directly contradict the real world itself.
>
> This "real world" of today is projected into the past on the
> assumption of uniformitarianism. That is how you get a date of
> 168,000 years. If nature is all that there is, I would agree with
> this assumption about the ancient past. But nature is ruled by a
> Creator that created it supernaturally and has intervened at
> various times for various purposes. Rates, measures, clock
> times, etc are good for the times that they are observed. But
> projecting that into the past on the assumption that all things
> continue the same from the very beginning does not always follow
> when you affirm something more than just simple naturalism. A God
> who created and has manipulated nature at His will certainly gives
> excellent reason to question the validity such assumptions, leaving
> us with the faith that is based on His word about origins and
> antiquity. So, as to SN1987A occurring about 168,000 years ago,
> uniformitarian assumptions that undergird this conclusion are not
> assumed by everyone. My faith is based on the testimony of
> scripture, which is much more sure than any assumption of human
> wisdom used in our own fallible observations and conclusions.

I hear this particular objection frequently, Marc, and I'm here to
inform you that it is just plain wrong in the case of light-travel
times in astronomy, and thus in the specific case of SN1987A. (If you
happened to have read my discussion with Allan Turner several weeks
ago in his discussion forum, you would have already seen my
explanation of why this is not in any way an "assumption of
uniformitarianism.")

The actual distance of SN1987A is known by direct observation and
measurement. (Please see my next post where I go into some of the
details of this.) Thus, the only point at which you can even begin to
make your case of "uniformitarian assumption" is to claim that the
light itself travelled much faster from SN1987A to earth. After
Christopher Sharp's recent post, I shall actually refer to this as
the "nonuniformitarian assumption."

First of all, I will point out that it is you who are doing the
assuming, not physicists and astronomers. It is you who are assuming
that lightspeed changed drastically, because you the only information
you have for this at all has nothing to do with science but is based
only on an implication of on particular fallible human interpretation
of Genesis.

Second, and more importantly in my opinion, is the fact that a
constant lightspeed is what is actually observed, and not assumed.
The reason for this is that if lightspeed had indeed been drastically
faster in the past than it is now, then this would have definite
effects that would actually be observed right now. The most directly
relevant effect would be what has been termed the "slow motion"
effect. In other words, if lightspeed was drastically faster in the
past, then the more distant the event that is observed by
astronomers, the slower the event would appear to take place. The
slow motion effect would be greater, in proportion to the distance
from earth, if lightspeed really had been much faster in the past
than now. This would apply to everything that astronomers observe,
from pulsar revolutions to supernova decay curves. The truth of the
matter, Marc, is that such a slow motion effect is simply not
observed, and WHAT IS OBSERVED - NOT ASSUMED - IS THAT THE SPEED OF
LIGHT IN THE PAST WAS THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY.

It is an observed fact that the stellar explosion SN1987A occurred
about 168,000 years ago, and this is at least 158,000 years too long
ago for the young earth/young universe position. The concept of a
young universe has been disproved by direct observation of the real
world, and it is high time for advocates of this position to face up
to the truth and deal with it seriously and properly.

By the way, I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
SN1987A is in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy, which is the
second closest galaxy. There are *millions* of galaxies in our
universe. All of these galaxies, except for only one (the Sagittarius
galaxy), are farther from earth than the LMC, and are thus observed
from even more distant times in the past. 168,000 years is simply a
small lower limit.


> You wrote...
>> You write, "We can take the testimony of scripture...as the truth
>> without the need to change, add, update, revise, or manipulate it
>> in any way to fit modern theories or supposed conclusions." I can
>> easily disprove this with one simple historical example: Who
>> learned that geocentrism was wrong, theologians or astronomers,
>> and when did theologians seek to modify biblical hermeneutics on
>> the issue, before the truth about the real world was discovered
>> through scientific examination or after?
>
> Todd, just when and how did they change, add, update, revise, or
> manipulate the testimony of Scripture when geocentrism was
> disproven? The scripture never taught geocentrism, man did. Faulty
> theories of man will always fall by the wayside, whether
> theological or scientific. Now explain how this affects the
> historical record of creation in Gen.1-2. It teaches universal
> truth to men of every age about the who, how, and timing of
> creation. Can we not understand the truth based on the testimony of
> the text itself? What more can we understand about this matter than
> what the Israelites at Mt Sinia understood about it in Exodus
> 20:11? The truth is the same for us today as it was for them way
> back then in the "ignorant, pre-scientific" days.
>
> As to Psalm 33, when does something described poetically
> necessarily become non-literal? Cannot literal, historical events
> be described in poetic language?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Marc Gibson

