Hi, everyone.

This is coming in under my name but it's relevant material from
discussion on these issues between Christopher Sharp and Marc Gibson.

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

Subj:   Exchanges with Marc Gibson on CreationProcessAge
Date:   9/9/00 7:54:38 PM PDT
From:   Christopher Sharp


Hi Everyone,

I had some exchanges with Marc Gibson in the last few days,
and was remiss in not posting them on the newsgroup, and I
don't see them subsequently posted.  I am posting the
exchanges here, and apologize for any duplication of material
that was in fact posted.  In future, I should any of my replies
to this newsgroup, unless they are obviously private.

My first posting was on 9/6/00 10:24:16 PM PDT,
as given below.

Christopher M. Sharp
http://www.csharp.com

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:    Re: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Addressed to David Mathews
Date:   9/6/00 10:24:16 PM PDT
From:   Christopher Sharp
To: Marc Gibson
CC: Todd S. Greene

Hi Marc,

Perhaps I can chip in here.  I have two advanced degrees in
astronomy and astrophysics, so I feel that I am qualified.

You keep on talking about scientists using the assumptions
of uniformitarianism, but exactly what are your assumptions
of non-uniformitarianism, particularly as regards the speed
of light?  Could you please spell out your assumptions of
non-uniformitarianism, and explain, say, how exploding stars
can be seen in other galaxies, let alone explaining why stars
explode in the first place.

The fact is we can see from the light emitted from distant
galaxies billions of light years away, that the laws of physics
have not changed in billions of years, so the various physical
constants including the velocity of light are really constant.
Consequently, when we look at a galaxy, say, a billion light
years away, we see it as it was a billion years ago.

The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud determined from
Supernova 1987A is independent of other methods, but
broadly agrees with them (allowing for observational errors).
The beauty of the trigonometric method using the expanding
light echo ring, is that it essentially requires no assumptions,
and is independent of the assumptions used for the other
methods of determining the distance, and agrees with them.

If you think up some strange creation of light in transit, or
creation with the appearance of age ideas, this can be
disproved, as you can see light from distant galaxies and
quasars that has experienced absorption in transit through
the intergalactic medium.  If that still doesn't convince you,
gravitational lensing as predicted by Einstein can be seen
when an intervening galaxy or cluster of galaxy distorts the
light from a distant galaxy.  Finally, some quasars that are
lensed by an intervening galaxy or cluster of galaxies
fluctuate in brightness, and you can see the time delay of
several weeks or months between the two lensed images
of the quasar, and corresponds to the path difference the
light has taken.  This is consistent with total distances,
thus also times, of several 100 million or billion light years,
depending on the distances involved.

There really is no excuse for you arguing against
uniformitarianism, at least in this case, not only do we see
things in the distant past, we can verify directly that what we
see really was in the past, not some sort of grand illusion.
Note that these are empirical observations from which one
can deduce distances and timescales independent of the
person's religious faith. The fact that we can see galaxies a
long way away, thus in the distant past is absolute and
objective truth.  As a Christian you should be interested in
seeking the truth, even it is apparently makes you fell
uncomfortable.  The truth is independent of your particular
theology, or that of anybody else.

Christopher Sharp

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:   Re: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Addressed to David Mathews
Date:   9/7/00 6:51:10 AM PDT
From:   Marc Gibson
To: Christopher Sharp
CC: CreationProcessAge forum

Christopher,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I observed no consideration given to the supernatural activitiy of creation
or intervention by God. All your conclusions are assumed on a naturalistic
basis undergirding human observation. We are arguing from two entirely
different directions. 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 understand the matters of origin and antiquity by faith in what
God revealed, and it is no surprise that it will conflict often with human
philosophy and science. Science approaches these matters from a naturalistic
basis. I will live and act by faith based in the testimony of inspired
scripture. If you regard this as foolish, no problem -- I have already been
warned by God that it would be.

Uniformitarianism is refuted by the very act of creation and God's
supernatural intervention at times into the natural realm. That is the point
of 2 Peter 3:3ff. Science must work off of the assumption of
uniformitarianism because it will not consider God and His work. This is a
huge problem.

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. 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. 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 leave you with two quotes from Edward J. Young in his "Studies in Genesis
One":

"Whenever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible
that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are not told that "science"
should correct its answers in the light of Scripture. Always it is the other
way around." (p. 53). How true, but how shameful this is.

"In the nature of the case God's revelation does not conflict with itself.
His revelation in nature and that in Scripture are in perfect accord. Man,
however, is a rational creature, and needs a revelation in words that he may
properly understand himself and his relation to the world in which he lives.
Even in his unfallen state, God gave Adam a word-revelation, for by his very
constitution as an intellectual being, man must have such. The
word-revelation, therefore, must interpret revelation in nature. Fallen man
must read general revelation in the light of Scripture, else he will go
astray. Of course the Bible is not a textbook of science, but the Bible is
necessary properly to understand the purpose of science. Perhaps one may say
that it is a textbook of the philosophy of science. And on whatever subject
the Bible speaks, whether it be creation, the making of the sun, the fall,
the flood, man's redemption, it is authoritative and true. We are to think
God's thoughts after him, and his thoughts are expressed in the words of
Scripture. When these thoughts have to do with the origin of man, we are to
think them also. They alone must be our guide." (p. 54)

Amen and amen! "The entrance of thy words giveth light" (Psalm 119:130). Now
just where will our faith be based?

Thanks,
Marc Gibson

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:   Re: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Addressed to David Mathews
Date:   9/7/00 8:51:36 AM PDT
From:   Christopher Sharp
To: Marc Gibson
CC: Todd S. Greene

Marc,

I have also observed no consideration given to the
supernatural activity of creation or intervention by God
when storms or hurricanes form, the weather
forecasters use computers and satellites to predict the
weather, not Bibles.

It's all very well with your arguments, but you have not
explained why we can see light from galaxies billions
of light years away if the universe were literally poofed
in existence a few 1000 years ago during a period of
6x24 hours.  You have also proposed no mechanisms
that explain why stars explode.  Every years stars are
seen to explode in distant galaxies, and through the
science of astrophysics various mechanisms can
explain this.  The two most important being core collapse
and the nuclear runaway of an accreting carbon-oxygen
white dwarf.  Observations broadly agree with detailed
calculations.  If you are going to reject the scientific
explanations, then you have to find other explanations
for these phenomena.

