Christopher you said [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.]

Christopher, if folks want to discuss the orbital resonances of Jupiter's
Galilean moons, they should start by showing what their present orbital
eccentricities are (e) and their present semimajor axis values (a) and then
show what these values were in the beginning for the calculations used in
the computer models.  Please supply these figures.

Next item, when you show the initial values for e and a in the Galilean
moons used in the computer models, please document the physical evidence
that supports the delta values you are throwing around for e and a as
observed today in the Jovian system, thanks-----Rod

so far Todd, nothing you have shown proves a 15 Gyr old universe or a 4.6
Gyr old earth.  It is all circular reasoning-----Rod

Hi, Rod.

I will grant you that thousands of years is "abrupt" relative to
*typical* geological and astronomical time frames, but I must point
out to you, yet again, that how long it takes a planet to form
(whether millions of years, or only thousands of years) has
absolutely nothing to do with how long the planet has then been
around *after* it has formed. Do you really not understand this
distinction I am pointing out to you? The fact of this distinction
certainly does *not* "[open] the door that the rest of the solar
system could be much younger than the earth," and this is a totally
incorrect representation of my pointing this out. Please get the
details straight.

And why would you write, "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." Are you trying to
promote the idea, by implication, that astrophysicists are confused
about the distinction I have pointed out?

Thanks,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
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

[Are you trying to
promote the idea, by implication, that astrophysicists are confused
about the distinction I have pointed out?]

Todd, no.  I am pointing out that much solar system data when evaluated
against the radiometric age of certain meteorites, could be interpreted that
much of the solar system is much younger than 4.6 Gyrs old and to accept the
old earth teaching (4.6 Gyrs old), the earth must have existed far longer
than many bodies like Jupiter, Europa, Triton at Neptune, or the age of
Mars, etc.  One point needs to be brought out about planet formation and
orbital time following planet formation.

*You must always assume some initial values for a and e and celestial
mechanics* to measure against present values observed.  Documentating strong
physical evidence for such delta changes is hard to come by so be careful
here----Rod

Hi, Rod.

First, I have pointed out before that the idea that the universe has
only been around for 10,000 years or so is disproved by direct
observation, and that trying to determine precisely how old the
universe is is a separate issue. Those who understand that the
universe "has been around a very long time" can establish this fact
unequivocally without ever even thinking about how old the universe
actually is. I know that you understand this distinction, so you
should not try to confuse the issue.

Second, why are ignoring SN1987A? Are you advocating that the fact
that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago is based on "circular
reasoning"?

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 2:31 pm ########
So far Todd, nothing you have shown proves a 15 Gyr old universe or a
4.6 Gyr old earth. It is all circular reasoning-----Rod

SN 1987A does not show the earth to be 4.6 Gyrs old, it does not show that
the LMC has completed 10-15 revolutions about the galactic center and it
raises the question of just how many SN have exploded in the Milky Way since
its origin and the LMC?


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:43 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: some possible fun for all

Hi, Rod.

First, I have pointed out before that the idea that the universe has
only been around for 10,000 years or so is disproved by direct
observation, and that trying to determine precisely how old the
universe is is a separate issue. Those who understand that the
universe "has been around a very long time" can establish this fact
unequivocally without ever even thinking about how old the universe
actually is. I know that you understand this distinction, so you
should not try to confuse the issue.

Second, why are ignoring SN1987A? Are you advocating that the fact
that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago is based on "circular
reasoning"?

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Please cite the specific
information that you are talking about, and why, specifically, you
think it poses a problem for an ancient solar system. And what is it
specifically about "the point...about planet formation and orbital
time following planet formation" that you think poses a problem for
an ancient solar system?

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 2:  pm ########
I am pointing out that much solar system data when evaluated against
the radiometric age of certain meteorites, could be interpreted that
much of the solar system is much younger than 4.6 Gyrs old and to
accept the old earth teaching (4.6 Gyrs old), the earth must have
existed far longer than many bodies like Jupiter, Europa, Triton at
Neptune, or the age of Mars, etc. One point needs to be brought out
about planet formation and orbital time following planet formation.

*You must always assume some initial values for a and e and celestial
mechanics* to measure against present values observed. Documentating
strong physical evidence for such delta changes is hard to come by so
be careful here----Rod

Todd, in our solar system there are 6 basic parameters used to describe an
orbit relative to the ecliptic for comets, asteroids or planets.  Just show
me the present values for these 6 variables say for a body like Neptune or
Jupiter and what evolutionists have in their computer models to start 4.6
Gyrs ago and you can see for yourself-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:50 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

Hi, Rod.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Please cite the specific
information that you are talking about, and why, specifically, you
think it poses a problem for an ancient solar system. And what is it
specifically about "the point...about planet formation and orbital
time following planet formation" that you think poses a problem for
an ancient solar system?