I'm not going to argue history with you, Marc. And you do your
position no credit by ignoring the history. It is an historical fact
that theologians of all stripes, Protestant and Catholic, railed
against the "naturalistic philosophers" (astronomers) when a
technological advance (the telescope) allowed men to actually acquire
the kind of data that could conclusively answer the question.

You state, "The scripture never taught geocentrism, man did. Faulty
theories of man will always fall by the wayside, whether theological
or scientific." Yes, this is a direct implication of the doctrine of
biblical inerrancy. So according to this doctrine, and the factual
nature of the antiquity of the universe and the earth, many biblical
inerrantists today are, in like manner as you, saying, "The scripture
never taught young earth creationism, mad did. Faulty theories of man
will always fall by the wayside, whether theological or scientific."
But it is the relevant details we are discussing.

In regard to my discussion of Psalm 33, I note here that you did not
answer my direct questions on the text (see "Anthropomorphic Language
In The Bible" at
CreationProcessAge Forum, Msg #18): Is the sea in
a bottle? Are "the deeps" kept in warehouses? Does God
literally "sit" on a literal throne? The "Open Letter" authors have
taken what is clearly and obviously metaphorical language and
misinterpreted it in a fallaciously literalistic manner.

Thank you for your participation in this open discussion.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene
<Todd S. Greene>

Marc:

You wrote in your response to Todd, re Psalm 33:

As to Psalm 33, when does something described poetically necessarily become
non-literal? Cannot literal, historical events be described in poetic
language?


Marc, as you are aware, the famous sixty-seven have criticized me and others
who have written concerning the present controversy based on the statement
in Psalm 33:9--

"For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast."

That statement, according to the sixty-seven, is supposed to disprove
absolutely the possibility that creation of the universe took more than 144
consecutive hours.  You have acknowledged that Psalm 33 contains "poetic
language."  Do you disagree with the sixty-seven?

Thanks.

tom

Marc:

You wrote:

- I uphold the divine revelation of the Creator as
- supreme in objective and infallible truth. That is what I must do as a
- Christian. It will guide my understanding of the origin and nature of what
- I see, even when fallible human conclusions based on the human wisdom
- contradict.

I agree.  That's why I'm a Christian.  That's why, despite the testimony of
"science" that death is a one-way trip, I believe in the resurrection.  What
does this have to do with the age of the earth?

And:

- Science approaches these matters from a naturalistic
- basis.

Who made nature?  Is not the purpose of nature to glorify its Creator?  Does
not nature testify accurately to the character of its Creator?  I believe
these things because the scripture says so.

And:

- Apparently Science will be the supreme authority on this discussion group
- as to what is objective and absolute truth. I guess I am wasting my time
- in discussing the truth of scripture.

Marc, among some of the participants in this discussion you may be wasting
your time discussing the truth of scripture.  It's not a waste of time with
me.  But science is the appropriate tool for investigation of phenomena
which are subject to the laws of cause-and-effect, just as theology is the
appropriate tool for investigation of matters which have to do with the
Creator, and hermeneutics is the appropriate tool for discussion of the
meaning of sacred texts.  Do you automatically accept every word that every
professional theologian says?  I didn't think so.  How about every
professional exegete?  I didn't think so.  Neither do I.  Neither do I
accept every word that every scientist says.  I don't think that YEC
science, or catastrophism, are inherently flawed (some participants in this
discussion may disagree with me).  But up to this moment the explanations of
"conventional" science for natural phenomena, and in particular the
explanations of conventional science for cosmic antiquity, are superior to
those of the YECs.  That's the only argument I'm making (and I'm speaking
only for myself, not for any other participant in this discussion).

