Christopher, thanks but you have a copy of an abstract that was derived from
an article used in the CEN TJ report.  Clearly there are other models than
those used in Arizona.  Go see the 607,000 + abstracts at the NASA ADS URL.
The CEN TJ is a published creationist literature and you will probably find
copies of some posting on line at AIG.  I know what the references were that
showed up in the report and indeed they are at the NASA ADS too, just not
the full report.  If astronomers want to be rigorous about their claims that
Jupiter has orbited around the Sun for nearly 4.6 Gyrs, let them show the
initial 6 orbital elements for Jupiter 4.6 Gyrs ago and disclose what these
elements are today-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:16 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Planet Formation

--- 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

Hi, everyone.

Looks like I represented things accurately, even though some chose to
chastise my representation. Here is yet another example of these pots
calling the kettles black:

From: http://www.watchmanmag.com/0309/030914.htm

Daniel H. King, Sr. writes:

     In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared
     repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with
     those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has
     recently posted another response on his web site to what
     has been written regarding his positions, and by this
     writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them,
     but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since
     we could not get him openly to debate these issues....

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Todd, I am curious about something.  this open letter issue involves the
church of christ and if my memory serves me, you are not a believer in
christ but a skeptic.  What does this issue matter to you?  maybe i have a
misconception here, thanks----rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:43 AM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] The Pots Call the Kettles Black

Hi, everyone.

Looks like I represented things accurately, even though some chose to
chastise my representation. Here is yet another example of these pots
calling the kettles black:

From: http://www.watchmanmag.com/0309/030914.htm

Daniel H. King, Sr. writes:

     In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared
     repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with
     those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has
     recently posted another response on his web site to what
     has been written regarding his positions, and by this
     writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them,
     but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since
     we could not get him openly to debate these issues....

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, Rod.

It is true that this "Open Letter" issue involves the Church Of
Christ, which I don't believe you are a member of either. So I could
also ask you, what does it matter to you? Except that I believe I
already know at least part of the answer. Your interest happens to be
in the issue of young earth creationism itself, because you are a
young earth creationist. Additionally, your name was put on a
distribution list a few months ago (a list not created by me, I note
here), and so because of your interest in the topic you got involved
in the discussion.

This is, too, a part of my answer (though, of course, I'm not a young
earth creationist). Additionally, I was raised in the Church Of
Christ (my father was a preacher in the COC, since retired), was
baptized by my father in 1972 in Dallas, Texas, was very sincere in
my faith and very active in my church for many years. I was also a
young earth creationist. Then I learned clear and unequivocal
information that disproves young earth creationism, so I abandoned
this false belief even though it was my personal belief. I understand
the basis on which young earth creationism is built, and I understand
and "see through" much of the irrelevant rhetoric that YECs surround
the topic with. So being familiar with YEC and understanding the
issues, having thought through them myself, I frequently know how to
cut through a lot of the rhetoric and get to the heart of critical
aspects of the discussion. Since that time, I have retained my
personal interest in astronomy, and in science in general.

This is my answer to your question.

When I read the "Open Letter" (and some of the other things written
by its authors and some of its co-signers), it appeared to me as just
so much political rhetoric (even taking scripture [Psalm 33] clearly
out of context and misinterpreting it for purposes of their agenda).
These people, along with others like them, propagate the same
discredited YEC material year after year (like "ocean
salinity," "shrinking sun," "short-term comets," "Moon & Spencer's
shortcut through space," etc.). They call for open discussion of the
details of the issues, yet most of them run away from open discussion
(Marc Gibson being one notable exception) because, in fact, their
position cannot handle the truth. Thus they deal in rhetoric and
politics in the manner that they do. I (and others) have called them
on their discussion challenges, and then they get real quiet. Thus,
when I read words like the ones I quoted of Daniel King, I genuinely
question their sincerity because all I see is political rhetoric
(others have called it "bluster").

I point out very clear and unequivocal examples of the factual nature
of the antiquity of the universe, such as SN1987A, and they realize
that it totally contradicts their position, and yet they continue to
make their disproved arguments, unfazed by the directly observed
facts showing the fallacy of the idea that the universe and earth are
only several thousand years old. They talk about "uniformitarian
assumptions," yet when it is explained to them clearly and in a
straightforward manner how and why this criticism is not applicable
to something like SN1987A, they brazenly continue to repeat
their "uniformitarian assumptions" mantra. There are other examples
like Dudley Ross Spears making the blatantly false statement that "By
the scientific method, the issue over the age of the earth can never
be settled. For one reason, the issue is not a scientific process"
(http://www.gospelanchor.com/articles/dayage/ageearth.htm). It is
these kinds of things by which the fallacy of young earth creationism
is demonstrated.