Regards,
Todd

Todd, perhaps this will also help.  Look at the Milkanvoitch cycles for the
earth and the ice ages, look at the value for a and e as compared to today's
values.  You know, 4.6 Gyrs ago, those were not the same as todays values.
The aphelion and perihelion distances are affected by Milkanvoitch cycles
and so to 4.6 Gyrs of orbital time----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:50 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

Hi, Rod.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Please cite the specific
information that you are talking about, and why, specifically, you
think it poses a problem for an ancient solar system. And what is it
specifically about "the point...about planet formation and orbital
time following planet formation" that you think poses a problem for
an ancient solar system?

Regards,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

Thanks for your response.

Of course, I never claimed that SN1987A showed that the earth is 4.6
billion years, I never claimed that SN1987A showed that the LMC
completed 10-15 revolutions about the galactic center, and I never
made any claims regarding SN1987A and other supernovae.

I have simply pointed out the fact - the observed fact, Rod - that
SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago. So, then, you agree with me
that SN1987A shows that the universe has been around for at least
about 168,000 years?

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 2:44 pm ########
SN 1987A does not show the earth to be 4.6 Gyrs old, it does not show
that the LMC has completed 10-15 revolutions about the galactic
center and it raises the question of just how many SN have exploded
in the Milky Way since its origin and the LMC?


######## Todd Greene, 9/12/00 2:42 pm ########
First, I have pointed out before that the idea that the universe has
only been around for 10,000 years or so is disproved by direct
observation, and that trying to determine precisely how old the
universe is is a separate issue. Those who understand that the
universe "has been around a very long time" can establish this fact
unequivocally without ever even thinking about how old the universe
ctually is. I know that you understand this distinction, so you
should not try to confuse the issue.

Second, why are ignoring SN1987A? Are you advocating that the fact
that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago is based on "circular
reasoning"?


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 2:31 pm ########
So far Todd, nothing you have shown proves a 15 Gyr old universe or a
4.6 Gyr old earth. It is all circular reasoning.

Hi, Rod.

I'm sorry, but I'm not Christopher Sharp. Please help me out with the
details here, and step me through things along with providing
appropriate references, just like I did with my detailed SN1987A
discussion. I'm not afraid of math, so throw that in where you think
it is appropriate and necessary.

Thanks,
Todd

Based upon the Special Theory of Relativity, SN1987A shows that the star
exploded about 168,000 years ago relative to earth's time frame but this
does not show an old universe which is a vast extrapolation.  Just how many
SNs have exploded in the LMC since its origin?  That would be a better
argument for an old LMC


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 2:59 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: some possible fun for all

Hi, Rod.

Thanks for your response.

Of course, I never claimed that SN1987A showed that the earth is 4.6
billion years, I never claimed that SN1987A showed that the LMC
completed 10-15 revolutions about the galactic center, and I never
made any claims regarding SN1987A and other supernovae.

I have simply pointed out the fact - the observed fact, Rod - that
SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago. So, then, you agree with me
that SN1987A shows that the universe has been around for at least
about 168,000 years?

Regards,
Todd

Thanks Todd but I don't have the time for this.  Anyway if it makes you feel
better I see SN1987A, based upon special relativity as good evidence for a
star that exploded much longer than 10,000 years ago however I still believe
the Bible and suspect some day the story will be told that confirms the
scripture----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:03 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

Hi, Rod.

I'm sorry, but I'm not Christopher Sharp. Please help me out with the
details here, and step me through things along with providing
appropriate references, just like I did with my detailed SN1987A
discussion. I'm not afraid of math, so throw that in where you think
it is appropriate and necessary.

Thanks,
Todd

Hi, Rod.

Thank you for acknowledging the legitimacy of the point I have been
making all along about SN1987A. I do genuinely appreciate your
acknowledgement. :-)

Thank you,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 3:05pm ########
[...]I see SN1987A, based upon special relativity as good evidence
for a star that exploded much longer than 10,000 years ago, however I
still believe the Bible and suspect some day the story will be told
that confirms the scripture.

Yes Todd you are welcome but as you have pointed out how many YEC have been
examining the astrnonomical data to fit in with a 6,000 to 10,000 years old
universe model?