And:

- If the attempt is to reinterpret the
- historical record of Gen. 1-2 without any justification in the text
- itself, I want no part of such an effort.

Do you want to get into a discussion of Genesis 1-2, Psalm 33 (and others)
and Job 38 as scientific narratives?  That's not a taunt, Marc; it's an
honest question.  Do you want to discuss those texts as though they were
scientific descriptions of creation?

And:

- My duty as a Christian is to live by faith in
- boldy declaring and doing the revealed will of God. You may have advanced
- degrees, but I would rather have the Scriptures. That is where one finds
- the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction. I have a few degrees
- myself, but I consider them as nothing for the knowledge of God.

I don't disagree with anything in that quote.  Is it my responsibility as a
Christian--indeed, can I not be called a Christian, as the sixty-seven
claim, unless I accept the responsibility--to defend the Genesis, Exodus,
Psalms and Job creation-accounts as scientific narratives?  That's what this
discussion is about, at least to me.

What do you think?

your brother,

tom

This is for anyone who knows the answer here.

Q: What is the lower limit time interval for the formation of Green River
varves according to the old earth model?  I believe this strata is < 1 km
thick.
Q: What is the upper limit time interval for the same model?

Based upon the Biblical record, the formation rate could be as brief as 1
year (during Noah's Flood) or less.  ICR and AIG probably would not have
much heartburn over my guess.

I know computer models (based upon complex math equations) for the formation
rate of Jupiter (about 318 earth masses) can vary from 3,000 years as the
lower limit (according to Alan Boss) to 1 billion years for the upper limit.

Thanks-----Rod

Rod said:

> Thanks Tas for this interesting information.  The newsgroup has charged
> ICR and AIG with much misleading information about Green River varves.
> Others interested can read my comments following yours.  The fact that
> numerous fossils are documented in these varves, the full extent to which
> I have no data on, looks suspicious to me.  Fossils chiefly form from
> abrupt and rapid sedimentation rates and the Petrified Forest layers at
> Yellowstone, ICR has addressed this topic too.  Either ICR and AIG has
> much explaining to do

They always have.  I suggest taking *one* topic, becoming
fairly expert on the arguments of both sides, and judge for
yourself.  This may require the equivalent amount of study
that a graduate student would get in that field.  For example,
to really get into the big bang, you need to know general
relativity and particle physics (including a good deal of
quantum mechanics).

However, this is not necessary to understand the basics.
Even knowing the basics enables you to see the errors
in many ICR and AIG arguments.

> (based upon newsgroup comments I have received) or this newsgroup and
> advocates of the old earth model are in serious error.  Both geology and
> astronomy feature what I consider to be cherised beliefs supporting an old
> earth and old universe model.

Explain why someone would care if the universe
or the earth were old or young, if they had no investment in
their religion.

>  As young earth creationists who accept the
> Biblical record at face value

Now that is an admitted cherished belief.  Two words:
mote, beam

> examine their claims, much error is uncovered
> that generally goes unreported by the advocates of evolution and an old
> earth model-----Rod

Let us talk about errors.  How about:"Fossils chiefly form from
abrupt and rapid sedimentation rates and the Petrified Forest
layers at Yellowstone, ICR has addressed this topic too."

I'm sure they have.  Have they discussed all of the evidence?
Like evidence of a *soil* associated with each of the forest
layers?  A simple yes or no is desired.  Either they discuss it
or they don't.

Now about fossil formation - the basics.  Well, an organism, if
it is not eaten, weathered away or does not decay (eaten by
microorganisms), has a chance of surviving to this day (assuming
it is not destroyed later, which happens to many strata during
subduction).   How does one do this?  Put the corpse in a place
where this won't happen.  The anoxic bottom of a glacial lake
will do.  A tar pit would do.  Are you suspicious of the hundreds
of thousands of fossils in the LaBrea tar pits because "Fossils
 chiefly form from abrupt and rapid sedimentation rates"?