Finally, you are assuming that your particular
interpretations of the Bible are infallible.  We all agree
that science is fallible, and when new observations
contradict with theory, the theory is modified or
discarded and science moves on.  Some people seem
to be stuck in the Middle Ages and care to ignore the
findings of science when it disagrees with their
supposedly "infallible" interpretations of the Bible.
Incidentally, God gave us brains, so it would be to
dishonor Him not to use them in the pursuit of science.

Christopher

______________________________________________________________________

<COMMENT>The following was posted but for continuity I'm including it here
</COMMENT>

From: Marc Gibson
Date: Thu Sep 7, 2000 12:57pm
Subject: Re: Uniformitarian assumptions


To Tom, Todd, Christopher, and whoever else,

I cannot answer all the questions and neither can you. The problem is we are
all caught up in what the Bible does not say instead of dealing with what it
does say and allowing it to be our authority and guide in all realms of
study. Where we go to get the infallible principles by which we may consider
these questions is the issue.

Let me ask these simple questions before we get lost in the forest...
1) Which will be the supreme authority to reveal absolute and objective truth
about origins and the ancient past - science or the Bible?
2) Will science be used to determine the proper interpretation of scripture,
or is scripture the beginning of knowledge and wisdom?
3) Is our faith-based hermeneutic based on what the text itself teaches or on
conclusions formed from human studies outside the text?
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?

I believe these are the fundamental issues behind the present controversies.
Your consideration of these matters would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marc

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:   Re: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions
Date:   9/7/00 2:45:28 PM PDT
From:   Christopher Sharp
To: Marc Gibson
CC: Todd S. Greene, Christopher Sharp

Marc,

The Bible is not a science text book, therefore we have to
find from studying science the age of the earth and the
universe, not the Bible.  Just as we have found from science
the diameter of the earth, and its distance from the sun.
Indeed through science we found that the earth is a globe
and orbits the sun.  That answers your 1st question, I will
leave it to others to deal with the remaining 3.

Indeed science cannot answer all questions, and it probably
never will, but it has been very successful in explaining, say,
how stars explode.  I have yet to see any explanation a YEC
can offer as an alternative.  There are also many other
observations in astronomy, geology and other fields that can
be explained by science, and even new predictions can be
made, but YECs are at a complete loss to explain.  What
is the YEC theory of exploding stars and the production
of neutrinos, as detected from Supernova 1987A, what is the
YEC theory of weak nuclear forces to produce the neutrinos?

Christopher Sharp

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:   Re: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions
Date:   9/7/00 3:09:39 PM PDT
From:   Marc Gibson
To: Christopher Sharp
CC: Todd S. Greene, Christopher Sharp

Christopher,

As always, I am happy to read your thoughts, even I should disagree at times.

True, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but I would affirm that when it
does touch on subjects of scientific interest, it speaks truthfully.

Some questions about stars I would like to know for my own information:

Has an individual star been observed over time progressing from birth to
death? Has an exploding star been observed before it exploded? Or are the
individual stars pretty much in the same various conditions of age as when we
were first able to observe them?

Thanks,

Marc

______________________________________________________________________

Subj:   Re: [CreationProcessAge] Uniformitarian assumptions
Date:   9/7/00 5:10:42 PM PDT
From:   Christopher Sharp
To: Marc Gibson
CC: Todd S. Greene, Christopher Sharp

Hi Marc,

According to a plain reading of Lev. 11:23, insects have four
legs.  I've seen this in all translations of the Bible, either as
insects or winged creeping things with four legs.  No such
creatures exist, and there is no evidence that they existed
in the Middle East during Biblical times, so this is clearly
false.  Perhaps the Bible translators got this wrong, or the
original author made a mistake (Huhhhh! a mistake in the
Bible?), or some other meaning was intended.

As regards your last paragraph, indeed a star was seen to die
spectacularly in an explosion in 1987 in the Large Magellanic
Cloud, otherwise known as Supernova 1987A.  Before the
star exploded it was catalogued as a luminous blue star, after
the explosion the star is no longer visible, and instead an
expanding cloud of gas is seen around where the star used to
be.  This is the best observation of a supernova since the
invention of the telescope.  There is plenty of evidence that
other stars have died in our galaxy, as we can see the
expanding gas clouds and in some cases a pulsar.

As to stellar birth, this is rather less violent event, but there
are plenty of places where stars are forming today.  Go out
on a clear night in winter and look at Orion.  This constellation
contains a famous nebula where stars are forming today.

Nevertheless, the lifetimes of stars are measured in millions
or billions of years, depending on the mass, so most stars
won't change much in the course of a human lifetime, but
there are some changes that have been seen.  After all, if
I spend an hour having a picnic in a forest, I won't notice any
trees growing or dying.

I hope this clears things up.

Christopher Sharp
______________________________________________________________________
<COMMENT>End of e-mail exchange</COMMENT>

Hi, Rod.

I'm trying to figure out how astrophysicists realizing the weaknesses
in a "slow growth" model of planet formation has any relevance
whatsoever to showing that the universe or earth have been around for
no more than, say, about 10,000 years. Honestly, Rod, the relevance
totally escapes me. Would you please explain why you think this is
relevant?

Whether planets formed in hundreds of millions of years over 4
billion years ago, or formed in only tens of thousands of years over
4 billion years ago, in neither case does it change the fact that it
all occurred over 4 billion years ago. So what is the point you are
trying to make?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/11/00 7:57 am ########

[snip]

Evolutionists' cherished belief was a slow, gradual growth process
involving perhaps 1 billion years for the origin of gas giant planets
like Jupiter. My how times are a changing-----Rod

"Astronomers once thought that gas-giant planets formed slowly and
peacefully. Gravity slowly pulled together debris from the pancake-
shaped nebula surrounding a newborn star to form rocky cores several
times the mass of Earth. The largest planetary cores swept up vast
amounts of the nearby gas, eventually becoming colorful giants.
Astronomers thought roughly 1 billion years was needed to make a
Jupiter-sized planet by this incremental, core-accretion process.
That view is changing." [1]

Presently there are two conflicting models to explain the origin of
Jupiter size planets around stars. The much slower core accretion
process and disk instability model, which Alan Boss of Carnegie
Institution of Washington favors. In fact his computer models start
with a proto-planetary disk containing about 0.1 M-solar and form gas
giant planets in time scales 3000-3500 years. [2] However they form
at distances 7-10 AU. The brief report did not make it clear what
their sizes were after 3000-3500 years. Were they completely Jupiter
size, larger than Jupiter size or just proto-Jupiters that required a
still longer growth period?