I was raised on this very same kind of false propaganda, and frankly,
Rod, when I "grew up" and realized how bad this propaganda really
was, I felt very angry about having trusted these Christians to
handle truth properly and carefully - you know, just like they
continually state they are doing - yet finding out that when it came
to an issue that was dear to their hearts then they chose to spit in
truth's face. I found that my trust had been very badly misplaced.
And this is why on this topic I constantly tell people, "Don't trust
me, don't trust them, don't trust anyone - you've got to dig into the
details for yourself."

And then, Rod, on top of all of this, the "Open Letter" advocates
also promote "exclusivism" on this issue, proclaiming that Christians
who reject young earth creationism should be disfellowshipped and
that any Christians who have the temerity to actually teach anything
other than YEC are false teachers spreading "damnable heresies"
(Daniel King again, at
http://www.gospelanchor.com/articles/dayage/dk_is714.htm).

While the "Open Letter" writers and co-signers have every right, of
course, to propagate their false ideas, I have every right to point
out the fallacies on which their ideas are based and thus the
wrongness of the ideas themselves. And I *will* point them out, as I
have opportunity and inclination to do so.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt, 9/14/00 8:47 am ########
Todd, I am curious about something. This open letter issue involves
the church of christ and if my memory serves me, you are not a
believer in christ but a skeptic. What does this issue matter to you?
Maybe I have a misconception here.


######## Todd Greene, 9/14/00 8:45 am ########
Looks like I represented things accurately, even though some chose to
chastise my representation. Here is yet another example of these pots
calling the kettles black:

From: http://www.watchmanmag.com/0309/030914.htm

Daniel H. King, Sr. writes:
     In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared
     repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with
     those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has
     recently posted another response on his web site to what
     has been written regarding his positions, and by this
     writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them,
     but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since
     we could not get him openly to debate these issues....

Todd, you said So [I could also ask you, what does it matter to you? Except
that I believe I already know at least part of the answer. Your interest
happens to be in the issue of young earth creationism itself, because you
are a young earth creationist.]

Todd you are correct, I am not in the Church of Christ so the issue of the
Open Letter is not important to me and how it gets settled.

However keep in mind I never asked to be added to this newsgroup.  Someone
on this group added me to the list but I do find the discussions on YEC vs.
OEC interesting, thanks-----Rod

This is for Christopher Sharp.  I know you want to see this material and
here is a copy of email I sent to CEN TJ on the topic.  If you like please
just send to CEN TJ letters (email account here).  They may publish a
response from you, thanks-----Rod

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:43 AM
> To: 'CEN TJ Letters'
> Cc:	Tas Walker, AIG
> Subject: The age of the jovian planets CEN TJ 14(1):3-4,2000 by Ron
> Samec
>
> CEN TJ editors, I have a quick question.  In the subject report the
> statement was made about the age of Jupiter 'But the uniformitarian
> planetary geologist or astronomer would find that quite unacceptable.
> Jupiter's age would only be 0.07% of the assumed 4.5 billion year age of
> the solar system.' p. 3.
>
> Q: Where did this figure come from?
>
> It is only 31.5 x 10^6 years old and the same report indicates that
> '...the present core tempertaure of Jupiter in 'mature' (billion-year)
> models is less than one-eighth of that needed to support D-D fusion.', p.3
> This figure is about 125 x 10^6 years old.
>

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> This is for Christopher Sharp.  I know you want to see this
> material and here is a copy of email I sent to CEN TJ on the topic.
> If you like please just send to CEN TJ letters (email account
> here).  They may publish a response from you, thanks-----Rod
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:43 AM
>> To: 'CEN TJ Letters'
>> Cc:	Tas Walker, AIG
>> Subject: The age of the jovian planets CEN TJ 14(1):3-4,2000 by
>> Ron Samec
>>
>> CEN TJ editors, I have a quick question.  In the subject report
>> the statement was made about the age of Jupiter 'But the
>> uniformitarian planetary geologist or astronomer would find
>> that quite unacceptable. Jupiter's age would only be 0.07% of
>> the assumed 4.5 billion year age of the solar system.' p. 3.
>>
>> Q: Where did this figure come from?
>>
>> It is only 31.5 x 10^6 years old and the same report indicates
>> that '...the present core tempertaure of Jupiter in 'mature'
>> (billion-year) models is less than one-eighth of that needed to
>> support D-D fusion.', p.3 This figure is about 125 x 10^6 years
>> old.
>>

Rod,

Thanks, but I need to see the original article with the calculations,
just sending me an abstract with the results isn't much of a help, as
I can't check up what calculations they did.  Besides, although 31.5
x 10^6 years is far too young for Jupiter's age, it's still too old
by a factor of about 30,000 to support YECism, so I can't understand
how this could be used to support YECism, it's a red herring.  BTW,
at least they are correct in saying that deuterium burning doesn't
occur.