My 2 model outline is a product of my thinking mostly with some ICR stuff
mixed in (mostly in earth science area).  YEC have a long way to go but
their arguments based upon the Biblical text are very easy to confirm and
support from Hebrew and Greek (both of which I have some knowledge).  And as
you see, SN1987A does not establish an old universe.----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:19 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

Hi, Rod.

Thank you for acknowledging the legitimacy of the point I have been
making all along about SN1987A. I do genuinely appreciate your
acknowledgement. :-)

Thank you,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 3:05pm ########
[...]I see SN1987A, based upon special relativity as good evidence
for a star that exploded much longer than 10,000 years ago, however I
still believe the Bible and suspect some day the story will be told
that confirms the scripture.

> an interesting question Tracy.
>
> Q:Does the present and modern glacial lake varves contain fossils?

Any animal remain older than 10,000 years is a fossil by definition.
Fossils can be fully , partly, or unmineralized.

The state and number of the remains in either the Green river or
present  glacial lakes I do not know.

>  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)?

I do not know much about the lithification process, either.

> Q:Does the Green River shales also contain oil?

kerogen, similar to oil.

> Q:Have the Green River fossils in varves been dated via C14?

To date a fossil you would have to have carbon.  Even if that was
true, then it would need to be less than 50,000 years old
(for ideal samples, less for problematical ones) so that the signal
to noise ratio for C-14 detection is bigger than 1.

> Apparently the Green River varves are considered by old earth advocates to
> be a 'major piece' of sedimentary evidence for an old earth.

Not really.  Only in that if it is annual varves, "Flood Geology" is
falsified yet again.

>  Please correct
> me if I am wrong on this point, thanks-----Rod

Tracy P. Hamilton

For Christopher and Todd here, the evolution model I presented features
these interesting points-

3.	Inflation epoch, magnetic monopoles essentially removed from our
view so we cannot see them today otherwise they would be as abundant as
hydrogen and much heavier than hydrogen.
4.	Primordial neutrinos from the big bang fill the universe and if they
have mass, could have a dramatic influence upon the evolution of the
universe.
7. Origin of primordial star forming clouds.
8.Origin of Population III stars after the formation of the CMBR - spectra
contain only H, He, and perhaps some Li.  These are the first stars in the
universe.  No C/H or Fe/H ratios or other metals.
9.The first supernovae in the universe- progenitors are Population III
stars.
10.The r-process and s-process in stellar evolution theory has created all
the elements heavier than He with exception of some primordial Li from the
big bang.

I know you two are committed to the old earth/old universe model and by that
I mean a universe at least 15 Gyrs old and earth 4.6 Gyrs old.  However I
hope both of you have asked a simple question, what happens to the big bang
model if points 3-4 and 7-9 are not real and never a part of nature?  There
is a real impact on point 10 and this would involve the number of Type I and
Type II SNs that have taken place in the history of the universe, our galaxy
and the LMC.  As I see it, there would be a real impact on measuring the age
of the universe and time and also stellar evolution theory.  I know
Christopher hopes the NGST will solve all the answers but my guess, NGST
will only start showing more questions similar to HST.  Do you two
acknowledge this?----Rod

Dear friends, Please remove my name.  I have about 1600 e-mails I am trying
to work thru & simply don't have time to follow this exchange. Thanks, Ron

Fax 503-212-9554
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bulletin, Articles, Bible Studies, Sermon Charts, & Videos:
www.biblework.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rod,

allow me to put your comments paragraph before your
enumerated points.

> I know you two are committed to the old earth/old universe model and by
> that I mean a universe at least 15 Gyrs old and earth 4.6 Gyrs old.

I do not *care* how old the universe is.  I care about understanding
the universe.

> However I
> hope both of you have asked a simple question, what happens to the big
> bang model if points 3-4 and 7-9 are not real and never a part of nature?

I think you misunderstand the nature of science.  Some things
are well understood and firmly supported, others are not.

Let me illustrate this with a creationist argument.  It has been
put forth by some creationists that the sun does not operate by fusion.
(I wonder how many Church of Christ members know that?)
The reasoning given is of the *type* you have used to say that
there is doubt about the age of the earth or the universe.
The reason?  There are not the *amount* of neutrinos coming
from the sun that there is predicted by the best models.

What does this really mean?  The model is quantitative, but
certainly not perfect.  Does this mean the sun does not run
on fusion, or maybe, just maybe all it means is that we
don't understand everything about stars yet.  Now if NO neutrinos
are seen, then there is a MAJOR PROBLEM with the fusion
idea.