The Astronomy report did disclose that some recent observations in
astronomy have exploded the slow growth models invoked by
evolutionists to explain the origin of gas giant planet formation.
Young stars with their T Tauri stellar wind phase blow away their gas
disks in 1-10 million years so a 1 billion-year growth rate must be
thrown out. Also the presence of hot-Jupiters challenges the computer
simulations of Alan Boss using disk instability, namely gas giant
planets must form far out from their host star yet migrate inward,
much closer to the host star.

"The model that seemed to fit our solar system couldn't explain the
hot, extrasolar planets one-half to ten times the mass of Jupiter
that orbit tightly around their parent stars. Most theorists now
believe these planets form in the cold realms of solar nebulae,
migrate inward, and get hot. In fact, new models of solar system
dynamics suggest that migration is common in newly formed planetary
systems. Any other planets, debris, and gas in the disk
gravitationally push new planets into new orbits. In some cases,
these effects could be dramatic. 'The gravitational kicks could cause
it to spiral into the star in a million years', says Carnegie
Institute astrophysicist George Wetherill. 'This raises a question',
says Princeton University astrophysicist Scott Tremaine. 'Why didn't
Jupiter spiral into the sun and take Earth with it?' If Jupiter
formed by the slow accretion of gas, the tiny gravitational tugs of
other objects could have slowly dragged Jupiter into progressively
smaller and, therefore, faster orbits. Although ample evidence exists
that Neptune drifted outward significantly over its lifetime, most
astronomers agree that Jupiter stayed put." [3]

The recent data from the Galileo orbiter disclosing that Jupiter
contains higher than expected concentrations of argon, krypton and
xenon, argues that Jupiter may have formed at a distance > 30 AU,
where the temperature is expected to have been very cold in the solar
nebula. So far I have not seen evolutionists pushing this
explanation. An alternative answer may be that these gases formed in
Jupiter from an abrupt and very rapid formation process operating
when the solar system formed. The Astronomy report closes with "For
now, Tremaine is happy to wallow in the uncertainty surrounding
planet formation. He says, 'All this confusion is a very positive
sign that we are learning.'" [4]

My observation: I am glad evolutionists are learning. Creationists
should also be learning. The lesson that I see, current evolution
models featuring slow, gradual formation processes for the origin of
our solar system may be completely wrong. Hot Jupiters if real, may
have formed in situ thus another evidence for an abrupt and rapid
formation process. Genesis 1:14-19 place time constraints in the
creation model for the formation of our solar system. 1 day for the
formation of the solar system contradicts the model of Alan Boss that
features 3000-3500 years (disk instability model for origin of gas
giant planets) and also the 1 billion years (incremental, core-
accretion model) as astronomers commonly thought for the origin of
Jupiter type planets.

The location and stability of Jupiter and Earth's orbit fits nicely
with the concept of Biblical creation. Jupiter's semimajor axis is
5.2028 AU and the Earth's is 1 AU. Jupiter's orbital eccentricity is
0.0483 and the Earth's is 0.0167. No close encounters between the gas
giant planets and Earth in this solar system. We can all thank the
Lord for this and not random particle collisions in a proto-planetary
disk (which is a cherished belief of evolutionists.)

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that
formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and none
else." Isaiah 45:18 KJV

References
   1. Sincell, M., Switched at Birth, Astronomy 28(3):48, 2000
   2. Sincell, M., Ref. 1, p. 50.
   3. Sincell, M., Ref. 1, pp. 50-51.
   4. Sincell, M., Ref. 1, p. 51.

Hi, Rod.

I've got to point this out, based on my past experience in YEC
discussions: You issued a large list of items before (from, I think,
some AIG article), and based on his experience with astronomy
Christopher Sharp answered most of them almost immediately, off the
top of his head in a few follow-up posts. Then, instead of
acknowledging that perhaps there is some kind of problem with YEC
material, you simply issue a new YEC laundry list. When this occurs,
why is it worth the time to dig through a new list of items? How many
times does this need to occur before it is acknowledged that non-YECs
have a point?

Additionally, I will point out (as I did implicitly in my post
titled "Planet Formation") that there are two distinctions that I
sincerely would like for you and other YECs to bear in mind: (1)
There is a critical distinction between tentative theories and
clearly verified information. (Just for example, why don't you
address the obvious, and relatively recent, fact of SN1987A and its
having occurred about 168,000 years ago - a clear, direct disproof of
YEC?) Are there going to be a lot of problems with various scientific
hypotheses? *Of course there are!* That's science! Is this going to
change the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or the fact
that we observe the Andromeda galaxy the way it was something like 2
million years ago? Of course not! Such a failure to make proper
distinctions is absurd! (2) There are a lot of theories,
models, "working concepts," and speculative ideas that scientists
work with, especially over time, in trying to deal with explaining
how various processes occur and how reality "fits together" in
various aspects of it. Only some of them are actually relevant to the
young earth/young universe issue. (The time required for planet
formation, for example, is not relevant.) To put together a laundry
list of stuff like this, about admittedly more-or-less tentative
ideas related to relatively long periods of time or relatively
distant events in the past while refusing to acknowledge anything
about very clear information about the relatively recent past (like
SN1987A) seems to merely obfuscate matters.

Please don't get me wrong. If you have good, decent criticisms of the
idea that the universe and earth have been around a lot longer than
10,000 years, I for one want you to please state them with all your
gusto. I would simply ask that you keep the points I made in mind.
Several months ago, Rod, I had a discussion with a YEC who absolutely
refused to acknowledge it when I pointed out in detail how the Moon &
Spencer "shortcuts through space" conjecture had long since been
discredited and who absolutely refused to acknowledge the empirical
confirmation of the Kuiper Belt (that was proposed in the early
1950s, and began to get empirical verification in 1992) after I
provided him with something like a dozen astronomy-related references
relevant to its confirmation. At the same time, he would turn around
and simply then issue additional false YEC speculations. I have to
admit to you that it can become very frustrating at times to deal
with various issues clearly and carefully, only to have someone
ignore this and just continue on with a laundry list.