As to your earlier message, I certainly don't have the time to read
over 1/2 million absracts, and as I said, I know people here who have
done exactly these calculations that have been published in peer
reviewed journals such as Ap.J.  Obviously the exact orbital elements
of Jupiter 4.6 billion years ago are not known, but they are not
relevant to this discussion, from the asteroid orbits Jupiter has
clearly been in essentially in its present orbit for a substantial
proportion of its 4.6 billion years.  If it were say in an orbit 20%
larger for the first few 100 million years, for the sake of argument,
this would not affect one jot or tittle the argument that it is more
than 10,000 years old.  In a solar system less than 10,000 years old
you have still not told me what happened to the potential energy of
Jupiter when in formed.

Christopher

Christopher, how does your 4.6 Gyr old 'hot' Jupiter explain the formation
of the noble gases reported by Galileo?  if it was so hot, what happened?  I
hope you have been following this topic----Rod

FYI for all interested.  There is a lot happening at Jupiter.  Models used
to explain how Jupiter's formation may have influenced the asteroid belt
over 4.6 Gyrs have numerous assumptions and variables about initial
conditions.  One is the amount of matter in the protoplanetary disk as
compared to the amount of matter observed orbiting in the ecliptic today.  I
confess that I cannot dig into all of the data, impossible at my end,
thanks----Rod

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Can D-D fusion explain Jupiter's excess heat?
 Authors: Ouyed, Rachid
Journal: Planetary Systems in the Universe, International Astronomical
Union. Symposium no. 202.
                   Manchester, England, August 2000.

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Composition and structure of Jupiter's deep atmosphere
 Authors: Atreya, S. K.; Mahaffy, P. R.; Niemann, H. B.; Owen, T. C.
Journal: Highlights of Planetary Exploration from Space and from Earth, 24th
meeting of the IAU, Joint
                   Discussion 12, August 2000, Manchester, England.

                                  Abstract

...The ratios (to H) of the heavy elements, S, N, C, Ar, Kr and Xe, were
found to be 2-3 × solar, which has important implications for the
formation of Jupiter...

ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: Modeling the Protosatellite Circum-Jovian Accretion Disk: An Estimate
       of the Basic Parameters
Authors: Makalkin, A. B.; Dorofeeva, V. A.; Ruskol, E. L.
Journal: Astronomicheskii Vestnik, vol. 33, p. 456 (1999)
Abstract

A set of equations and methods for their solution, developed earlier for
calculating parameters of the protoplanetary accretion disk around the young
Sun (Makalkin and Dorofeeva, 1995), are used to investigate the
protosatellite accretion disk around Jupiter at the late phase of the
planet's formation. These equations and methods enable one to estimate the
distribution of temperature and pressure in the disk, its surface density
and thickness, and the viscosity and radial velocity of gas in the
disk....By constructing the models, we were able to ascertain that it is
impossible, using the above formulation of the problem, to obtain a model of
the accretion disk, which would simultaneously meet the compositional and
mass constraints...

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Christopher, how does your 4.6 Gyr old 'hot' Jupiter explain the
> formation of the noble gases reported by Galileo?  if it was so
> hot, what happened?  I hope you have been following this topic
> ----Rod

Rod,

"My" 4.6 Gyr old "hot" Jupiter can possibly be explained by it forming
further out and migrating in.  This is one possibility of explaining
the nobel gases, but I don't know the details.  However, even if we
don't know the exact details, this doesn't alter the fact that Jupiter
is much older than a few 1000 years old.

After all if I'm selling you a house worth around say 1 million
Dollars, arguing about the colour of the paint in the broom cupboard
isn't going to change the fact that the house is worth orders of
magnitude more than a hamburger and a coke, assuming you belonged to
the cult of cheap house priceism.  There are about as many orders of
magnitude between a MacDonald's meal and a really nice house as there
are between your creationist age of the universe and the
scientifically accepted one, so arguing about the exact details of
Jupiter's formation is no different than arguing about the paint
colour in the broom cupboard, or whether the hamburger has cheeze with
it or not.

Todd knows more about the mentality of YECs, but from what I've seen,
you try and put me on the defensive to try and explain every single
minute detail about Jupiter's formation, or whatever the subject is.
Of course we will never know the exact details, so no matter what
anybody says, you can always come back and point out some detail that
is not understood.  You can go on playing that game till the cows come
home.  In reality you know that the exact details don't affect the
broad conclusion that Jupiter is orders of magnitude more than 10,000
years, and you are also unable to answer my question about what
happened to the potential energy if Jupiter formed so quickly and
recently.  In fact you can't also answer Todd's point about SN 1987A
and why we can see light from other galaxies.

The truth of the matter is that you are unable to defend your position
of a universe less than 10,000 years old, and you know it, because
there is no evidence, so you play this game of obfuscation.  If you
claim to be a Christian, then you should be interested in the truth.
You also know from the Bible that sometimes the truth may not be what
you want, but truth is truth, and the truth is that the solar system
is more than a few 1000 years ago, even if we don't know the exact
details of how it formed, this doesn't affect the conclusion that it
is more than 10,000 years old.