In order to really argue effectively about the age of the universe,
one must address the arguments used  to establish it, not
other things that are less certain.

> There
> is a real impact on point 10 and this would involve the number of Type I
> and Type II SNs that have taken place in the history of the universe, our
> galaxy and the LMC.  As I see it, there would be a real impact on
> measuring the age of the universe and time and also stellar evolution
> theory.  I know Christopher hopes the NGST will solve all the answers but
> my guess, NGST will only start showing more questions similar to HST.  Do
> you two acknowledge this?----Rod

The existence of questions makes a field vital.  Maybe you should
reconsider the reasoning that questions about how some things
happened somehow casts doubt on areas about which scientists
have pretty much explained things.

> For Christopher and Todd here, the evolution model I presented features
> these interesting points-
>
> 3. Inflation epoch, magnetic monopoles essentially removed from our
> view so we cannot see them today otherwise they would be as abundant as
> hydrogen and much heavier than hydrogen.

I believe the original inflation proposal predicted magnetic monopoles,
but more recent theories don't.  This should be a big clue as to just how
devastating a criticism that "magnetic monopoles are not
observed" were to big bang theory itself.

> 4. Primordial neutrinos from the big bang fill the universe and if they
> have mass, could have a dramatic influence upon the evolution of the
> universe.

These are low energy, and if not there that would be a MAJOR PROBLEM
(possibly with nuclear physics instead of the big bang).

Again, the number and energy spectrum could easily be off.

> 7. Origin of primordial star forming clouds.
> 8.Origin of Population III stars after the formation of the CMBR - spectra
> contain only H, He, and perhaps some Li.  These are the first stars in the
> universe.  No C/H or Fe/H ratios or other metals.
> 9.The first supernovae in the universe- progenitors are Population III
> stars.

I must plead ignorance on 7-9.

> 10.The r-process and s-process in stellar evolution theory has created all
> the elements heavier than He with exception of some primordial Li from the
> big bang.

I don't think these are going away in the future.  The main question as
far as I know is quantitative.  I know you said something about neutron
stars, but I wonder if it will hold up.  I would have to be told more
about the spectral lines (identifying elements) seen in a supernova.
Helium was first discovered in the sun.

The beauty of what the age of the universe and the earth are based on
is the relative simplicity of the ideas.

Universe expanding?  Run backwards in time to see how long ago
it comes together.  The rest is just modelling.

The SN1987a example is a simple direct example that the universe
is 168,000 years old at least.

Age of the earth?  Run radiodating, because  we have excellent
reason to think decay runs at a constant rate (absent excitations
of nuclear states from their ground state).  The rest is just
accounting for the confounding factors (initial presence of daughter,
loss of daughter or parent isotope).

Tracy P. Hamilton

Hi, Rod.

*Au contraire, monsieur*. SN1987A most certainly does establish an
old universe. I know that you are aware of the fact that 168,000
years is 158,000 years too long for the YEC position. Thus, it is
quite old enough to disprove the YEC position. SN1987A establishes
that the universe is at least 16 times older than YECs teach is even
possible. Or are you now claiming that YECs believe that the universe
having been around for at least about 168,000 years is consistent
with the biblical hermeneutics of YEC?

Obviously, I would agree with you (in fact, I believe I already
explicitly have) that SN1987A is not relevant to providing
information about precisely how old the universe actually is. But
what it does show is that, whatever this age happens to be, it is
something greater than 168,000 years. And that is all that is
necessary to disprove YEC. Nothing more than this is really even
needed. I know that you understand this point, so, frankly Rod, "I
don't know where you're coming from" with the other comments you are
making. They are simply not relevant to the matter. (I believe Tracy
has explicitly pointed this out as well.)

Moreover, when I refer to the very good example of SN1987A as
disproving the YEC idea that the universe has only been around for
about 10,000 years, I'm actually just getting started. SN1987A is
*one* example, and it only happens to be the first one I've started
with. I have already pointed out the fact - the fact, Rod - that
there are millions of other galaxies in our universe of which all
except one are farther from us than the LMC, and thus all of these
galaxies are observed from more distant times in the past than
SN1987A's 168,000 years.

The next step would be to start discussing the concept of magnitude
measurements, since the "reverse parallax" situation of SN1987A is
actually a rare situation and it is magnitude measurements of Cepheid
variable stars and RR Lyrae stars that are typically used to estimate
the distances of galaxies in the "local" region of the universe
("local" meaning out to about 100 million light-years).