[snip to get to alleged misconceptions] Rod said:
"I don't have the time to sort the truth [about varves - TPH]
out but to illustrate how evolutionists' teaching about origins
 frequently contains misconceptions I present the following."


> The origin of various heavy elements on the Periodic Table has problems
> and also the origin of planets in our solar system.  I find it amusing
> that evolutionists rely heavily upon the U-Th radioactive clock to
> establish that the earth is 4.6 Gyrs old.

I went to this web page, that I hope you would admit relies
heavily on radiodating to get the age of the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

How many U-Th clock dates are listed?  I don't see any.

>  However, the origin of the clock based upon big
> bang cosmology may be unknown.

The heavy elements come from supernovae, and have nothing to
do with the big bang, which only made the very light elements.

>  How do you know the clock's original reading
> of time for the earth shortly after the events of Creation day 3 in
> Genesis 1:9-13?  My guess

Your *GUESS*!?

> no one knows the original clock's reading.

You can explain how isochrons work, right?  You are aware
that work has been done to determine the isotope distribution
for the primordial matter (of the solar system)?

>  If this
> critical radioactive clock did not originate by the r-process in stellar
> evolution than an 'old age' reading may have been there from the start,

Including the lack of short-lived isotopes.  Hmmm.

> possibly collapsing billions of years of alleged earth history.  I find
> this situation similar to the difference in interpretation for the
> Petrified Forest and Green River varves.  The presuppositions of the old
> earth club

*WHAT* presuppositions?  The r-process?  Is that a
presupposition?  Let me guess - atoms, quantum mechanics,
relativity - presuppositions all.

> colors how they explain the observations and so too the presuppositions of
> the club who advocate a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-11
> (young earth creationists.)  Both groups can look at the same data in
> nature and arrive at radically different conclusions.

Perhaps you could explicitly point out the misconceptions
you said you were going to.  I also note an appalling lack of
details.  Could you please cite the work that has these
alleged misconceptions?

[snip the rest]

What is the point of quantity if quality is no good?

Tracy P. Hamilton

Marc:

You wrote:
--
I cannot answer all the questions and neither can you.
--

You're right.  There are a lot of questions I can't answer, a lot of
questions scientists admit science cannot answer, and a lot of questions
scientists claim to be able to answer that I don't think they can.  At this
moment, based on the information available to me, the age of the earth does
appear to be one of the questions that science can, if not answer, at least
strongly suggest an answer.

And:

--
Where we go to get the infallible principles by which we may consider
these questions is the issue.
--

I agree.  Those infallible principles include statements made by Paul in
Romans chapter 1.

As to your questions:

--
1) Which will be the supreme authority to reveal absolute and objective
truth about origins and the ancient past - science or the Bible?
--

Why do I have to choose one or the other?  Why not both?

--
2) Will science be used to determine the proper interpretation of scripture,
or is scripture the beginning of knowledge and wisdom?
--

Another false dilemma.  Scripture is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.
Scripture does not make scientific statements, in my judgment.  Therefore,
scripture does not tell us the orbital relationship of the earth and the
sun.  Science does.

--
3) Is our faith-based hermeneutic based on what the text itself teaches or
on conclusions formed from human studies outside the text?
--

I interpret scripture based on the overall context, which includes the
purpose for which the Bible was written.  Since it was obviously not written
to be a science book, I do not interpret it scientifically.