Just being honest with you. :-)

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene


--- Roderick Bernitt wrote:
[snip the huge list of items]

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> 2-model outline contrasting evolution vs. creation model (tentative).
>  09/10/00 update.  Author - Rod Bernitt
> major points of the evolution model:
[SNIP]

This covers much of standard astrophysics, so I will skip this for
now, although I'm puzzled as to what is meant by atomic and dynamical
time.

> major points of the creation model:
> 1.	Expanding universe with a center and matter is bounded.  The earth
> is at or near the center of the universe observed in astronomy.
This is an
> area of contention among creationists, an expanding universe.

There is no centre to the universe, or you could say that every
observer can be considered at the "centre" from his perspective.  In
general every point in the universe is similar to every other point
at a large scale.

> 2.	Natural laws or the laws of physics were created and are evidence of
> intelligent design in the origin of the universe - Job 28:26-27, Isaiah
> 45:18, and Jeremiah 31:35-36.  No need for evolution by natural, random
> processes out of a singularity (cosmological) to make physical law.

The laws of physics are almost certainly due to symmetries at a deep
level that we don't fully understand yet, perhaps string theory and
quantum gravity may shed light on this.  People may or may not
believe that God is behind them, but I don't think He "poofed" them
into existance in the way YECs like to think.

> 3.	No need for an inflation epoch so magnetic monopoles would clearly
> be visible if they were real.

The inflation epoch solves a number of problems in cosmology.
Magnetic monopoles have not been found, but it doesn't mean they
don't exist.

> 4.	No need for primordial neutrinos from the big bang.  Such
> calculations in the evolution model reflect ignorance of initial conditions
> in the primordial universe - the creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Yes, scientists subscribing to the "evolution" model are ignorant of
many processes, but YECs are even more ignorant!  Promordial
neutrinos would be expected to exist, and may be found at some time
in the future.  Primordial gravitational waves may also be detected
at some time in the future.  What testable predictions does the YEC
model make?

> 5.	Origin of the CMBR - largely unexplained in the creation model.  My
> guess - red shifted light from the optical part of the EM spectrum,
> perhaps relic light from creation day 1 in Genesis chapter 1:3.

Please describe the nature of this light, and the temperature it
corresponded to on the 1st day of creation according to the YEC
model.  What mechanism produced it?  The CMBR radiation fits very
well the black body Planckian curve corresponding to matter heated to
about 4000 Kelvin 300,000 years after the Big Bang, that was then red
shifted by about a factor of about 1000 (if I remember correctly) to
2.7 Kelvin today.

> 6.	Tiny temperature variations in the CMB were not the seeds that grew
> into large-scale structure in the universe today like galaxies and galaxy
> clusters.  Total time to 'evolve' into the large-scale structures observed
> today could be 6 days - see Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Exodus 20:11.

Again, explain the mechanism to do this in only 6 days.

> 7.	No need for primordial star forming clouds like the big bang
> cosmology.

With the NextGen space telescope or later this is possibly testable.

> 8.	No need for Population III stars in the universe.

Likewise this can possibly be tested.

> 9.	The first supernovae in the universe- progenitors can be normal
> Population I or II stars.

This again could be tested in the future.  Actually, I believe that a
population III star of sufficient mass may resemble a polulation II
star once some of the helium has burnt to carbon and oxygen, this can
start the CNO bi-cycle which will catalyze hydrogen burning and the
star re-adjusts accordingly.

> 10.	The r-process and s-process in stellar evolution theory has created
> some elements heavier than He but only in small quantities.  The majority
> of the elements heavier than He are primordial dating back to the creation
> week.  Example, quasars with large red shifts that contain CO or Fe in
> their spectra.

FALSE! - With the exception of some Li produced in the Big Bang, and
perhaps small amounts of Be and B produced by cosmic rays, most
elements beyond He are produced in stars.  Co and Fe seen in the
spectra of quasars would be produced by stars in the host galaxy.
BTW, what is the YEC model for producing chemical elements?

> 11.	Dark matter may not exist and is not needed in the creation model.
> Galaxy clusters with high recession velocities may be separating. Dwarf
> galaxies with high velocity dispersion stars may be losing them. Spiral
> galaxies with high rotation velocities or large M/L ratios may have stars,
> gas, and dust in parabolic/hyperbolic orbits that are escaping and flying
> apart.  Local Group dwarfs that have large M/L ratios may have similar
> problem.  In a young universe model, multiple revolutions of stars, dust,
> and gas in spiral galaxies is not required.  The LMC in the Local Group in
> a young universe model does not need to complete multiple revolutions
> about the Milky Way's galactic center and possibly may not be
> gravitationally bound to the Milky Way at all.  Thus the LMC may never
> have completed even one revolution.

Dark matter does exist, because it has been detected through its
gravitational forces.

> 12.	No multiple generations of Population I stars on the H-R star
> diagram have occurred in nature.  We observe 1st generation, Population I
> stars.  A typical spectral class O star has a lifetime of about 10 million
> years, spectral class B about 100 million years.

We see different open clusters consisting of population I stars with
different ages, e.g M 67 and NGC 188 are the oldest clusters,
whereas the Pleiades are relatively young.  Anybody who has studied
stellar evolution 101 should know this.

> 13.	No multiple generations of Population II stars, e.g. red giants
> with the element Tc-99 observed in their spectra.  The generation observed
> is 1st generation. The radioactive half-life of Tc-99 is about 213,000
> years.

And some other short lived elements like promethium, are produced in
some stars.  This is direct evidence of nuclear burning.

> 14.	Solar System does not need to form from a single collapsing gas
> cloud, the Solar Nebula.  It can form as separate and independent masses.
> According to Genesis 1:9-13 and 1:14-19, the earth's landmasses and seas
> predate the origin of the Sun and Moon.

So presumably the earth travelled in a straight line before the sun
and moon were created, and there were no creation days as there was
no sun!

> 15.	Long period (e.g. Sun grazers) and short period comets do not
> originate in the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt.  Neither may exist in nature.
> Creationists interpret these comets as evidence for a recent origin of the
> solar system.  Solar system comets may indicate that dynamical time in the
> solar system is much younger than atomic time.  Solar system comets may
> also be evidence for catastrophism in the ecliptic during Noah's Flood.