But I want everyone to clearly understand that almost all of the
relevant YEC issues - epistemological, empirical, and even
theological - can be catalyzed by and disproved with the tool of the
example of SN1987A, which alone clinches the case against YEC. Once
SN1987A is acknowledged, almost all YEC criticisms of the antiquity
of the universe/earth fall by the wayside.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/22/00 3:22 pm ########
Yes Todd you are welcome but as you have pointed out how many YEC
have been examining the astronomical data to fit in with a 6,000 to
10,000 years old universe model?

My 2 model outline is a product of my thinking mostly with some ICR
stuff mixed in (mostly in earth science area). YEC have a long way to
go but their arguments based upon the Biblical text are very easy to
confirm and support from Hebrew and Greek (both of which I have some
knowledge). And as you see, SN1987A does not establish an old
universe.


######## Todd Greene, 9/22/00 3:18 pm ########
Thank you for acknowledging the legitimacy of the point I have been
making all along about SN1987A. I do genuinely appreciate your
acknowledgement. :-)


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/12/00 3:05pm ########
[...]I see SN1987A, based upon special relativity as good evidence
for a star that exploded much longer than 10,000 years ago, however I
still believe the Bible and suspect some day the story will be told
that confirms the scripture.

I realize that the subscribers (may be most) of this newsgroup would never
accept any evidence for a young universe or solar system, no matter what the
YEC group came up with.  I find much of your data to be mere legends and not
fact.  If you wish to place your faith in legends than go ahead.  I will
place my faith in the Bible.

Todd if you claim to be  believer in Christ (I don't know) I hope you and
others start telling the truth rather than repeating the legends of the big
bang and evolution, thanks for the responses-----Rod

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

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

Another important observation, what evidence shows that the universe
contained primordial star forming clouds (those needed to form only
Population III stars)?  By definition, no astronomer today can observe such
star forming clouds (they should have long ago evolved into Population III
stars or evolved into molecular gas clouds by r-process and s-process from
other stars but these should also have evolved into stars too.)  Such
primordial star forming clouds would be very different from molecular gas
clouds like what can be seen at M42 in Orion today (a favorite and popular
site as a stellar nursery.)

Astronomy recently published some information on the origin of Population
III stars:

'The problem: If water is crucial in the formation of stars in these clouds,
how would the first stars have formed since no water was available?' [1]

Editors answer - 'Astronomers don't know for sure how the universe made its
first stars, but they do have a reasonably good guess.  (As you can imagine,
there's no way to observe the formation of the first generation of stars, so
all the work is based upon theoretical considerations).  The best scenario
has molecular hydrogen playing the role of the cooling agent.  If the clouds
from which stars formed were some four to five times denser in the early
universe than they are today, then enough collisions between hydrogen atoms
would have taken place to create a lot of molecular hydrogen.  The big
question is: Were the first galaxies that much denser?  Obviously the
overall density of the universe was much higher back in the early days, but
no one knows whether the star-forming clouds were this much denser.

Most astronomers would say that the fact that stars do exist tells us that
the density was higher back then, because otherwise there would be no
stars...Nowadays, of course, nature has found a simpler, easier way to cool
the clouds (with water), so that's what she uses.' [1]

I have a problem with the answer given -

'The first generation of stars likely formed when the universe was only a
few million years old (though these 'Population III' stars have not yet been
identified).' [2]

'...have not yet been identified' - leads to the 'big question'.  Where are
examples of these first generation stars or Population III stars?  There is
no proof that the universe ever had or does contain Population III stars.
There is no proof that the universe ever contained the primordial star
forming clouds that would contain no metals.  The editors failed to point
this out in the "theoretical" answer provided.  Their answer assumes that
Population III stars are real based upon belief in the big bang model.  This
is circular reasoning.

Without items 1-5 and the primordial star forming clouds, the time interval
for the r-process and s-process may largely be unknown in big bang
cosmology.  Also astronomers could never know if the universe did not
contain primordial ratios of C/H or Fe/H (or any other 'metals'.)  Presently
astronomers rule this out based upon big bang nucleosynthesis and the
assumption of primordial star forming clouds.  No primordial star forming
clouds, then perhaps there were primordial metals, which could impact time
calculations for the r-process and s-process events (like how many Type I or
Type II SNs took place in the Milky Way since its origin or how many
planetary nebulae have evolved.)  The r-process and s-process needs at least
10-15 Gyrs to work based upon the big bang cosmology.  Remember the
r-process and s-process was developed using the steady-state cosmology and
ported over to the big bang.  Who has observed Type I and Type II SNs
forming gold or uranium or thorium based upon the spectra of Type I or Type
II SNs?  What IAUCs document this in nature?  I have searched at times for
data like this but so far have found nothing.  I do know that SN1987A was a
Type II with a well documented light curve, possibly monitored and studied
far better and longer than any other SN event to date.  I have never seen
reports that demonstrate gold or U or Th was observed in SN 1987A or reports
that showed such 'metals' formed in this SN event.  I do know there were
reports of radioactive Co decay but this did not create Au, U, or Th.