Christopher

Martin Luther fully agreed with young earth creationists that many
Christians of his time were simply twisting the scriptures to fit the
speculative notions of scientists:

     "God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
     waters,' and God made the firmament, and separated the
     waters which were below the firmament from the waters which
     were above the firmament... Then God made the two great
     lights... (and) the stars also. And God set them in the
     firmament to light the earth." -- Genesis 1:7,16-17

     "Praise the Lord!...Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him
     stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, And the waters
     that are above the heavens!" -- Psalm 148:1,3-4

     "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the
     stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below
     and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that
     the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of
     fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be
     different from the philosophers in the way we think about
     the causes of things. And if some are beyond our
     comprehension like those before us concerning the waters
     above the heavens, we must believe them rather than
     wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in
     conformity with our understanding."

     (Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on
     Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St.
     Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.)

Notice the "wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in
conformity with our understanding." It's as if YECs are simply
paraphrasing Luther!

SN1987A, in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy, is one beautiful
example by which we know that the universe has been around for at
least about 168,000 years. SN1987A is no speculative notion, nor can
it be merely waved away as a "uniformitarian assumption." It is a
real, live fact that directly controverts young earth creationism.
The Andromeda galaxy is something like 2.2 million light-years from
earth, meaning that the events that astronomers observe right now in
that galaxy are event that actually took place about 2.2 million
years ago.

And there are millions of galaxies in the universe which are observed
from much more distant times in the past, from hundreds of millions
and even billions of years ago.

It is a fact of reality that the universe is quite ancient. How long
are young earth creationists going to continue to deny the truth
about reality in order to serve their wrong human belief? How long
are they going to continue to try to portray reality itself as
nothing more than a grand illusion?

You see, it is the non-YECs who have accepted truth, in this case
merely truth about a mundane aspect of the real world rather
than "religious truth," but truth nonetheless. It would behoove the
YECs who believe in disfellowship over this issue to behave a bit
more responsibly by acknowledging that perhaps there is some credence
to the position that the universe is ancient than they have
previously let on.

It is no wonder that so many YECs (including Marc Gibson who has
represented this view here) erect a kind of epistemological structure
by which they attempt to exclude objective information about the real
world, because they actually do understand that their position is
contradicted by this objective information. "We must only consider
what the Bible itself says, the biblical text alone, and not consider
information from anything outside of the Bible itself."

But truth cannot contradict truth. The geocentrists were wrong, and
those who advocated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy were forced to
change their interpretation based on precisely the empirical feedback
from scientific examination of reality that many modern YECs wish to
disparage.

If you are going to advocate biblical inerrancy, then you are going
to have to live with the implications of your own position, which is
that what is learned clearly and unequivocally about the real world
that happens to have some relevance to something stated by the
biblical text becomes then, automatically, information that is indeed
relevant with respect to biblical interpretation. This is a direct
implication of the biblical inerrancy doctrine. There are no two ways
about it.

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

    "Skepticism and infidelity are certainly on the increase in
    this and other countries. Not, indeed, because of the
    mildness of our laws, but because of the lives of our
    professors, and a very general inattention to the evidences
    of our religion. The sectarian spirit, the rage of rivalry
    in the various denominations, together with many absurd
    tenets and opinions propagated, afford more relevant reasons
    for the prevalence of skepticism than most of our professors
    are able to offer for their faith...
    ...the progress of skepticism is neither owing to the
    weakness nor the paucity of the evidences of Christianity;
    but to a profession of it unauthorized by, and incompatible
    with, the Christian Scriptures."
        -- Alexander Campbell (Campbell/Owen Debate, 1829)

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

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene

Okay Christopher, I don' have much trouble with your recent post.  Yes I
concur that based upon a Josephus/Ussher time scale, I can't prove the age
of the solar system using that time scale but the YEC have at least a
historical record position unlike evolutionists.  Okay, you cannot defend
what was established in 1955 by Clair Patterson, namely the 4.56 Gyr old
solar system either.  In my opinion, this is a legend.  The data from the
Jovian system is full of contradictions for the solar nebula model and a 4.6
Gyr history for Jupiter.  The Sept 2000 issue of Scientific American has a
report on extrasolar planets, a neat table showing 44 entries.  Just do a
simple comparison to our solar system using Kepler's equation for orbit and
perihelion and aphelion distances, it does not take a genius to see God
established the earth to be inhabited.  If these extrasolar planet reports
are 'real', and if they orbited in our solar system or our solar system was
configured that way, I would not be here to send you this email and you
would not be here to read it and get upset at the YEC folks.