--
4) Is all Bible study just an exercise in subjective interpretation? Can
objective truth be known from the text of scripture? If so, how can it be
known?
--

All applications of statements in scripture to us today obviously depend on
human interpretation, unless you are prepared to accept the
Augustinian/Calvinist notion that we can understand scripture only when the
Holy Spirit directly explains it to us, the Catholic notion that only the
church has the right to tell us what scripture means, or the
denominationalist notion that creeds which tell us what the Bible means are
inspired on an ongoing basis by continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit.
I assume you would join me in rejecting those alternatives.  If we put aside
the epistemological issues, and if we accept the idea that God put objective
truth into the original revelation, then we still have the issue of
interpretation and its dependence on context.  Science helped us to
understand that statements about the sun standing still were only
"observer-true," not "scientifically-true."  We'd never have understood that
point from reading scripture.  All sources of knowledge help us understand
scripture, because all sources of knowledge ultimately come from God, and
therefore all are ultimately harmonious.  Again, I will say that I interpret
the Bible, and all statements within the Bible, based on what the purpose of
the Bible is and what it is not.  And what it manifestly is not is an
attempt to describe the operation of the physical universe in scientific
terms.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Gibson
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions


To Tom, Todd, Christopher, and whoever else,


Let me ask these simple questions before we get lost in the forest...


I believe these are the fundamental issues behind the present controversies.

Your consideration of these matters would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marc

Tracy, I hope you are following the material presented in the CEN TJ (AIG)
and ICR research on isochron dating.  ICR has been publishing isochrons at
Grand Canyon for some time now.  That is all I have to say and I hope you
read ICR reports on the Petrified Forest layers.  Thanks for the
feedback-----Rod

Rod said:

> This is for anyone who knows the answer here.
>
> Q: What is the lower limit time interval for the formation of Green River
> varves according to the old earth model?  I believe this strata is < 1 km
> thick.

Average 600 meters.  Average thickness 0.2mm per pair
of layers.  Estimates are 5-8 million years for the formation.
For annual layers.

> Q: What is the upper limit time interval for the same model?

> Based upon the Biblical record, the formation rate could be as brief as 1
> year (during Noah's Flood) or less.  ICR and AIG probably would not have
> much heartburn over my guess.

Let me give you something then.  Whitcomb and Morris postulated
that the layers could be  formed by a separate turbidity current
for each layer.  One year is 31.6 million seconds.  Ten million
layers, means that there is a separate turbidity current every
3 seconds.  The currents have to traverse the formation, which
is big.  Strahler estimates the required speed of the current
is 225,000 miles per hour.

I guess De Nial ain't just a river in Egypt, but a shallow turbidity
current that would circle the earth in 9 seconds.

> which is
> I know computer models (based upon complex math equations) for the
> formation rate of Jupiter (about 318 earth masses) can vary from 3,000
> years as the lower limit (according to Alan Boss) to 1 billion years for
> the upper limit.

So?

Tracy P. Hamilton

Thanks Tracy.  I will show this to ICR and AIG to see what they have to say.
You said [The currents have to traverse the formation, which is big.
Strahler estimates the required speed of the current is 225,000 miles per
hour.]

I think ICR and AIG need to respond to such a claim.  Their model feauters
continental flooding on a global scale, so many different currents covering
large areas are needed, not sure if this would reduce your velocity
measurements and also reduce your time scale argument----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy P. Hamilton
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationProcessAge] Green River varves and formation rate
question

Rod said:

> This is for anyone who knows the answer here.
>
> Q: What is the lower limit time interval for the formation of Green River
> varves according to the old earth model?  I believe this strata is < 1 km
> thick.

Average 600 meters.  Average thickness 0.2mm per pair
of layers.  Estimates are 5-8 million years for the formation.
For annual layers.

> Q: What is the upper limit time interval for the same model?

> Based upon the Biblical record, the formation rate could be as brief as 1
> year (during Noah's Flood) or less.  ICR and AIG probably would not have
> much heartburn over my guess.

Let me give you something then.  Whitcomb and Morris postulated
that the layers could be  formed by a separate turbidity current
for each layer.  One year is 31.6 million seconds.  Ten million
layers, means that there is a separate turbidity current every
3 seconds.  The currents have to traverse the formation, which
is big.  Strahler estimates the required speed of the current
is 225,000 miles per hour.

I guess De Nial ain't just a river in Egypt, but a shallow turbidity
current that would circle the earth in 9 seconds.

> which is
> I know computer models (based upon complex math equations) for the
> formation rate of Jupiter (about 318 earth masses) can vary from 3,000
> years as the lower limit (according to Alan Boss) to 1 billion years for
> the upper limit.