I have said this before -

"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." [3]

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."  [4]

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.

Similar reports about r-process woes were also reported in the 1970s -

"The presence of heavy elements on the surfaces of some stars has puzzled
stellar evolutionists for years.  Theories on the internal processes of
stars cannot account for the presence of promethium and europium (among
others) on stellar surfaces.  Until now, no one has satisfactorily suggested
what mechanism is responsible.

A Russian mathematician and a Polish scientist believe neutron stars are the
culprits.  They suggest that instabilities in neutron stars, whose interiors
are regarded by some theorists as supercolossal nuclei rich in neutrons,
would eject extremely heavy nuclei from envelopes surrounding the star.  The
exiled nuclei, with atomic numbers of 161 to 184, would form superheavy as
well as known heavy elements that eventually would find their way to the
surfaces of nearby 'normal' stars." [5]

Pm-147 and Pm-145 have half-lives of about 2.6 years and 25 years.  Even in
the Josephus/Ussher model age of creation, if these elements are observed on
stellar surfaces they are clearly not primordial.

Now to drive home my point about r-process and s-process and measuring time
in astronomy -

In the creation model, the first supernovae may have originated after the
events of Genesis Chapter 3 or the Fall of Man.  If this hypothesis is
introduced into astronomy, The Special Theory of Relativity could collapse
or need modification.  Remember that since 1995, there have been about 120
or more Type Ia supernovae (SN) observed at various immense distances from
earth.  Rather than Type Ia SN starlight taking millions or billions of
years to reach earth, only thousands of years may have elapsed, if these
supernovae originated after the Fall of Man described in Genesis chapter 3.
All kinds of problems arise with the big bang model and stellar
nucleosynthesis (r-process and s-process rates) if we introduce such a
hypothesis.  Alternatively, if the first supernovae in the creation model
originated before Genesis Chapter 3, then supernovae may have occurred
during the creation week, indicating perhaps some type of time dilation
during creation days 4-6 (a young earth, Moon, and Sun surrounded by an
ancient heavens model).
I think any future discussion of light-travel-time problems for young earth
creation science should examine these 2 alternatives as a possible solution
based upon when the first supernovae took place relative to the events of
Genesis chapter 3.  Keep in mind the Biblical record is silent on the
subject.
In the big bang model, the first supernovae arise from Population III stars,
this remains an untested feature of the cosmology.  If the first supernovae
in the universe originated from normal Population I or II stars as we see
today, big bang primordial nucleosynthesis could be in real trouble in my
view.
The age of the universe could be calculated by the date assigned to the
first supernovae according to the late David Schramm.  However, these first
supernovae would arise from Population III stars, stars that have never been
observed based upon big bang cosmology.

"The elements that at present make the most suitable nucleochronometers are
formed by the r process.  Since the process presumably operates only in
supernovas, a date establishing the origin of these elements in fact dates
the supernovas...Moreover, from such calculations one can derive an age for
the universe as a whole.  Very massive stars that condensed when the
galaxies formed must have become supernovas early, shortly after the big
bang.  A dating of these first supernovas would be approximately equivalent
to the age of the galaxy and of the universe.  Even if these stars did not
evolve as quickly as is assumed, it is clear that the date of the oldest
supernova provides a lower limit to the age of the universe." [6]

Bottom line - evolutionists have never dated the age of the universe in my
opinion because the age calculation is dependent upon the first supernovae
originating from Population III stars.  This suggests to me that the Hubble
time could have very large error bars in it (thus making the calculation
unreliable).  Also for young earth creationists, in the Biblical model,
death originates after the Fall of Man in Genesis chapter 3.  So young earth
creationists may want to consider that the first supernovae and death
originated after the events of Genesis chapter 3.  In terms of placing the
first supernovae as ordinary Population I or II stars after Genesis 3, this
is speculation on my part.
References
1.	Talking Back, Water, Water (Almost) Everywhere, Astronomy 27(6):16,
1999.
2.	Adams F.C. and Laughlin, G., The Future of the Universe, Sky &
Telescope 96(2):34, 1998.
3.	News Notes, Heavy Elements from Neutron Stars, Sky & Telescope
99(3):25, 2000
4.	Rose, W.K. Advanced Stellar Astrophysics, Cambridge University
Press, p. 231, 1998
5.	BRIEFS, Astronomy (Volume 4, June 1976), p. 62.
6.	Owen Gingerich, New Frontiers in Astronomy, W.H. Freeman and Co.,
1975,  p. 350.  Reprint of 'The Age of the Elements', David N. Schramm,
January 1974, Scientific American.