Enough for now Christopher.  My prayer for you and Todd is that both of you
will not get blinded by current science models to the fact of Jesus Christ
and His person as presented in the New Testament and the gospel message of
salvation, thanks------Rod

Subject: Searching for Shadows of OTHER EARTHS

Doyle, L.R., Deeg, H-J., Brown, T.M., Scientific American 283(3):58-65,
2000.  Interesting read here in the Sept 2000 issue.  On page 63 there is a
table showing 44 stars with extrasolar planets listed.  Star name, min mass
of planet, value for e, and semimajor axis in AU are provided.  If we assume
these are all real extrasolar planets, our solar system looks unusual (well
suited for life on earth.)  On page 60, 'A handful of astronomers had even
begun to wonder whether the lack of transits implied a lack of planets.
Perhaps the wobble observations had been misinterpreted.'

Apparently the lack of transits documented for some of these extrasolar
planet reports has at least some astronomers worried so the transit
documented now may help settle them down.

Jovian system notes on youth -

"After several years of analysis, researchers recently announced the
abundance of the other noble gases.  Argon, krypton and xenon are enriched
compared with the solar composition by about the same factor as carbon and
sulfur.  That, too, is a mystery.  The only way to trap the inferred
quantities of these gases is to freeze them-which is not possible at
Jupiter's current distance from the sun.  Therefore, much of the material
that makes up the planet must have come from colder, more distant regions.
Jupiter itself may even have formed farther from the sun, then drifted
inward." [1]

Galileo satellite measurements of the abundance of deuterium in Jupiter's
atmosphere indicate that it is similar to the sun and different from Earth's
oceans or comets.  "The finding suggests that comets have not had a major
effect on the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere, despite the spectacular
effects when they hit, as demonstrated during the Shoemaker-Levy 9
collisions in 1994." [2]

Ganymede was discovered to posses a dipole magnetic field.  Evolutionists
calculated how long Ganymede could remain with a magnetic field.  "But the
same models show that convection will cease as the core gradually cools; the
conditions required for convection should last only a billion years or so."
[3]

Evolutionists have invoked orbital resonance to keep Ganymede hot in its
core so the magnetic field can remain.  This process is tidal heating.
"Researchers used to think that tidal heating was of little consequence for
Ganymede, the outermost of these three moons.  But now they realize that the
orbits may have shifted over time.  Consequently, the resonances may once
have been stronger and Ganymede's orbit more perturbed than it is now.  The
immense fault systems that wind across the surface may record this earlier
period of intense heating.  If so, the moon is still cooling off, and its
core can continue to generate a magnetic field." [4]

"Callisto is covered with large impact scars, ranging from craters
kilometers in diameter to the so-called palimpsest named Valhalla, some 1500
kilometers across.  The surface is believed to date back more than four
billion years to the rain of meteoritic and cometary debris left after the
formation of the planets and satellites.  In this sense, Callisto is indeed
old." [5]

My observation> the Jovian system is full of conflicts for the evolution
model.  The noble gases suggest Jupiter formed much farther out in the early
solar nebula where the temperatures were much colder and then drifted inward
to its present orbit.  However could the data suggest too an abrupt and
rapid formation process for Jupiter, featuring rapid cooling?

Europa based upon the density and size of impact craters has a young surface
age.  However, Callisto has a surface age claimed to be at least 4 billion
years old using the crater record.  The crater record may suggest an abrupt
and rapid bombardment in some regions with other areas missed or a steep
decline in the crater formation rate over a very short time scale.

Jupiter's deuterium abundance suggests little effect from comet impacts over
nearly 4.6 billion years.  One could interpret this as evidence for a
relatively short exposure history to comets in the outer solar system thus
Jupiter has not had a long orbital history around the sun.  The data for the
magnetic field found on Ganymede could support such a hypothesis without
invoking past orbital changes, resonance or tidal heating changes for the
satellite.  Ganymede has a magnetic field today because it is not 4.6
billion years old but much younger in age.

References
1.	Torrence V. Johnson, "The Galileo Mission to Jupiter and Its Moons",
Scientific American,
February 2000, Vol. 282, No. 2, p. 46.
2.	Torrence V. Johnson, p. 46.
3.	Ibid., p. 48.
4.	Ibid., p. 48.
5.	Ibid., p. 48.

Subject: EUROPA'S COMPLEXION
FYI, ref LETTERS TO THE EDITORS, Scientific American February 2000, p. 6.
Some interesting comments made here by a previous author on the subject of
Europa and its surface age.

"A cyclical geologic history is quite plausible.  Some models predict that
tectonic activity may have changed in response to orbital variations.  Such
changes may occur on a timescale of 100 million years, which is probably too
slow to account for the formation of individual ridges but might induce
periods of overall satellite activity and inactivity.  Research continues to
try to understand these important problems"

Referring to Europa's surface age and the work of Gene Shoemaker -

"His extrapolated number of large craters was indeed about 45, and the
implied age about 30 million years.  But for us to be so precise is
misleading, as the error bars for both numbers were large.  It is more
appropriate to say that Shoemaker predicted a surface age of about 10 to 100
million years.  Based on recent Galileo results, this original
order-of-magnitude estimate has held up remarkably well."