Huh!!!? - What's with this dynamical and atomic time?  How did Noah's
flood form the craters on the moon?

> 16.	Atomic time and dynamical time (celestial motion) in the solar
> system may be separate and independent measurements over the age of the
> solar system.  Atomic time could be immensely older than dynamical time in
> the solar system.  The lower limit for dynamical time in the solar system
> may correlate to the Josephus/Ussher Biblical chronology.

Again Huh!!!?

> 17.	Radioisotope dating does not provide reliable measurements for the
> age of the earth and fossil record.

It seems to work very well for people who understand it.

I'm calling it a halt here, as I've got other things to do.  What
exactly is the YEC model, and how does it explain the origin of the
chemical elements?  You keep pointing out that scientists don't know
everything, which is true, but you can't explain the YEC mechanism
for producing the elements, neutrinos from supernovae, how stars
produce energy, and of course how we can see light from galaxies
billions of light years away in a universe less than 10,000 years old.

Christopher Sharp

Hi Todd, my data shows how evolutionists cherished beliefs about slow growth
and formation process is subject to gross error after more carefuly review.

You apparently believe in an old Jupiter.  If Jupiter formed abruptly over a
3,000 year time span (Alan Boss equations) please answer these simple
questions:

	a. How does this establish that Jupiter has been orbiting for 4
billion years in the solar system (I don't see any evidence for this)
	b. What mechanism(s) in evolution model prevented Jupiter from
forming as a 'hot jupiter' and thus possibly destroying the earth?

-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 12:58 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Planet Formation

Hi, Rod.

I'm trying to figure out how astrophysicists realizing the weaknesses
in a "slow growth" model of planet formation has any relevance
whatsoever to showing that the universe or earth have been around for
no more than, say, about 10,000 years. Honestly, Rod, the relevance
totally escapes me. Would you please explain why you think this is
relevant?

Whether planets formed in hundreds of millions of years over 4
billion years ago, or formed in only tens of thousands of years over
4 billion years ago, in neither case does it change the fact that it
all occurred over 4 billion years ago. So what is the point you are
trying to make?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

This is for Todd Greene and Christopher Sharp who obviously don't like my 2
model comparsion and data exposing the faulty and misleading assumptions of
evolutionists.  Good.  I am not here to debate this material, just find out
what some of the folks on this newsgroup really believe in their hearts.

Based upon the evolution model, points 2, 22, 25, and 26, do you accept
these as true and a description of a real world?  If you do not wish to
answer I will understand, thanks-----Rod

> major points of the evolution model:
	2. Natural laws or the laws of physics evolve out of a singularity
(cosmological) by random processes.  Before the big bang according to
Einstein GR, only a singularity could exist in nature.  But this singularity
(cosmological) is not the same as a singularity in a black hole.  There
would be no event horizon and outside (3D space) surrounding the
singularity.  There would be nothing.
> 22.	Life arose from nonliving matter by spontaneous generation.  All
> life today is descended from "life's last common ancestor", a single,
> simple progenitor bacteria.  This took place > 3.5 billion years ago.
> 25.	Hebrew (Biblical) Flood account has been borrowed from
> Sumero-Babylonian tradition.
> 26.	Before the origin of man on earth, there was an immense time span of
> animal suffering, death, and flesh eating and there never was a Garden of
> Eden as described in Genesis 2:8.  Death predates man by an immense time
> span and is part of the biological evolution process.
>
> Archaeology - Flood legends:
> Scientific American, February 1999, p.105-107.  Commentary by Philip and
> Phylis Morrison about geologic time, Mediterranean Sea flooding (Black
> Sea) and Noah's Flood and Mesopotamian flood legends.  Is the
> Mediterranean flooding now dated to c. 5650 BC, the source for such flood
> stories?
> p. 107 "As for human witness, several records of deluge myth go back 1,000
> years before the Aramaic cuneiform manuscript of 900 BC from which the
> Genesis text itself comes."

Hi, Rod.

First of all, we're not talking about "evolutionists," we're talking
about astrophysicists. I have pointed this out before.

Second, I was not aware that the slow accretion model was a "cherished
belief" in the astrophysics community. Could be, I don't know. Maybe
Christopher, being a part of that community, might make a comment about
this in particular.

Third, perhaps it is a good demonstration that scientists develop ideas
based on the information available at the time and then modify, or even
abandon, these ideas as more and better information becomes available
(or is actively searched out based on wanting to find out more for
verification or falsification in reference to the original ideas).

In reference to your question (a), my answer is that it doesn't. It has
no relevance to the question. That was my point in my previous post. In
reference to your question (b), I have absolutely no idea. What I do
know is that whatever astrophysical model that is developed must take
into account the *fact* that the earth has been around for billions of
years.

Have you ever heard of the Manicouagan Crater up in Canada? Here is
the case of a relatively large impact crater something like 100
kilometers across. The crater has been eroded, has lithified, and has
been re-eroded. Currently, there's a lake that goes around the area
that used to be the inner rim of the original crater.

You figure out a legimitate way to get all of this to occur in less
than 10,000 years - by which I mean something other than pure,
unadulterated miracle creating "in place" an "eroded/lithified/re-
eroded impact crater geological feature" which cannot in any way be
verified - and I shall at that time seriously ponder a YEC
astrophysical planet formation model regarding a Jupiter possibly
destroying the earth in a short period of time.

By the way, when did SN1987A occur?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Planet Formation

Hi Todd, my data shows how evolutionists cherished beliefs about slow growth
and formation process is subject to gross error after more carefuly review.

You apparently believe in an old Jupiter.  If Jupiter formed abruptly over a
3,000 year time span (Alan Boss equations) please answer these simple
questions:

      a. How does this establish that Jupiter has been orbiting for 4
billion years in the solar system (I don't see any evidence for this)
      b. What mechanism(s) in evolution model prevented Jupiter from
forming as a 'hot jupiter' and thus possibly destroying the earth?

-----Rod

Hi, Rod.

I wish to point out that you did not address any of the distinctions
I pointed out. In regard to "laundry list," my comments are genuine and
honest. Please do not ignore them.