Hi, Rod.

I have to tell you that I believe that every single person on this
particular distribution list would accept evidence for a young
universe and young solar system, if indeed any actually existed.
Furthermore, it is a matter of fact that most of the people on this
distribution list are young earth creationists. There are four old
earth creationists, there is only one theistic evolutionist, there is
one non-Christian skeptic (that's me), and there's one person whom I
know accepts the antiquity of the earth and biological evolution but
whose religious position I don't happen to be aware of.

Now, I personally have focused on the direct observation of SN1987A
as having occurred about 168,000 years ago, and far from SN1987A
being based on "mere legends," you have already agreed with me that
it is quite factual. Therefore, all of the rest of your comments
are "mere rhetoric" designed to "shy away" from the hard evidence of
SN1987A and the fact that SN1987A itself is a direct disproof of the
idea that the universe is only 10,000 years old.

*Because* it is a fact that the universe is very ancient, there is a
branch of astronomy called cosmology which is based on various ideas
developed as attempts to explain the ancient universe that is
directly observed today. What I have pointed out to you is that
cosmology is completely irrelevant to establishing the fact of the
antiquity of the universe. The fact of the antiquity of the universe
is established *independently* and *before* cosmology. I have pointed
this out in several posts to this distribution list, some of these
posts addressed specifically to you, so I know that you have seen me
express this point several times. You have agreed that my point is
valid (for example, by agreeing about the direct observation of
SN1987A occurring much longer than 10,000 years ago), yet you
continue to present these discussions regarding cosmology as if they
are somehow relevant to the question. In fact - I'll state it yet
again - these discussions of cosmology are based on the false premise
that criticism of some current cosmological ideas (ideas about the
origin and development of the universe billions of years ago) somehow
constitutes criticism of the fact that an ancient universe is
directly observed right now in the present.

I tell you forthrightly, Rod, that your criticisms of cosmology are
completely irrelevant. With respect to the fact that the universe is
ancient (i.e., far older than what YEC teaches), I couldn't care less
whether or not the Big Bang happened 8 billion years ago, 13 billion
years ago, or 640 trillion years ago, or whether or not there even
was a Big Bang. It simply is not relevant to the question.

I have told you that

     I know that you are aware of the fact that 168,000 years is
     158,000 years too long for the YEC position. Thus, it is
     quite old enough to disprove the YEC position. SN1987A
     establishes that the universe is at least 16 times older
     than YECs teach is even possible.

If we lived in the southern hemisphere, we could all go out at night
and look up into the sky and observe with our own unaided eyes the
Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy (where SN1987A is located), and in
doing so be literally observing a region of the universe the way it
existed about 150 to 180 thousand years ago. This direct observation
alone proves that YEC is wrong.

What is the purpose of you continuing to delve into concerns about
irrelevant cosmological theories when you have already acknowledged
that our direct observations of things like SN1987A demonstrate the
wrongness of the idea that the universe is young? What is your
purpose in discussing this other stuff that is simply not relevant to
the matter at hand?

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

Todd, I concurred that SN1987A observation interpreted from the framework of
Relativity looks like good evidence for an old star explosion.  However
SN1987A interpreted from the framework of Genesis chapter 1 (6th day of
creation week - a good creation) and Genesis chapter 3 events (curse on
earth and Romans chapter 8), this does not have to be so and the same
applies to all Type I and Type II SNs.  I admit this is speculation on my
part.

Todd if there are other YEC folks on this newsgroup, I am disappointed that
these folks have not stood up, thanks but no more time for email
debates----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Todd S. Greene wrote:
> Hi, Rod.

[SNIP]

> I have told you that
>
>      I know that you are aware of the fact that 168,000 years is
>      158,000 years too long for the YEC position. Thus, it is
>      quite old enough to disprove the YEC position. SN1987A
>      establishes that the universe is at least 16 times older
>      than YECs teach is even possible.
>
> If we lived in the southern hemisphere, we could all go out at
night
> and look up into the sky and observe with our own unaided eyes the
> Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy (where SN1987A is located), and in
> doing so be literally observing a region of the universe the way it
> existed about 150 to 180 thousand years ago. This direct
observation
> alone proves that YEC is wrong.