So?

Tracy P. Hamilton

Tracy, you responded to my data on the formation rate of Jupiter with 'So?'
My point is simple. When you carefully examine the computer models and
reports, there are numerous variables in the equations which can produce
widely different formation rates for Jupiter and also the other gas giants
based upon planetesimal accretion models.  I suspect the same will be shown
to apply to the Green River varves but cannot confirm at this time, thanks
for your feedback----Rod

Rod:

The inquiry to AiG/ICR should reference the quotes in their online articles.
For example, from the online article "Green River Blues":

---
So how were the great thicknesses of finely laminated shale in the Green
River Formation laid down? Creationist geologists need to investigate the
issue more closely, but there seems to be great potential for developing a
catastrophic model for the origin of these sediments. There is a large body
of experimental and observational data that shows that varve-like sediments
can build up very rapidly under catastrophic conditions.10, 11, 12, 13, 14
For instance, in 1960 Hurricane Donna struck the coast of southern Florida
and deposited a blanket of thinly-laminated lime-mud six inches thick.15
Another example comes from a Swiss lake, in which up to five pairs of layers
were found to build up in a single year, deposited by rapid underflows of
turbid water.16

Given the right conditions, thinly-laminated muddy sediments can and do form
by rapid sedimentation. Contrary to claims by old-earth proponents, long
periods of time are not demanded.
---

From the online article, "Sandy Stripes":

---
Guy Berthault and his co-workers, in their controlled experiments in flow
tanks, were able to obtain layering like this using particles with different
sizes - here, they were different densities, as well as different sizes. It
appears that there are different ways to get many alternating bands of
layering rapidly, without millions of years.

In fact, many evolutionist geologists would themselves acknowledge this, if
pressed. In any case, the idea that thousands of perfectly-formed
laminations can form slowly and gradually has other problems. For example,
how does a lamination on a lake bottom from a flood remain undisturbed for
many months until the next flood comes to deposit the next lamination? One
would expect that biological activity and even mild currents would disturb
the neat laminations, which, in the Green River Formation in the United
states, for example average only about 0.1 millimetre thick. Each such thin
lamination is supposed to have remained undisturbed for about a year before
the next influx of sediment was deposited on top. Also, there are may fish
beautifully preserved as fossils in the Green River rocks - how could this
happen with a mere 0.1 millimetre per year of sediment being deposited? See
GREEN RIVER BLUES for more evidence against one of the most common 'proofs'
of an old earth.

There is now ample evidence that fine layering and lamination can form
rapidly in flowing water - in the sorts of conditions that one could expect
during various phases of the biblical Flood.3
---

How would you interpret these statements?  Does it not appear to you that
the writers are claiming to be able to explain the varves in the Green River
Formation on the basis of the Genesis flood?  You now know that they cannot.
So I ask again, Rod, and I ask you to ask them:  Why are you guys writing
this kind of stuff?  Whom do you think you are fooling?

tom

Tom you said [How would you interpret these statements?  Does it not appear
to you that the writers are claiming to be able to explain the varves in the
Green River Formation on the basis of the Genesis flood?  You now know that
they cannot. So I ask again, Rod, and I ask you to ask them:  Why are you
guys writing this kind of stuff?  Whom do you think you are fooling?

tom]

I don't believe ICR or AIG attempt to hide the fact that they believe the
Genesis Flood may have formed the Green River varves.  I don't know for sure
if these groups claim Flood only or post-Flood formation also possible.
However, defining clearly the conditions in a global Flood model would also
involve the angular momentum of the Earth, this influence on continental
flooding and also possible gravitational perturbations acting on the Earth
during the Flood, if there were any.  Same for meteorite activity during the
Flood.  Many different water currents could have developed on a continental
scale that could alter your assumptions and calculations.

My point - I think there is more to this story about the Green River varve
formation rate(s) then I have been told and perhaps you and your old earth
friends know.  I don't claim to have all the answers, thanks----Rod