Your lists have not been ignored. I already pointed this out. Do not
make statements based on the premise that things you have presented have
been ignored, because that is a premise that you and I both know is
entirely false. Honestly Rod, a lot of this list stuff you bring up is
simply not very relevant. I would call it a "smokescreen," except I
don't want to give the impression that you are intentionally trying to
cover up the YEC weaknesses, because I don't believe this. But I must
state that it is *like* a smokescreen. A lot of it is just "a bunch of
stuff."

Perhaps you would care to address the clear and unequivocal SN1987A
information?

In regard to what people "really believe in their hearts," since here
we are living in the year 2000 with our knowledge of the world around us
vastly greater than it was a mere 400 years ago, and since part of this
includes such unequivocal information such as SN1987A by which we know
for a fact that the universe has been around far longer than just 10,000
years, what is in your heart, Rod? What would it take to persuade you to
accept the already well-known truth that the universe is ancient?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


----- Original Message -----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:36 AM

This is for Todd Greene and Christopher Sharp who obviously don't like my 2
model comparsion and data exposing the faulty and misleading assumptions of
evolutionists.  Good.  I am not here to debate this material, just find out
what some of the folks on this newsgroup really believe in their hearts.

Based upon the evolution model, points 2, 22, 25, and 26, do you accept
these as true and a description of a real world?  If you do not wish to
answer I will understand, thanks-----Rod

> major points of the evolution model:
      2. Natural laws or the laws of physics evolve out of a singularity
(cosmological) by random processes.  Before the big bang according to
Einstein GR, only a singularity could exist in nature.  But this singularity
(cosmological) is not the same as a singularity in a black hole.  There
would be no event horizon and outside (3D space) surrounding the
singularity.  There would be nothing.
> 22.      Life arose from nonliving matter by spontaneous generation.  All
> life today is descended from "life's last common ancestor", a single,
> simple progenitor bacteria.  This took place > 3.5 billion years ago.
> 25.      Hebrew (Biblical) Flood account has been borrowed from
> Sumero-Babylonian tradition.
> 26.      Before the origin of man on earth, there was an immense time span of
> animal suffering, death, and flesh eating and there never was a Garden of
> Eden as described in Genesis 2:8.  Death predates man by an immense time
> span and is part of the biological evolution process.
>
> Archaeology - Flood legends:
> Scientific American, February 1999, p.105-107.  Commentary by Philip and
> Phylis Morrison about geologic time, Mediterranean Sea flooding (Black
> Sea) and Noah's Flood and Mesopotamian flood legends.  Is the
> Mediterranean flooding now dated to c. 5650 BC, the source for such flood
> stories?
> p. 107 "As for human witness, several records of deluge myth go back 1,000
> years before the Aramaic cuneiform manuscript of 900 BC from which the
> Genesis text itself comes."

Todd, I find your answers the real smoke screen.  Biblical creationists are
clear on their position and that is my position.  For me, anyone who is not
a Biblical creationists I consider to be an evolutionists because that is
the only alternative, thanks Todd----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:29 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: some possible fun for all

Hi, Rod.

I wish to point out that you did not address any of the distinctions
I pointed out. In regard to "laundry list," my comments are genuine and
honest. Please do not ignore them.

Your lists have not been ignored. I already pointed this out. Do not
make statements based on the premise that things you have presented have
been ignored, because that is a premise that you and I both know is
entirely false. Honestly Rod, a lot of this list stuff you bring up is
simply not very relevant. I would call it a "smokescreen," except I
don't want to give the impression that you are intentionally trying to
cover up the YEC weaknesses, because I don't believe this. But I must
state that it is *like* a smokescreen. A lot of it is just "a bunch of
stuff."

Perhaps you would care to address the clear and unequivocal SN1987A
information?

In regard to what people "really believe in their hearts," since here
we are living in the year 2000 with our knowledge of the world around us
vastly greater than it was a mere 400 years ago, and since part of this
includes such unequivocal information such as SN1987A by which we know
for a fact that the universe has been around far longer than just 10,000
years, what is in your heart, Rod? What would it take to persuade you to
accept the already well-known truth that the universe is ancient?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

Todd you said [In reference to your question (a), my answer is that it
doesn't. It has no relevance to the question. That was my point in my
previous post. In
reference to your question (b), I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is
that whatever astrophysical model that is developed must take into account
the *fact* that the earth has been around for billions of years.]

Todd, I am glad that we can agree that an abrupt formation process for
Jupiter does not establish a past orbital history of 4.6 billion years for
this planet.  It seems to me that your approach opens the door that the rest
of the solar system could be much younger than the earth (even billions of
years younger) and the earth's age would remain the same (4.6 Gyrs).  That
would indeed be an interesting astrophysical model to develop----Rod

> Tracy said [Things on the bottom of a lake do not get eroded.  They get
> piled onto.  Only after lithification and uplifting will it start to be
> eroded, and that rate will be highly dependent on elevation and slope.]

Rod said:
> What your are advocating is that this lake bottom existed for 5-8 million
> years where the erosion rate generally did not exceed the deposition rate
> of 2 x 10^-5 cm/day.

At the bottom of a lake there is no erosion.  How can it exceed
the deposition rate?

> Just how well known and tested is this past erosion rate(s) picture?

I am stunned.  The green river formation is *sedimentary*.
It is made out of *sediment*.  Sediment comes from erosion of
*other* strata.  Geologists have only known this for two years.

Of course it is being eroded *now* that it is exposed (no longer
at the bottom of a lake).  The only difference between the
YEC and standard geology is the time it took to form, which
of course depends on the mechanism, which in turn is
determined by the *detailed* particle distribution.

The Green river varves look *exactly* (not just a superficial
resemblance) like what is seen in glacial lakes today.  The organic
matter in those layers can be radiocarbon dated, and guess what
it shows about how many layers are deposited each year?

How can a flood sort organic material into layers with different
minute amounts of C-14 in them?

Tracy P. Hamilton

an interesting question Tracy.

Q: Does the present and modern glacial lake varves contain fossils?  If you
claim fossils are forming, just how long of a time span are we to wait until
we do see fossils in the strata (rate of lithification)?
Q: Does the Green River shales also contain oil?
Q: Have the Green River fossils in varves been dated via C14?