[SNIP]

No only that, but you can go out in the northern hemisphere later in
the evening (when there is no moon) and see M31, the large galaxy in
Andromeda, which is about 2 1/2 million light years away.  In 1886 (I
think it was) a star was seen to explode in that galaxy and was
called S Andromedae.  It was only realised much later that that was
in fact a supernova explosion.  Although not so well observed as SN
1987A (and of course there was no space telescope at that time), it
is another example of something being seen to happen in an object
that is much more than a "biblical" distance of 6000 light years.

Christopher Sharp

>
> Sincerely, and regards,
> Todd

Rod:

One of the distinctions between my position as an OEC and the position of a
theistic evolutionist is that as an old-earth CREATIONIST I accept the
notion that we may find some data in nature today which cannot be explained
in terms of natural forces.  That's what most theists believe about life
itself, and it's what all OECs and even many theistic evolutionists (like
Michael Behe and Lee Spetner) believe about the development of various
animal species.

If the facts presented in your capable and impressive summary of astronomy
are borne out, and if they demonstrate that natural forces are incapable of
explaining many stellar phenomena, I would be very happy to be aware of that
fact, since it would provide additional support for Fred Hoyle's observation
that "a superintelligence has monkeyed with physics."

However, overall these phenomena do not demonstrate that the universe is
less than 10,000 years old, though there may be some that suggest the
possibility (I certainly do not have the background in astronomy that you
do).  They only show that, however old it is, it could not have come about
without Outside help.  And that's what I believe.

tom

Thanks Tom Couchman for these comments.  I don't advocate miracles as an
explanation for everything and don't claim that no natural force(s) were
involved during the creation week described in Genesis chapter 1.  I have
not figured it all out.  For anyone interested, if they don't know about
this URL they can check some of the data out.

http://adswww.harvard.edu/

This is the URL for the NASA ADS abstract service (free!).  You can find the
astronomy and astrophysics abstract service there and look up many different
reports (presently > 607,000 posted.)

Many of the abstracts contain computer code examples that are used and many
tell the story in plain language or both.  I frequently use this database in
conjunction with reading various reports published in Astronomy, Sky &
Telescope, etc.  As could be expected, there will be conflicting reports on
topics like BBN (Big Bang nucleosynthesis) and r-process or s-process
calculations and how reliable or unreliable the models are.  Back in 1998
(or perhaps April 1999, I would have to look it up), Sky & Telescope
published a brief report on BBN reliability and conflicts over confirming
that the H/He ratio in the universe supports the big bang model.  Yes I
found at this URL data on the subject too with conflicts reported.  Much of
this stuff will never make it into the main stream news or popular reports.

One of my problems with current science paradigms is that theories are often
presented as 'gospel' and I know better concerning many of them.  That is
why I posted my comments about 'legends'.  Some day perhaps the real valid
paradigms will emerge or perhaps they will be abandon and replaced.  YEC
folks have a lot of work to do and I have only scratched the surface-----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> 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

Rod,

I've only just seen your message, so didn't reply earlier.  I've been
very busy, and have had car problems.

I never received through the mail the material you said you were going
to send me, and was looking out for it last week.  I know personally
some people here at the University of Arizona who have done exactly
these sort of calculations on the heat loss of Jupiter, and if you
like, I can find the references, time permitting.  I'm sure that such
work is likely to be more reliable by people who are specialized in
that field, rather than someone at the ICR or AIG who calls himself an
astronomer, but is not intimately familiar with the details.

Indeed, from the virial theorem and the potential energy released by
Jupiter contracting, if Jupiter formed only 10,000 years ago, it would
still be glowing very brightly now from the heat released, and 4000
years ago there would have been records of it being even brighter.
There is no evidence at all, zip, null, niet, that Jupiter is only a
few 1000 years old.  Show me your calculations that explain how to get
over 300 earth masses from essentially infinity into a sphere with the
radius of Jupiter in a few 1000 years, yet the effective temperature
is only 165 Kelvin, where did all the potential energy go?

I don't know what you mean by circular reasoning.  Jupiter's age is
found to be in agreement with the age of the oldest meteorites, but
the meteorites are dated independently.  Incidentally, many rocks,
terrestrial, lunar and meteoritic have been dated, not a few.

Christopher