My observation>

a. Models for recycling Europa's icy surface have not been clinched or
proved yet
b. The lack of large craters continues to plague evolutionists concerning
its surface age.  10-100 million years using their dating methods.
c. The data from Europa could be used to support not only a young surface
age but also a highly variable crater rate in the solar system.  Earth's
Moon would have a similar surface age as Europa in the creation model (both
very young) but a major difference shows up in the crater formation rate.
Europa may never have been subjected to as intense a bombardment episode as
the Moon thus the age assigned by evolutionists would be inflated (so its
surface age could be << 10 to 100 million years old)----Rod.

I find it interesting about the waters above the heavens in the Psalms and
also in Genesis 1 (2nd day of creation week.)

Some YEC folks have pointed out we don't know the initial mass here.  Water,
mixed with other elements could by God's power be converted into a lot of
gas to make numerous stars, so don't laugh too loudly at the Bible.  Jesus
turned water into wine, I think during the creation week He could have done
some interesting things with it too-----Rod

Solving the Intolerance Problem

"Now when King David came to Bahurim,
there was a man from the family of the house of
Saul, whose name was Shimei the son of Gera,
coming from there.  He came out, cursing
continuously as he came.  And he threw stones
at David and at all of the servants of King David."
(2 Samuel 16:5-6)

We Christians are a contentious people, intent upon criticizing other
people for their faults real and imagined.  The religions of the
world, of course, are all false, and those who believe in them are
deceived.  The denominations of the world, just as well, are all
false, and those who believe in them are deceived.  And our fellow
Christians, astonishingly enough, are also caught up in numerous
errors and are deceived as well.  Weaknesses, faults, errors and
false doctrines are apparent in almost everybody, offending our
sensibilities and demonstrating the insincerity or mental
incompetence of all of these people.  We know that all of these
people are wrong, even though there are times when we do not know in
what way they are wrong or why they are wrong.

In recent months Christians have become ensnared in a new controversy
regarding the Earth's age, before then there were many other
controversies which created divisions among Christians.  Some of
these controversies are still active, though forgotten a short time
because of the present struggles.  Former controversies are no longer
active although the divisions which they created remain and have
become a permanent feature of our religious landscape.  After the Age
of the Earth controversy loses its steam (as it apparently already
has) Christians will certainly find some new difference which is
worthy of a fight, or a war.

Yet we are the people who are not denominational.  We oppose
division.  At least, for many generations this was our boast.  We are
not denominational and we are not divided.  All the while, we were
divided and behaving in a denominational fashion.  We are divided and
denominational today, and these denominations among us have become
official through the use of titles, periodicals and customs.
Needless to say, members of denominations are not impressed by our
example of unity, nor are they attracted by our vacant spirituality.
We have a litany of truths which we boast about to our denominational
neighbors, inviting them to argue against us, all the while we have
forgotten love, mercy and benevolence.

I would imagine that an independent observer would conclude our
religion spiritually dead.  Arguments may get our blood pumping but
not much else.  Who cares that our neighbors are suffering, that
people are oppressed, that the hopeless cannot find any comfort?  We
drive by all these people on the way to church knowing that we know
the truth.  Perhaps we are so good that we need not help the lost.
Or maybe we are more lost than the lost, confident as we are to boast
to God about our righteousness.  Yes, God, I am never wrong, not like
these people around me who are befuddled, confused, deceived or
malicious liars.  Thank God that I am not like the Baptists, or the
Methodists or the liberals ...

If you could only appreciate how little use your boasts are to me,
how little I value your claim of truth.  What does the truth motivate
you to do?  Does it motivate you to attack people, provoke people,
insult people and intimidate people?  In finding the truth you have
forgotten the truth.  In defending Christianity you have neglected
Christianity.

Why should I care what you believe or teach?  You may argue with me
or anyone else, but I am not obligated to follow your reasoning or
reach your conclusions.  You are fallible like everyone else, I
suppose, and you could be mistaken.  You do not speak with humility,
you boast about the truth.  But your words are empty, your
spirituality is not evident and what ever happened to love?

These words above are directed to a fellow Christian, who recently
concluded a conversation with me by saying the following: "Since you
have rejected the truth, I am rejecting you.  If you should repent of
your evil ways, then I will be the first to accept you back into
fellowship."  In response I will say the following:

1. I did not ask for your fellowship.
2. I did not "enjoy" your fellowship.
3. I will not beg for your fellowship.
4. I will not mourn the loss of your fellowship.
5. I did not care if you accepted me.
6. I do not care if you reject me.
7. There is no cause for repentance.
8. There is no need for apology.

Christians, the fellowship issue is altogether opinion and
divisiveness.  You accept people whom you presume or assume are in
agreement with you, and you reject people whom you presume or assume
are in disagreement with you.  The mere fact that you accept someone
into fellowship does not count as a religious endorsement of great
value because acceptance does not equate to an irrevokable ticket to
heaven.  Rejection of someone does not amount to much in the way of
punishment because you are not the gatekeeper to heaven and you will
not send anyone to hell.  On the Day of Judgment, God is not going to
consult you about anyone else's worthiness to enter heaven or hell,
and God is certainly not in need of your advice on these matters
today.

Why should I care in the least about whether someone accepts me or
rejects me?  My religion is not insecure, needing another person's
validation.  At least, I do not need the validation of these people
whose desire for argument exceeds their devotion to mercy.  Why
should I have any devotion or loyalty to your religion, or align my
beliefs with your beliefs or modify my teachings so that they will
not offend or trouble you?

No, fellow Christians, that is not the way that I behave.  I believe
what I believe, I teach what I teach, I behave as I behave, I live as
I live.  I do not look for your guidance and I do not seek your
advice.  My religion is not governed by you, and my life is not
dictated by your preferences.  I am a Christian, that means that I
follow Christ, it does not mean that I follow you.

What does all this mean?  It means that I will accept all Christians,
even those that I disagree with, and that I will not divide myself
from anyone, even those that I argue with.  I will tolerate
Christians in spite of our differences.  I will not seek to punish
any fellow Christian for thinking, speaking or behaving differently
from myself.

"It is easy to see the faults of others; we winnow them like chaff.
It is hard to see our own; we hide them as a gambler hides a losing
draw." (Dhammapada 18:252. The Dhammapada.  Translated by Eknath
Easwaran).

*********

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Rod:

I find it interesting, too.

I find it interesting that the Genesis account states that the stars, sun
and moon were not "made ('asah')" until day 4.

I find it interesting that the Job creation account states that the stars
were already in existence when God "laid the foundations of the earth" (Job
38:7).

I find it interesting that God "set into the firmament" the sun, moon and
stars, the waters being _above_ the sky into which the sun, moon and stars
were set.

I find it interesting that, long after the stars started to shine, there
were still "waters above the sky" (Psalm 148:4).

I find it interesting that after God created light, the Genesis account
states that, as a _separate_ act of creation, He "divided the light from the
darkness."  How did this division happen?  The text states that He "called
the light day, and the darkness He called night" (Gen 1:5).  The "separator"
of light from darkness, such that the light is "day" and the darkness is
"night," is the earth.  But the earth is said to have been already in
existence when God created the light, and the light is said to have been
separated from the darkness in a divine action distinct from creation of
light or earth.

I find it most interesting that, a half-millennium after Galileo, people are
still trying to make statements in the Bible into "scientific" descriptions
of God's work.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

I find it interesting about the waters above the heavens in the Psalms and
also in Genesis 1 (2nd day of creation week.)

Some YEC folks have pointed out we don't know the initial mass here.  Water,
mixed with other elements could by God's power be converted into a lot of
gas to make numerous stars, so don't laugh too loudly at the Bible.  Jesus
turned water into wine, I think during the creation week He could have done
some interesting things with it too-----Rod

Tom, you said

-----Original Message-----
From: Couchman, Tom

[I find it interesting that the Genesis account states that the stars, sun
and moon were not "made ('asah')" until day 4.

I find it interesting that the Job creation account states that the stars
were already in existence when God "laid the foundations of the earth" (Job
38:7).]

Q: Is the reference in Job 38:7 to the same stars referenced in Genesis
1:14-19 or does the context allow the interpretation that this may be
angels?

-----rod

Rod:

Are you suggesting that the passage in Job does not mean *literal* stars?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Tom, you said

-----Original Message-----
From: Couchman, Tom

[I find it interesting that the Genesis account states that the stars, sun
and moon were not "made ('asah')" until day 4.

I find it interesting that the Job creation account states that the stars
were already in existence when God "laid the foundations of the earth" (Job
38:7).]

Q: Is the reference in Job 38:7 to the same stars referenced in Genesis
1:14-19 or does the context allow the interpretation that this may be
angels?

-----rod

what does aig or icr show on this text?


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Rod:

Are you suggesting that the passage in Job does not mean *literal* stars?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Tom, you said

-----Original Message-----
From: Couchman, Tom

[I find it interesting that the Genesis account states that the stars, sun
and moon were not "made ('asah')" until day 4.

I find it interesting that the Job creation account states that the stars
were already in existence when God "laid the foundations of the earth" (Job
38:7).]

Q: Is the reference in Job 38:7 to the same stars referenced in Genesis
1:14-19 or does the context allow the interpretation that this may be
angels?

-----rod

Rod:

Should we care what AiG or ICR says on these texts?  Why?  Are you looking
for a "scientific" explanation from AiG or ICR as to how the stars could
have been created before the earth, and still have been uncreated for God to
create on day 4?  Which "stars" are the literal stars--the ones that were
created before the foundations of the earth, or the ones that were created
on day 4?  Maybe the stars that were in existence before the foundations of
the earth developed by some kind of stellar evolution from the Big Bang, and
the stars that God created on day 4 were the stars that are closest to the
earth.  But there are no stars close enough to the earth that their light
would have reached the earth in fewer than four years.  How could they be
suitable for navigation and season-setting?

Or maybe all these questions are silly, because the concept of taking the
Genesis and Job accounts as "scientific" descriptions of how God brought the
universe into a state suitable for human habitation is also silly.  Maybe,
Rod, it's not just silly.  Maybe it's actually damaging to the cause of
Christ.

What do you think?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

what does aig or icr show on this text?


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Rod:

Are you suggesting that the passage in Job does not mean *literal* stars?

tom

When will evolutionists recant of the 4.6 Gyr old earth and solar system?
What possible agenda is at stake in teaching doctrines like this throughout
US public schools?  It certainly cannot be to advance *good* science.

Why not ask the evolutionists when they will recant?

----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Rod:

Should we care what AiG or ICR says on these texts?  Why?  Are you looking
for a "scientific" explanation from AiG or ICR as to how the stars could
have been created before the earth, and still have been uncreated for God to
create on day 4?  Which "stars" are the literal stars--the ones that were
created before the foundations of the earth, or the ones that were created
on day 4?  Maybe the stars that were in existence before the foundations of
the earth developed by some kind of stellar evolution from the Big Bang, and
the stars that God created on day 4 were the stars that are closest to the
earth.  But there are no stars close enough to the earth that their light
would have reached the earth in fewer than four years.  How could they be
suitable for navigation and season-setting?

Or maybe all these questions are silly, because the concept of taking the
Genesis and Job accounts as "scientific" descriptions of how God brought the
universe into a state suitable for human habitation is also silly.  Maybe,
Rod, it's not just silly.  Maybe it's actually damaging to the cause of
Christ.

What do you think?

tom

Rod:

Why is the idea that the earth is 4.6BY old a threat to your faith?

And some of the evolutionists, like Mike Behe and Lee Spetner, ARE
recanting.  And others, like Mike Denton, are admitting they don't have a
clue.  And other old-earth advocates, like Phil Johnson,  High Ross, Bill
Dembski and Bill Craig, have co-opted the discussion and have taken the
initiative, at least in the philosophy of science, away from the
materialists.

But don't you think we should get the plank out of our own eye so that we
can see to remove the speck from the other fellows'?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

When will evolutionists recant of the 4.6 Gyr old earth and solar system?
What possible agenda is at stake in teaching doctrines like this throughout
US public schools?  It certainly cannot be to advance *good* science.

Why not ask the evolutionists when they will recant?

----Rod

when the evolutionists community recants of their doctrine (4.6 Gyr old
earth and solar system) we can discuss who is the hypocrite-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

Rod:

Why is the idea that the earth is 4.6BY old a threat to your faith?

And some of the evolutionists, like Mike Behe and Lee Spetner, ARE
recanting.  And others, like Mike Denton, are admitting they don't have a
clue.  And other old-earth advocates, like Phil Johnson,  High Ross, Bill
Dembski and Bill Craig, have co-opted the discussion and have taken the
initiative, at least in the philosophy of science, away from the
materialists.

But don't you think we should get the plank out of our own eye so that we
can see to remove the speck from the other fellow's?

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

When will evolutionists recant of the 4.6 Gyr old earth and solar system?
What possible agenda is at stake in teaching doctrines like this throughout
US public schools?  It certainly cannot be to advance *good* science.

Why not ask the evolutionists when they will recant?

----Rod

--- In CreationProcessAge forum, Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> When will evolutionists recant of the 4.6 Gyr old earth and solar
> system? What possible agenda is at stake in teaching doctrines like
> this throughout US public schools?  It certainly cannot be to
> advance *good* science.
>
> Why not ask the evolutionists when they will recant?
>
> ----Rod

Why do you keep using the word "evolutionist" for someone who accepts
the scientifically determined age of the earth and solar system,
etc., rather than for someone who studies biological evolution?
After all a geologist is someone who studies geology.

No agenda is at stake in teaching the "doctrine" of a 4.6 Gyr old
earth, any more than teaching the "doctrine" that the ionization
potential of hydrogen is 13.6 electron volts or the "doctrine" that
the earth orbits about 150 million Km from the sun.  All these
quantities are determined from empirical observations of the natural
world CREATED BY GOD, and thus represent the truth.

Christopher