Apparently the Green River varves are considered by old earth advocates to
be a 'major piece' of sedimentary evidence for an old earth.  Please correct
me if I am wrong on this point, thanks-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy P. Hamilton
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [CreationProcessAge] Green River woes

> Tracy said [Things on the bottom of a lake do not get eroded.  They get
> piled onto.  Only after lithification and uplifting will it start to be
> eroded,
> and that rate will be highly dependent on elevation and slope.]

Rod said:
> What your are advocating is that this lake bottom existed for 5-8 million
> years where the erosion rate generally did not exceed the deposition rate
> of 2 x 10^-5 cm/day.

At the bottom of a lake there is no erosion.  How can it exceed
the deposition rate?

> Just how well known and tested is this past erosion rate(s) picture?

I am stunned.  The green river formation is *sedimentary*.
It is made out of *sediment*.  Sediment comes from erosion of
*other* strata.  Geologists have only known this for two years.

Of course it is being eroded *now* that it is exposed (no longer
at the bottom of a lake).  The only difference between the
YEC and standard geology is the time it took to form, which
of course depends on the mechanism, which in turn is
determined by the *detailed* particle distribution.

The Green river varves look *exactly* (not just a superficial
resemblance) like what is seen in glacial lakes today.  The organic
matter in those layers can be radiocarbon dated, and guess what
it shows about how many layers are deposited each year?

How can a flood sort organic material into layers with different
minute amounts of C-14 in them?

Tracy P. Hamilton

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Todd you said [In reference to your question (a), my answer is that it
> doesn't. It has no relevance to the question. That was my point in my
> previous post. In reference to your question (b), I have absolutely no
> idea. What I do know is that whatever astrophysical model that is
> developed must take into account the *fact* that the earth has been
> around for billions of years.]
>
> Todd, I am glad that we can agree that an abrupt formation process for
> Jupiter does not establish a past orbital history of 4.6 billion years
> for this planet.  It seems to me that your approach opens the door that
> the rest of the solar system could be much younger than the earth (even
> billions of years younger) and the earth's age would remain the same
> (4.6 Gyrs).  That would indeed be an interesting astrophysical model to
> develop----Rod

Ah, Rod, but there is plenty of evidence that Jupiter has been around
for 4.6 billion years.  The planet emits about twice as much heat as
it receives from the sun, and this is consistent with detailed
radiative transfer calculations of its interior.  What calculations
have YECs done on this?  Not only that, but three inner of the four
Galileon moons, Io, Europa and Ganymede are in orbital resonance.
This can be explained by tidal action over billions of years.
Although this can't date the age of Jupiter and its moons very well,
it clearly shows that they have been around for many millions of
years at least.  However, the outermost moon, Callisto is not in
orbital resonance, showing that the system is not old enough for it
to be captured, i.e. the system would have to be about 10 billion
years old, or whatever the figure is, again show me the YEC
calculations for this.

Finally, there is a pattern of asteroid orbits correlating with the
orbital periods relative to those of Jupiter.  Orbits that are
unstable with timescales of up to a few billion years or so are
populated by very few if any asteriods, whereas orbits that are
stable, or unstable on timescales exceeding the age of the solar
system are well populated.  The beauty of this is that there are
essentially no assumptions, the forces are all conservative with no
dissipation, and the orbits can be calculated from straight Newtonion
celestial mechanics.  This shows very clearly that not only Jupiter,
and for that fact also Saturn, have existed for several billion
years, but they have been in their present orbits for much of this.
The same trick can be used on the Kuiper Belt objects to determine
how long Uranus and Neptune have been in their present orbits.  I
went to an interesting talk on this at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at
the University of Arizona some months ago.  Again, where are the YEC
celestial mechanics calculations to explain this?

Christopher Sharp

Christopher, you and I have been over this Jupiter radiating energy issue
and you know what the CEN TJ has presented and also the abstract I sent you
separately.  None of this shows Jupiter has been orbiting for 4.6 Gyrs and
many evidences exist for a much younger time scale.  All your data is
nothing but circular reasoning based upon a small number of radiometrically
dated meteorites and many asteroids don't orbit for Gyrs and also many other
items which you and I have hased over.  Please just answer my earlier
questions about the evolution model points 2, 22, 25, and 26 otherwise I
have other actions that are pressing, thanks----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Todd you said [In reference to your question (a), my answer is that it
> doesn't. It has no relevance to the question. That was my point in my
> previous post. In reference to your question (b), I have absolutely no
> idea. What I do know is that whatever astrophysical model that is
> developed must take into account the *fact* that the earth has been
> around for billions of years.]
>
> Todd, I am glad that we can agree that an abrupt formation process for
> Jupiter does not establish a past orbital history of 4.6 billion years
> for this planet.  It seems to me that your approach opens the door that
> the rest of the solar system could be much younger than the earth (even
> billions of years younger) and the earth's age would remain the same
> (4.6 Gyrs).  That would indeed be an interesting astrophysical model to
> develop----Rod

Ah, Rod, but there is plenty of evidence that Jupiter has been around
for 4.6 billion years.  The planet emits about twice as much heat as
it receives from the sun, and this is consistent with detailed
radiative transfer calculations of its interior.  What calculations
have YECs done on this?  Not only that, but three inner of the four
Galileon moons, Io, Europa and Ganymede are in orbital resonance.
This can be explained by tidal action over billions of years.
Although this can't date the age of Jupiter and its moons very well,
it clearly shows that they have been around for many millions of
years at least.  However, the outermost moon, Callisto is not in
orbital resonance, showing that the system is not old enough for it
to be captured, i.e. the system would have to be about 10 billion
years old, or whatever the figure is, again show me the YEC
calculations for this.

Finally, there is a pattern of asteroid orbits correlating with the
orbital periods relative to those of Jupiter.  Orbits that are
unstable with timescales of up to a few billion years or so are
populated by very few if any asteriods, whereas orbits that are
stable, or unstable on timescales exceeding the age of the solar
system are well populated.  The beauty of this is that there are
essentially no assumptions, the forces are all conservative with no
dissipation, and the orbits can be calculated from straight Newtonion
celestial mechanics.  This shows very clearly that not only Jupiter,
and for that fact also Saturn, have existed for several billion
years, but they have been in their present orbits for much of this.
The same trick can be used on the Kuiper Belt objects to determine
how long Uranus and Neptune have been in their present orbits.  I
went to an interesting talk on this at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at
the University of Arizona some months ago.  Again, where are the YEC
celestial mechanics calculations to explain this?

Christopher Sharp

Hi, Rod.

My post on SN1987A is a "smoke screen"? Please explain why you think so.
My post on SN1987A was very clear, very straightforward, and I tried to
make things as easy to follow as possible, taking you through each point
step by step. The direct observation of SN1987A clearly disproves the
idea that the universe has only been around for 10,000 years or so. Yet
you have completely ignored the SN1987A information. Why?

Young earth creationists, as a group, are NOT clear on their position,
nor are they particularly clear with many arguments that they make (as
you have demonstrated with these "laundry lists" you bring up). Some
YECs believe in "scientific creationism," believing that science
should support the concept of a young earth. Other YECs believe in the
"apparent age" concept, and do it in a logically consistent manner,
agreeing that science itself will never support the YEC position because
they agree that the empirical evidence itself does in fact show an
ancient universe and ancient earth, but that all of the evidence is only
"apparent" and not "real." Then there are a great many YECs who simply
take approaches that are amalgamations of these two very different views.

In fact, Rod, based all on my own personal experience...

...I have had discussions with a very consistent "apparent age"
advocate (Mark Nutter, a most respectable YEC) who completely agreed
that the scientifically discovered information regarding the
antiquity of the universe and earth was very clear, unequivocal, and
extensive, yet he simply believed that all of it - every single bit
of it right down to the very minutest detail - was created "in place"
by God only about 6,000 years ago or so, and since by the nature of
this you could never really tell anything by looking at the evidence,
you simply had to accept YEC by faith.

...I have had discussions with a YEC who adamantly disputed both that
the universe was more than 6,000 light-years in radius, and that
there were more than even a few hundred galaxies in the entire
universe. He disputed that SN1987A was more than 6,000 light-years
from earth, and disputed that astronomers even had any good way of
determining the distance to SN1987A.

These are just two "real life" examples of highly discrepant YEC
positions, so no, Rod, I do not agree with you at all that YECs as a
group are clear on their position.

I do not believe in smoke screens, and I'm pretty sure you are well
aware of this. I want people to dig into the details and understand
what the truth is. The majority of the material that you have brought
up is simply not relevant to the topic. This is a fact. Most of the
items you mention happen to be simply incidental stuff. I agree with
you that much or most of it consists of ideas that are generated and
worked on within the "paradigm" of an ancient universe/ancient earth,
but I am correct in pointing out that most of it is not directly
relevant to focusing in on and discussing the matter of antiquity
itself.

The varve discussion is an example of a good discussion on a relevant
issue.

Talking about whether or not

    11. Dark matter holds together galaxy clusters with high
    recession velocities, spiral galaxy rotation, and high
    velocity dispersion stars in dwarf galaxies. Multiple
    revolutions of stars, dust, and gas about the center of
    spiral galaxies is required since the big bang. Evidence for
    dark matter may be found in large M/L ratios of spiral
    galaxies and Local Group dwarfs. The LMC in the Local Group
    may have completed some 10-15 revolutions about the Milky
    Way's galactic center since its origin.

has very little relevance to discussing the fact that we know
unequivocally that the universe has been around far, far longer than
just 10,000 years. Whether the LMC has completed 10 revolutions
around our galaxy, or 27 revolutions, or none at all, is completely
irrelevant to the fact that the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy that we
observe right now at this very moment is really the way the Large
Magellanic Cloud existed over 150,000 years ago.

Thus, for you to delve into problems with tentative astronomical
hypotheses attempting to explain processes regarding this or that
billions of years ago while refusing to deal with the extensive and
unequivocal information about what is directly observed right now
indicates that there is a critical problem in the approach you are
taking. Your approach is equivalent to saying something
like, "Astronomers can't really be certain that the earth revolves
about the sun, because they don't really know much about magnetic
monopole production in the Big Bang model and subsequent effects on
such monopoles." Such an approach is absurd on the face of it, and I
hope you see this *non sequitur* that I am pointing out to you.

As a clear matter of fact, regardless of how *anyone* responds to #2,
#22, #25, and #26, the only one that is genuinely relevant to the
fact of the antiquity of the universe and earth is #26: "Before the
origin of man on earth, there was an immense time span of animal
suffering, death, and flesh eating and there never was a Garden of
Eden as described in Genesis 2:8. Death predates man by an immense
time span and is part of the biological evolution process." I point
out to you as a purely logical point that biological evolution has
absolutely nothing to do with #26. I am aware that many YECs like to
use this particular theological doctrine as a theological argument
against evolution, but, in fact, *regardless of "macro-evolution"* it
is the antiquity of the earth (by the way the fossil record is
connected with historical geology) alone that demonstrates the
fallacy of the concept that physical death did not exist on earth
before there were human beings on the planet. In other words, even if
we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that "macro-evolution"
is completely and totally false (as old earth creationists do), you
still have the fact of the antiquity of the earth demonstrating the
fallacy of the "no physical death before Adam" doctrine.

Regards,
Todd



######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 9:31 am ########
Todd, I find your answers the real smoke screen. Biblical
creationists are clear on their position and that is my position. For
me, anyone who is not a Biblical creationists I consider to be an
evolutionists because that is the only alternative, thanks Todd ----
Rod


######## Todd S. Greene, 9/12/00 9:29 AM ########
Hi, Rod.

I wish to point out that you did not address any of the distinctions
I pointed out. In regard to "laundry list," my comments are genuine
and honest. Please do not ignore them.

Your lists have not been ignored. I already pointed this out. Do not
make statements based on the premise that things you have presented
have been ignored, because that is a premise that you and I both know
is entirely false. Honestly Rod, a lot of this list stuff you bring
up is simply not very relevant. I would call it a "smokescreen,"
except I don't want to give the impression that you are intentionally
trying to cover up the YEC weaknesses, because I don't believe this.
But I must state that it is *like* a smokescreen. A lot of it is
just "a bunch of stuff."

Perhaps you would care to address the clear and unequivocal SN1987A
information?

In regard to what people "really believe in their hearts," since here
we are living in the year 2000 with our knowledge of the world around
us vastly greater than it was a mere 400 years ago, and since part of
this includes such unequivocal information such as SN1987A by which
we know for a fact that the universe has been around far longer than
just 10,000 years, what is in your heart, Rod? What would it take to
persuade you to accept the already well-known truth that the universe
is ancient?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd