Observed counterfactuals to YEC

[eccgen]

In the debate between YEC and OEC I think the most significant difficulty for the YEC to deal with is in the field of astronomy. We are able to view many objects which are farther away than would allow for the light from the sources to have traveled to earth within the time frame of a YEC paradigm. The explanations I have seen are not adequate to counter this for several reasons. The first explanation is that God created the light of the stars already in place, so the objects have only the appearance of age. A comparison is made to the creation of Adam as a mature man, and not as an infant. The problem is that being mature is not the same as being old. For instance, if we could have done a careful examination of Adam hours after he was created, we would find a number of facts which would show that his apparent age was in fact only apparent. For instance, he would not have a navel. He would not have callouses on his feet or hands. There would be none of the biochemical signs of aging. Nor the genetic signature of age, such as shortened telemeres. TYhus while if you were to see Adam, you might assume he had lived 20 or 25 years, this would only be because of your prior assumptions, since today the only way to get mature adults is the slow way. But closer examination would reveal this to be an error. In the same way, if we postulate the creation of light in transit, we must consider that we not only observe static objects, we also are able to see events occurring, novae, gamma ray bursts, pulsars etc. Light is not a static and steady luminescence, rather it carries with it a record of the source activity. This is true even for the light from an ordinary incandescent tungsten bulb. With a simple convex lens you can focus an image of the filament on a wall. So do we then assume that God also created this vastly complex video record which is contained within the light as well as the simple photons? There have been variations in the speed of light postulated, but I do not think they are nearly sufficient to account for the huge disparity in travel time vs distance, not to mention that if the light was now traveling much slower, this would have the same effect as running a movie at a slower speed, and we are talking orders of magnitude slower to account for distances of millions of LYs. If what we observe is in fact an illusion put there in order to make us believe it is actually very old light when in fact it is not, this seems to imply that God is intentionally trying to deceive. If this is so, are the objects we observe even there at all? If the light itself is an illusion, why could it not be that the source objects are also illusory? Is this some sort of test to see if we will have "faith" instead of trusting our observations? In that case faith is "believing what you know ain't so" as Mark Twain described it. I do not believe that is a correct definition of faith, but a distortion of it. Biblical faith is justified true belief based on evidence. In summary, I think that holding to a YEC model forces a conflict between the record of nature and the biblical account and I do not believe that is possible. Rather, when the record of nature is in conflict with the bible, I believe the real problem is in our interpretation of one or the other or perhaps both. It is not an actual conflict, only an apparent one.
There are twenty creation accounts in the bible, and when looked at as an whole, I think an interpretation is supported which allows for the age of the universe as we measure it, apperoximately 15 billion years. I am not at all compromising with any naturalistic, or evolutionary hypothesis. I would be happy to grant the naturalist as much time as he wants, its not enough to get the job done. We see in the record of nature that life appears suddenly, fully formed and viable, immediately(geologically speaking) after the late heavy bombardment when the surface cooled enough to allow it. And we see a progression of life forms, each appearing fully formed and without ancestors, which over time prepared the earth, by forming vast biodeposits of minerals and organic matter, which would make it an ideal habitat for man to form and sustain an advanced civilization quickly. God is not in a hurry, nor impatient. He has literally all the time there is to work with.
As far as the word "day", there are three literal interpretations possible. 12 hours, 24 hours, and a long indefinite period of time, but with a specific beginning and ending. We use it today in the same way. "Back in my day we used to...." You recognize he is not referring to a 24 hour period.

To maintain both a literal, coherent interpretation of the biblical text and to harmonize with the observed record of nature does not require any compromise of either one. ALl truth is Gods truth. I do not believe God ever intended to reveal to us through special revelation anything which we could discover ourselves with the abilities he has given us, aand he certainly did not intend to present us with an intentionally deceptive dichotomy.

[TheFiveSolas]

eccgen:
In the debate between YEC and OEC I think the most significant difficulty for the YEC to deal with is in the field of astronomy. We are able to view many objects which are farther away than would allow for the light from the sources to have traveled to earth within the time frame of a YEC paradigm.

Dr. Russel Humphreys has proposed a possible cosmology that answers this question. His hypothesis utilizes Einstein's general theory of relativity and the starting assumptions of a bounded (rather than an unbounded) universe.

A summary can be found in his book Starlight and Time, Solving the Problem of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

In addition, his successful rebuttals to several critics can be read at the following:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

Also, for your information, a summary of Dr. Russel Humphreys' credentials are:


Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics




Education:

B.S. Physics, Duke University - 1963
Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University - 1972
Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.


Professional Experience:

From 1973 to 1979 I worked at the General Electric Company High Voltage in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There I designed test and measurement equipment, invented instrumentation, and researched lightning and high-voltage phenomena. I received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research magazine's IR-100 awards.

In 1979 I began working as a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There I have worked in nuclear physics, geophysics, high voltage engineering, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and molecular physics. For the first four years, I helped to develop borehole logging probes which used neutron generators and various nuclear radiation detectors to locate uranium and other mineral deposits. I have a U.S. patent for part of that work. From 1983 to 1995 I worked with Sandia's Particle Beam Fusion project [Science 232 (16 May 1986) pp. 831-836 and cover photo]. I was one of the two inventors of the 6 megavolt laser-triggered gas spark gaps used in the project's 100 terawatt particle accelerator, PBFA-II. This class of spark gaps, called "Rimfire" switches, are now coming into general use at many pulsed power facilities nationwide, and earned me one of Sandia's Exceptional Contribution awards. In 1988 I switched jobs within the project to design inertial confinement fusion targets. That work involved theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help the project produce the world's first laboratory-scale thermonuclear fusion. In 1990, Sandia awarded me an award "for excellence in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory." From 1995 to the present I have been working in nuclear weapons research.


Physics Research and Development - Professional:

Currently on nuclear weapons projects. Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes. Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia's 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors. Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award. Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines. Theoretical studies of velocity dependence of nuclear forces. Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.

Scientific Research - Creationist:

Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further.

Awards/Honors:

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995.

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence "in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory," 1990.

U.S. Patent No. 4,808,368 (Feb 28, 1989) "High voltage supply for neutron tubes in well-logging applications."

Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Contribution Award, for Rimfire laser-triggered gas-insulated switch, 1988.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award to PBFA-II project, 1986.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award for lightning waveform recorder (to D. R. Humphreys and two others), 1978.

U.S. Patent No. 4,054,835 (Oct. 18, 1977) "Rapid-response electric field sensor."

Winner, Eighteenth Annual Westinghouse National Science Talent Search (1959).


Publications: (partial list)

"Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments," Review of Scientific Instruments 63 (October 1992) No. 10.


"Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams," 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1-6, October, 1990.

Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets," JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).

"Progress Toward a Superconducting Opening Switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279-282.

"Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, June 29 - August 1, 1987.

"Rimfire: A Six Megavolt Laser-Triggered Gas-Filled Switch for PBFA-II," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985, pp. 262-269.

"PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985.

"Uranium Logging with Prompt Fission Neutrons," International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34 (1983) 261-268.

"Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS-28 (1981) 1691-1695.

"Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium," 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3-5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.

Wide-range multi-channel analog switch," Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121 (1974) 505-508.

"The 1/g Velocity Dependence of Nucleon-Nucleus Optical Potentials," Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.

"Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination," Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497-503.

"Wide-Range multi-input pulse height recording system," Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123-1127.

[Socrates]

I've also pointed out that the big-bangers have their own problem with light-travel time, called the horizon problem, at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=126029#post126029 A problem for both sides is no way to show that only one is untenable. And as TheFiveSolas pointed out above, Dr Humphreys' white-hole cosmology is a plausible solution, ditching a major assumption of the big bang, the cosmological principle, i.e. that there is no preferred direction or position in space.

Note that the distant starlight objection is based on assumptions, and should thus never trump the written Word of God.

I suspect that eccgen is relying heavily on the demonstrably unreliable Hugh Ross, who has been refuted on the thread Young Earth bigotry? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=163451#post163451) (so named by a Ross follower who had the gall to accused YECs of being inflammatory!).

[eccgen]

Note that the distant starlight objection is based on assumptions, and should thus never trump the written Word of God.

Are you claiming, as it seems implicit in the phrasing of the statement, that your interpretation of the biblical text is not based on assumptions?


I suspect that eccgen is relying heavily on the demonstrably unreliable Hugh Ross, who has been refuted on the thread Young Earth bigotry? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=163451#post163451) (so named by a Ross follower who had the gall to accused YECs of being inflammatory!).

Actually no I am not relying heavily on Dr. Ross. However I would like to comment in passing that it has been my observation that Dr. Ross in general displays a much less hostile attitude than many of his detractors, but that of course does not affect the veracity of his views one way or another.
It seems to me that Dr. Humphreys explanation does not stand up to the test. But I will let it stand and stipulate it is a possible theory. How then do we account for the fossil record, which cannot be all from a single catastrophic event, because the number of species exceeds by a large margin the maximum carrying capacity of the planet both in diversity and in population count. How do we account for the vast quantities of biodeposits, such as calcium carbonate in its various mineral forms, and iron ores, which appear to have been concentrated by bacterial action over a somewhat lengthy time span; it owuld seem as though God would be being dishonest after a fashion if he created them in place with all the signs of age (not maturity, but age), if they were really created instantly by divine imperative. How do we account for the elemental composition of the earth in terms of its radioactive constituents? I am not attempting to rely on any one aspect as a singular basis which eliminates YEC. It's a matter of preponderance of evidence, rather than seeking to present a single example which is a manifest violation of a logical law in order to falsify the view. My point is, it seems to me there needs to be an exceeding great amount of elaborate theorizing to allow the YE view, and appeals to "scripture trumps science" are not satisfactory,not because I don't think scripture trumps science(it does) but because I do not believe the character of God is such that He would provide a limited account of creation history which requires deception on either side. Science after all simply means knowledge, and the scientific method is derived from biblical principles of faith in evidence. Whenever the bible calls for faith, it always provides a reasonable basis from evidence for having justified true belief.

I apologize for the disjointed placing of this section, I had it as an afterthought. I have a problem with any theory which postulates a drastic change in the fundamental constants, such as the speed of light or the second law. These are not simply changes which have an academic effect, but they have direct bearing on such things as chemical reaction rates, bonding energies, and so on. Adam and Eve were eating before the fall, and plants were photosynthesizing sugars and ergo, entropy was in operation and light speed was the same as today plus or minus a very small error window or that would have disrupted such processes.

[dizzle]

Ecc, then let me posit an interesting somewhat off topic question for you. You are preterist. How do you then account for not taking Genesis' time statements literally? They seem even more plain than Jesus' time statements. What Scriptural (not scienitific) justification do you have for doing so? On a related note, if we had no independant record of a lot of the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled, would you then find a way to not take those time statements literally? Is the obvious text only obvious if it can be corrobated by outside sources? Or does the text say what it does on it own? Is it a combination? On what criteria?

[eccgen]

You know, back in my day we only had four tv channels.


What is the literal definition of 'day' in the above sentence in context? What does 'literal' mean?

Suppose Moses wanted to refer to a long time period of indefinite length but with a specific beginning and ending, what word would he have used in the hebrew lexicon of that time if not yom?


We always approach the task of interpretation with our assumptions which can be in error. If we assume that our interpretation is perfect, I think that is problematic. I believe we can accurately derive the true meaning as a general principle, else hermeneutics is out and I'm going to go enroll in some liberal university and study wicca, but it is a problem if we are going to ascribe infallibility to our understanding of any specific point.

Another thought occurs to me, "..the evening and the morning..."
That seems like an odd way to refer to a 24 hour day, at least from a surface reading. From evening to the following morning would only be about twelve hours, from an evening to a morning the next day would be about 36 hours. I've never heard a 24 hour day referred to like that anywhere else. Perhaps its not sequential, he just means the evening AND the morning, not evening TO the morning. But it seems to me the same problem exists with that too. Morning to evening is about twelve hours. The hebrew word is boqer, which does have an alternate usage simply as "beginning"

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218161#post218161)
eccgen:

Are you claiming, as it seems implicit in the phrasing of the statement, that your interpretation of the biblical text is not based on assumptions?

The assumption that God meant what He said! And that the Bible really is propositional revelation that communicates by the rules of grammar and historical context.

Actually no I am not relying heavily on Dr. Ross.

Most of your arguments in your post seem to come from his book The Genesis Question, thoroughly refuted at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp

However I would like to comment in passing that it has been my observation that Dr. Ross in general displays a much less hostile attitude than many of his detractors,

:hrm: that must be why he compares YECs to the Gnostic heretics and Galatian Judaisers, and pictures Archbishop Ussher, one of the leading Hebrew scholars and historians in a dunce cap. :poke:

How then do we account for the fossil record, which cannot be all from a single catastrophic event,

No, some were from post-Flood catastrophes.

because the number of species

There are only about 250,000 actually catalogued fossil species, which is not really that much.

exceeds by a large margin the maximum carrying capacity of the planet both in diversity and in population count.

Considering that we have no idea of our maximum carrying capacity, I'd like to know why you think so.

How do we account for the vast quantities of biodeposits, such as calcium carbonate in its various mineral forms,

Quite simply, by coccolithophore blooms due to the warmth and nutrients provided by the Flood waters. See Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Layers? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp)

and iron ores, which appear to have been concentrated by bacterial action over a somewhat lengthy time span;

Appearances are deceptive. Hydrothermal origins explain them far batter.

it owuld seem as though God would be being dishonest after a fashion if he created them in place with all the signs of age (not maturity, but age), if they were really created instantly by divine imperative.

But uniformitarians deceive only themselves because they ignore God's plain words in the Bible in favor of their own interpretations of data as ages.

How do we account for the elemental composition of the earth in terms of its radioactive constituents?

Please be more specific. Do you mean the argument about short-live radionuclides splattered at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_17december2001.asp ?

I am not attempting to rely on any one aspect as a singular basis which eliminates YEC. It's a matter of preponderance of evidence, rather than seeking to present a single example which is a manifest violation of a logical law in order to falsify the view.

However, 0+0+0+0=0, even with modern math.

My point is, it seems to me there needs to be an exceeding great amount of elaborate theorizing to allow the YE view, and appeals to "scripture trumps science" are not satisfactory,not because I don't think scripture trumps science(it does) but because I do not believe the character of God is such that He would provide a limited account of creation history which requires deception on either side.

He doesn't. See the Parable of the Candle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp)

I apologize for the disjointed placing of this section, I had it as an afterthought. I have a problem with any theory which postulates a drastic change in the fundamental constants, such as the speed of light or the second law.

Well, YECs are not the only ones who have proposed a change in c, as we have discussed on the Setterfield thread. But most YECs now do not believe that the 2nd law began at the Fall -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#fall

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218169#post218169)
eccgen:

What is the literal definition of 'day' in the above sentence in context? What does 'literal' mean?

Having the normal non-figurative usage. And in Genesis 1, it has an evening and morning as well as a number, so it means an ordinary day. In fact, HALOT gives Genesis 1:5 as an example of yôm meaning 24 hours. Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of theology and Hebrew and Concordia University, Illinois, has analyzed this pattern in Genesis ([Echad] as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002). He showed that it was strong SUPPORT for 24-hour creation days:

[Yôm], like the English word “day”, can take on a variety of meanings. It does not in and of itself mean a twenty-four hour day [ref]. This alone has made the length of days in Genesis 1 a controversial subject [ref]. However, the use of [Echad] in Gen 1:5 and the following unique uses of the ordinal numbers on the other days demonstrates that the text itself indicates these as regular solar days.’

Suppose Moses wanted to refer to a long time period of indefinite length but with a specific beginning and ending, what word would he have used in the hebrew lexicon of that time if not yom?

Easy, dor meaning a generation or period, 'olam meaning an eon, .zeman or mo'ed meaning a time or a season. God could also have said myriads of myriads of years or compared them to the grains of sand on the seashore.

Another thought occurs to me, "..the evening and the morning..."
That seems like an odd way to refer to a 24 hour day, at least from a surface reading.

Actually it's an unambiguous way of referring to it, as TWeb's resident Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim pointed out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376 :

As Claus Westermann and James Barr, neither of whom are known his evangelical leanings, both point out, the use of יום in Genesis 1 paired together with ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום and then add a number is only used to refer to 24 hour days. Barr, whose career can be summed up as a methodological critic and is no friend of evangelical approaches, actually finds absurd anyone view of the text that does not find this to equal 7 24 hour days.

From evening to the following morning would only be about twelve hours, from an evening to a morning the next day would be about 36 hours. I've never heard a 24 hour day referred to like that anywhere else.

Rather, I have never heard a long period of time with an evening or morning!

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218169#post218169)
eccgen:
You know, back in my day we only had four tv channels.

Interesting, but in "my day" TV had not yet been invented.

What is the literal definition of 'day' in the above sentence in context? What does 'literal' mean?

Obviously it means a period of time during the writer's lifetime.

Suppose Moses wanted to refer to a long time period of indefinite length but with a specific beginning and ending, what word would he have used in the hebrew lexicon of that time if not yom?

There is a Hebrew word for this concept.

We always approach the task of interpretation with our assumptions which can be in error. If we assume that our interpretation is perfect, I think that is problematic. I believe we can accurately derive the true meaning as a general principle, else hermeneutics is out and I'm going to go enroll in some liberal university and study wicca, but it is a problem if we are going to ascribe infallibility to our understanding of any specific point.

Another thought occurs to me, "..the evening and the morning..."
That seems like an odd way to refer to a 24 hour day, at least from a surface reading From evening to the following morning would only be about twelve hours, from an evening to a morning the next day would be about 36 hours. I've never heard a 24 hour day referred to like that anywhere else. Perhaps its not sequential, he just means the evening AND the morning, not evening TO the morning. But it seems to me the same problem exists with that too. Morning to evening is about twelve hours. The hebrew word is boqer, which does have an alternate usage simply as "beginning"

You are perceptive in noting that the phrase evening and morning is unique in chapter 1 of scripture. Of course one also has to consider the context of the other Hebrew words associated with the first two:

. . 'ereb:H6153 . . boqer:H1242 . . sheliyshiy:H7992 yowm:H3117

The third word in the "quartet" is in this case a numeral, "third", and the other usages also include numerals for first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth as well.

The complete quartet is unique in scripture to Genesis 1.

To me the meaning is perfectly clear even to a child and the sole reason for denying this is to try in a very awkward way to believe that Genesis agrees with the current so-called scientific view of ultimate origins.

To me the Genesis quartet of Hebrew words was designed to thwart any such concept. It is effectively an "in your face" structure designed to make it totally illogical to reconcile the scriptural and man-held views of origins..

[dizzle]

To me the Genesis quartet of Hebrew words was designed to thwart any such concept. It is effectively an "in your face" structure designed to make it totally illogical to reconcile the scriptural and man-held views of origins..

Yep, just like preretism. I am curious ecc, how you justify this inconisstency. I am not "calling you out" or any such thing, I am genuinely curious. Others here will state that nonYEC preterists have always interested me.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218816#post218816)
Dee Dee Warren:
Yep, just like preretism. I am curious ecc, how you justify this inconisstency. I am not "calling you out" or any such thing, I am genuinely curious. Others here will state that nonYEC preterists have always interested me.

I presume you were addressing me, but if so I will confess that I do not understand the question.

[eccgen]

I presume you were addressing me, but if so I will confess that I do not understand the question.

No, she was asking me. I am ecc. Ich bin ein Exzentergenie. Oder gerade exzentrisch.
I do not think it is inconsistent at all. There is nothing in the praeterist view which makes a YE view a conditio sine qua non that I am aware of.

I do not think it is as simple as some maintain that genesis 1&2 are speaking of 6 24 hour periods. For one thing, on at least one of the 'days' the number of activities attributed to Adam seems to be a bit much for a day. AANd he had time to realize he was lonely and needed an helper meet for him. I would not think it typical for someone in the midst of a whirl of activity and new experiences on ones very first day of existance that one would immediately feel lonely. I think that the interpretation of the text as dogmatically describing 24 hour solar days owes much to the presuppositions of the interpreter. I do not find the arguments based on the use of yom preceded by an ordinal number to be compelling, simply because there is more than one period of time described, and the creation of the world is certainly a very unique event. The fact that elsewhere yom with an ordinal means solar day is not a definitive factor necessarily.

The assumption that God meant what He said! And that the Bible really is propositional revelation that communicates by the rules of grammar and historical context.


I am not in any way disputing that God meant what He said, nor that the human author meant what he said, nor would I. I am in wholehearted agreement that there is a true and definitive meaning intended by the author, for every jot and tittle of scripture. We as fallible humans, however, do not have immediate access to objective truth, we only have an interpretation. By definition interpreted knowledge is contingent, and the possibility of error exists. If it is possible to be in error, then it may actually be in error, and it is a mistake to be strongly dogmatic on a point of contingency.
Most of your arguments in your post seem to come from his book The Genesis Question

I have not read it, if I have made many of the same points it is coincidental and independant, although I have read some of Dr. Ross' material, I have read as much, and in fact much more of the polemic, for the simple reason there is much more available. I do not wish to fall victim to an argumentum ad populum, nor an aura popularis. History has shown the majority opinion is often wrong.
Archbishop Ussher, one of the leading Hebrew scholars and historians
He may be a leading hebrew scholar, but his date of creation based on geneologies is not reliable, because it is based on an erroneus assumption that the geneologies are complete. That is not necessarily so.
Easy, dor meaning a generation or period, 'olam meaning an eon, .zeman or mo'ed meaning a time or a season. God could also have said myriads of myriads of years or compared them to the grains of sand on the seashore.

Those words are in the hebrew lexicon now, but it is my understanding that they are modern terms, they were not in the ancient hebrew lexicon. I will not claim to be an expert hebrew scholar, although I am not entirely uneducated. An argumentum ad verecundium is a logical fallacy.

I will let this post suffice now, in the interest of brevity. Remember that I am not your enemy.

[Socrates]

09-25-2003 @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220505#post220505)
eccgen:

I do not think it is as simple as some maintain that genesis 1&2 are speaking of 6 24 hour periods.

Seems very simple to me, esp. when Exodus 20:8-11 compares the creation days to those of the working week.

For one thing, on at least one of the 'days' the number of activities attributed to Adam seems to be a bit much for a day.

Like what? Naming selected land vertebrate kinds, so not all the animals and not all of todays "species". See also How could Adam have named all the animals in a single day? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1112animals.asp)

AANd he had time to realize he was lonely and needed an helper meet for him.

Wouldn't take that long, especially with the didactic . And it was God who made the decision anyway -- he didn't have to wait for Adam.

I would not think it typical for someone in the midst of a whirl of activity and new experiences on ones very first day of existance that one would immediately feel lonely.

Why not?

I think that the interpretation of the text as dogmatically describing 24 hour solar days owes much to the presuppositions of the interpreter.

Au contraire, it's the denial of 24-hour days that owes much to outside opinions rather than the text itself.

I do not find the arguments based on the use of yom preceded by an ordinal number to be compelling, simply because there is more than one period of time described,

That further strengthens the case for 24-hour days.

... and the creation of the world is certainly a very unique event.

I dunno how something can be "very unique". It is either unique or it's not.

The fact that elsewhere yom with an ordinal means solar day is not a definitive factor necessarily.

It means a great deal by the analogia scripturae, which is a key principle of interpretation.

I am not in any way disputing that God meant what He said, nor that the human author meant what he said, nor would I. I am in wholehearted agreement that there is a true and definitive meaning intended by the author, for every jot and tittle of scripture. We as fallible humans, however, do not have immediate access to objective truth, we only have an interpretation. By definition interpreted knowledge is contingent, and the possibility of error exists. If it is possible to be in error, then it may actually be in error, and it is a mistake to be strongly dogmatic on a point of contingency.

It's also important to take God at His word. He wrote Scripture to teach us. It's inconceivable that the Church could have been wrong unti deists like Hutton and Lyell came along with their uniformitarian ideas.

I have not read it, if I have made many of the same points it is coincidental and independant, although I have read some of Dr. Ross' material, I have read as much, and in fact much more of the polemic, for the simple reason there is much more available.

The argument about too little time on Day 6 is also one Ross uses.

I do not wish to fall victim to an argumentum ad populum, nor an aura popularis. History has shown the majority opinion is often wrong.

True, like millions of years :hrm:

He may be a leading hebrew scholar, but his date of creation based on geneologies is not reliable, because it is based on an erroneus assumption that the geneologies are complete. That is not necessarily so.

And your evidence for gaps is, what? I can't think of any commentator who saw gaps in the genealogies before Green in the 19th century, which suggests that they are not in the Hebrew. And think about the hundreds of names that would have to be missing. There are some YECs who allow for some gaps and I won't die on a hill over it, but they realise that there is a limit to how far they can be stretched. I addressed this months ago at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=22112#post22112

Those words are in the hebrew lexicon now, but it is my understanding that they are modern terms, they were not in the ancient hebrew lexicon.

Your understanding is erroneous. These are Biblical Hebrew words.

I will let this post suffice now, in the interest of brevity. Remember that I am not your enemy.

I didn't think you were. Unlike people like Morton and Barbarian, you don't go out of your way to yoked with atheists to attack Biblie-believing Christians.

[dizzle]

09-23-2003 @ 10:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218942#post218942)
Socratism:



I presume you were addressing me, but if so I will confess that I do not understand the question.

Oh no sorry, that was directed to eccgen.

[dizzle]

The fact that elsewhere yom with an ordinal means solar day is not a definitive factor necessarily.


I sure hope then that you do not use the argument that "this generation" everywhere else it is used means the generation then living. No offense intended, but I am finding your ways of getting out this time text analogously similar to what futurists do in eschatology.

[rlj51]

09-23-2003 @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217817#post217817)
TheFiveSolas:



Dr. Russel Humphreys has proposed a possible cosmology that answers this question. His hypothesis utilizes Einstein's general theory of relativity and the starting assumptions of a bounded (rather than an unbounded) universe.

A summary can be found in his book Starlight and Time, Solving the Problem of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe.

In addition, his successful rebuttals to several critics can be read at the following:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

Also, for your information, a summary of Dr. Russel Humphreys' credentials are:


Hugh Ross critiques Humphrey's ideas here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

Here is an excerpt:

Reasons to Believe and RTB associates have played a leading role in the effort by Christian physicists to help the young-earth movement recognize and repudiate the errors of Starlight and Time. Prior to the initial publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys was advised to drop the theory in view of its incompatibility with the observed time-keeping properties of distant physical phenomena3 (see appendices for specifics). In early 1995, RTB assembled a team of qualified physicists to analyze the mathematics of the theory4. In retrospect, it is apparent that this analysis, which was performed in early- to mid-1995, was the first thorough review the mathematical aspects of the theory had ever received, notwithstanding the theory's initial presentation in a nominally peer-reviewed forum, the International Conference on Creationism(ICC). This review led to the preparation of a number of documents which RTB has been distributing on request since mid-19955,6 and to the publication of a brief but thorough rebuttal of Starlight and Time in a young-earth publication in September, 19957. Despite this rebuttal, the subsequent rejection of Starlight and Time by the ICC8 and further rebuttal, this time by a young-earth writer, published in another young-earth publication9, Humphreys has continued to insist that his model is valid. The latest exchange in the controversy occurred recently in the pages of Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10,11.

To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement.

So it sounds like the ICC (International Conference on Creationism) does not approve of Humphreys's view and another young-earth creationist has critiqued his work:

John Byl, "On time dilation in cosmology," Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 34, n. 1, 1997.

[wildbrumby]

Recently Humphrey's hypothesis got a boost from the NAS which is interesting. ( http://www.icr.org/headlines/whiteholecosmology.html) He certainly flies in the face of conventional cosmology. His book, Starlight and Time is fascinating. He seems to get a lot of flak from the evolutionist camp as they say he is dishonest with his data. I'm yet to see anything conclusive though

[rlj51]

Today @ 07:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=239630#post239630)
wildbrumby:

Recently Humphrey's hypothesis got a boost from the NAS which is interesting. ( http://www.icr.org/headlines/whiteholecosmology.html) He certainly flies in the face of conventional cosmology. His book, Starlight and Time is fascinating. He seems to get a lot of flak from the evolutionist camp as they say he is dishonest with his data. I'm yet to see anything conclusive though

Yeah that is interesting. I'm sure RTB will have a response about that soon.

I think Ross's article points out that no one else seems to agree with Humphreys. Are there any other astronomers that uniformely agree with Humphrey's system?

[TheFiveSolas]

rlj51,
I completely disagree with your assessment of Humphreys' theory. Humphreys' has successfully answered Ross and others.

Starlight and Time did not mention Ross, but he correctly saw it as a threat to his organization. At his instigation, the Rossites launched attacks in lay publications7 and in a creationist newsletter in which I published answers.8 In 1996 they tried an extensive letter campaign to Christian leaders. In 1997 they switched to a creationist scientific journal.9 Thankfully, my answers have satisfied reviewers and silenced critics. The resulting four-years debate have now been archived on the internet. The debate apparently ended last year after I emphasized that the Rossites had refused to comment on several key concepts and quotes from the secular astrophysics literature which support my cosmology. Their silence betrays the weakness of their arguments.
http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightandtime.html

The four year exchanges between the two can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightwars.html

In addition, Humphreys has been challenging Ross to a debate on the subject at Los Alamos Nat'l Labs with scientists from ALL related fields present to assess the science behind his theory in addition to the science behind the rebuttals of Ross et al. To date Ross has refused. These facts can be documented at the following links...

http://www.icr.org/headlines/hughrosshumphreys.html
http://www.icr.org/headlines/hughrosshumphreysagain.html
http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreyshughross.html

rlj51:
I think Ross's article points out that no one else seems to agree with Humphreys.

I have to strongly disagree with this mischaracterization. For instance, Dr. John Hartnett has written that 1994, the year that Humphreys wrote Starlight and Time, will go down in history as a momentous occasion in the area of creationist cosmology.

John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) (1973) and his Ph.D. with distinction (2001) from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He has worked there with the Frequency Standards and Metrology research group for more than 6 years. The research, for the European Space Agency’s PHARAO atomic clock project, involves the development of an ultra-stable microwave oscillator based on a sapphire resonator cooled to 50 K with solid nitrogen. His research interests include ultra low-noise radar, ultra high stability microwave clocks, tests of fundamental theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity and measurement of drift in fundamental constants and their cosmological implications. He has a keen interest in cosmology and how it applies to the creationist world-view. He has published more than 30 papers in refereed scientific journals and holds 2 patents.

I'll also reiterate what I stated earlier, namely that Humphreys has successfully answered all challenges to his theory. The points that he brought up against Ross' et al. attempted rebuttals have gone unanswered by Ross.

[rlj51]

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240146#post240146)
TheFiveSolas:

rlj51,
I completely disagree with your assessment of Humphreys' theory. Humphreys' has successfully answered Ross and others.


http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightandtime.html

The four year exchanges between the two can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/starlightwars.html

In addition, Humphreys has been challenging Ross to a debate on the subject at Los Alamos Nat'l Labs with scientists from ALL related fields present to assess the science behind his theory in addition to the science behind the rebuttals of Ross et al. To date Ross has refused. These facts can be documented at the following links...

http://www.icr.org/headlines/hughrosshumphreys.html
http://www.icr.org/headlines/hughrosshumphreysagain.html
http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreyshughross.html

TFS,

I have read all the exchanges between Ross and Humphreys already, including their debate challenges. A couple of points:

1. Not only has Ross and his team of scientists critiqued Humphreys, but so has a fellow young-earth creationist. Further, the ICC has rejected his view. Surely you are not suggesting that that young-earth creationists felt threatened by Humphreys views and therefore felt compelled to attack him?

2. As for the debate challenges, it is unfair to state that Ross is the only one who has declined debate. Humphreys has declined several times as well. The same emails are all documented here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humphreys_debate_statement.shtml?main

Ross proposed to have only physicists and astronomers with PH.D's. Humphreys declined and asked to have a debate with all types of scientists and be open to the public. So both of them have declined each other's offers.

3. The question still remains: Are there and other physicists or astronomers who agree with Humphreys?

Now before you get the wrong idea about me TFS, I have not made up my mind about these issues. I have merely attended several RTB events and have great respect for the organization.

[TheFiveSolas]

rlj51:
TFS,

I have read all the exchanges between Ross and Humphreys already, including their debate challenges. A couple of points:

1. Not only has Ross and his team of scientists critiqued Humphreys, but so has a fellow young-earth creationist. Further, the ICC has rejected his view. Surely you are not suggesting that that young-earth creationists felt threatened by Humphreys views and therefore felt compelled to attack him?


Have you read his detailed technical answers to his critics at the links I posted above, and also at...

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

If so, why do you suppose his rebuttals (where he showed various crucial points that he was being criticized for by Ross and others are actually supported in the mainstream scientific literature) have gone unanswered?

With regards to the one young-earther that critiqued him, Professor of Mathematics Hyn, I'll simply point out that he is neither an astronomer nor a physicist. In addition, his main criticisms were put forth by Connor and Page, both of whom Humphreys successfully rebutted in the trueorigin link above, and in the Technical Journal articles over the span of four or so years.

Lastly, with regards to ICC I don't know any of the relevant details, other than Ross' assertion that papers were submitted and denied. I will point out that many papers are submitted and can be rejected (if indeed that is what happened to Humphreys' model) for a variety of reasons, not solely for a paper that contains a poor or erroneous theory/hypothesis. If you go to the ICC website you will find that their selection is based upon peer review and opinion as to relevance of the submitted paper/topic, in addition to other factors.

My personal opinion regarding Dr. Ross' ministry is not a high one. For example, his latest "rebuttal" against the RATE project showed a massive ignorance of its actual technical papers on the subject. For instance, they repeatedly brought up a criticism of excessive heat being produced by accelerated nuclear decay as if the RATE researchers have never thought about it. The fact is that several of them have dealt with the issue of excessive heat in several of their papers! If they had truly read them Ross should have known better. I'd rather think such actions serve as examples of ignorance rather then purposed misinformation.

rlj51:
3. The question still remains: Are there and other physicists or astronomers who agree with Humphreys?

I've already given you the name and qualifications of a physicist in post #18 that concurs with Dr. Humphreys model.

[rlj51]

Today @ 07:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240346#post240346)
TheFiveSolas:



Have you read his detailed technical answers to his critics at the links I posted above, and also at...

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

If so, why do you suppose his rebuttals (where he showed various crucial points that he was being criticized for by Ross and others are actually supported in the mainstream scientific literature) have gone unanswered?

Well I will certainly try to read them, but not being a scientist myself, I'm not sure how well I will understand them.

With regards to the one young-earther that critiqued him, Professor of Mathematics Hyn, I'll simply point out that he is neither an astronomer nor a physicist. In addition, his main criticisms were put forth by Connor and Page, both of whom Humphreys successfully rebutted in the trueorigin link above, and in the Technical Journal articles over the span of four or so years.

Well theres nothing wrong with him being a professor of mathematics. Dr. Humphreys is the one who wants all kinds of different scholars to being present to critique his work if he were to debate Ross, correct? Sounds like a double-standard to me. In fact one of the main critiques Ross has of Humphreys is that his math is way off.

Lastly, with regards to ICC I don't know any of the relevant details, other than Ross' assertion that papers were submitted and denied. I will point out that many papers are submitted and can be rejected (if indeed that is what happened to Humphreys' model) for a variety of reasons, not solely for a paper that contains a poor or erroneous theory/hypothesis. If you go to the ICC website you will find that their selection is based upon peer review and opinion as to relevance of the submitted paper/topic, in addition to other factors.

Well I think that was Ross's point. Peer review was not favorable to Humphrey's work.

My personal opinion regarding Dr. Ross' ministry is not a high one. For example, his latest "rebuttal" against the RATE project showed a massive ignorance of its actual technical papers on the subject. For instance, they repeatedly brought up a criticism of excessive heat being produced by accelerated nuclear decay as if the RATE researchers have never thought about it. The fact is that several of them have dealt with the issue of excessive heat in several of their papers! If they had truly read them Ross should have known better. I'd rather think such actions serve as examples of ignorance rather then purposed misinformation.

Was that a paper you read, or their webcast or..? Their 9/18/2003 webcast talks about the RATE study. They interview Dr. Roger Wiens who is a geochemist, who is a christian, and who seems to think radiometric dating is pretty reliable.

As for not holding his ministry in high regard, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. All of the people I have encountered that are involved in RTB seem to be authentic Christians and are sincerely trying to spread the Gospel. Now it may be some of their scientific views are off; the same may be true for many young-earth creationist organizations. However I would never question their sincerity or effectiveness as a ministry. That seems like it is going to far, IMO.

That one thing I have noticed in the YEC and OEC debates that may give me a favorable view of RTB is this: YEC seem to commonly imply that OEC believe in heresy and are not Christians, or are seriously misled. I don't see those same charges coming from RTB or other OEC's. They say that YEC are wrong about scientific views, yes. But they never accuse them of being involved in heresy or not being Christians etc.



I've already given you the name and qualifications of a physicist in post #18 that concurs with Dr. Humphreys model.

So you did. I guess that make two.

[TheFiveSolas]

rlj51:
Well theres nothing wrong with him being a professor of mathematics. Dr. Humphreys is the one who wants all kinds of different scholars to being present to critique his work if he were to debate Ross, correct? Sounds like a double-standard to me. In fact one of the main critiques Ross has of Humphreys is that his math is way off.

I never said there was something wrong with him being a mathematician. I was pointing out two things. First, Humphreys' cosmology involves WAY more than just mathematics, and requires an understanding of physics (specifically Einstein's General theory of Relativity). Since physicists necessarily need a solid background in mathematics they should be qualified to test both aspects of Humphreys model. Second, the "error(s)" that Hyn accuses Humphreys of making are the same criticisms made by Connor and Page, criticisms that he successfully rebutted I might add. In other words, why does Humphreys need to rebut Hyn when Hyn's criticism was already repeated by Connor and Page and rebutted a few years ago? (note: that was a rhetorical question)

rlj51:
Peer review was not favorable to Humphrey's work.

You asserted (or more correctly Ross allegedly did) that the ICC peer reviewed Humphreys' model and concluded that it was mistaken. I have no evidence of this anywhere other than your (Ross') assertion. Can you document this in any way, shape, or form such as a summary by the ICC peer review committee?

rlj51:
Was that a paper you read, or their webcast or..? Their 9/18/2003 webcast talks about the RATE study. They interview Dr. Roger Wiens who is a geochemist...

I was referring to their webcast, the one interviewing Dr. Wiens. Throughout the entire broadcast they repeated several criticisms (such as excessive heat produced by accelerated radioactive decay) as if the RATE scientists had never addressed (or even thought about) them. The fact remains that several of the researchers had previously dealt with such issues going back even as far as the publication of the first RATE book. This leads me to conclude that they hadn't even read the technical papers on the subject that they were attempting to critique for if they had, they would not have claimed that there were such problems (as excessive heat) that needed to be addressed (more correctly they didn't even imply that they were problems that needed to be addressed, they implied that they were problems that no one addressed AND could not be overcome!).

Note that I have ONLY dealt with the scientific aspect of the above positions, not once have I implied or asserted anything that would make you conclude the following...

rlj51:
That one thing I have noticed in the YEC and OEC debates that may give me a favorable view of RTB is this: YEC seem to commonly imply that OEC believe in heresy and are not Christians, or are seriously misled. I don't see those same charges coming from RTB or other OEC's. They say that YEC are wrong about scientific views, yes. But they never accuse them of being involved in heresy or not being Christians etc.

This sounds to me like a regurgitation of some of the polemics used by RTB rather than a reaction to anything I've posted. In addition, there is nothing that I've read in the writings of Humphreys on this issue that would lend support to your above accusation either. Rather, it seems that such a charge is nothing more than a debate tactic used by RTB to caricature YEC'ers in order to emotionally bias readers/supporters against them.

I've heard some things that I take issue with theologically, but I'm able to separate those things from the scientific ones.

Lastly, with regards to other scientists that concur with Humphreys what about all the others on the RATE group that have impeccable credentials like Dr. Eugene Chaffin, or Dr. John Baumgardner? I'll list their credentials for you (for the sake of brevity I've ommitted their published scientific articles)...

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA. Dr. Baumgardner has served as staff scientist in the Fluid Dynamics Group of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico since 1984. He is famous for his development of the TERRA program, a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth's mantle. Beginning in 1995 Dr. Baumgardner assisted the German Weather Service in adapting methods from the TERRA code as the basis for a new operational global weather forecast model known as GME that is now used in Germany and ten other countries.


Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Chaffin did post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany. This involved two years of research on the theory of nuclear fission. Dr. Chaffin taught Physics for four years at the Naval Nuclear Power School. He was responsible for training Naval personnel for duty operating and maintaining nuclear reactors on board U.S. Navy submarines and surface ships.

[rlj51]

Today @ 10:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240668#post240668)
TheFiveSolas:



I never said there was something wrong with him being a mathematician. I was pointing out two things. First, Humphreys' cosmology involves WAY more than just mathematics, and requires an understanding of physics (specifically Einstein's General theory of Relativity). Since physicists necessarily need a solid background in mathematics they should be qualified to test both aspects of Humphreys model. Second, the "error(s)" that Hyn accuses Humphreys of making are the same criticisms made by Connor and Page, criticisms that he successfully rebutted I might add. In other words, why does Humphreys need to rebut Hyn when Hyn's criticism was already repeated by Connor and Page and rebutted a few years ago? (note: that was a rhetorical question)

Right I understand what your saying. However, I don't personally know that Hyn's criticism's are identical to Connor and Page's. I guess I'll just take your word for it :teeth:. However if they are identical, I think that actually is bad for Humphreys as well because that means multiple scientists are noticing the same problem with his theory. Second I know he has rebuted their criticism's. But successfully is another matter all together. I'm not educated in physics enough to know if he was successful.

Also I just noticed that the original young-earth criticizer of Humphreys that Ross mentioned was not "Hyn". It was:

John Byl, "On time dilation in cosmology," Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 34, n. 1, 1997.

So I guess there are 2 young-earthers who object to Humphrey's theory.

You asserted (or more correctly Ross allegedly did) that the ICC peer reviewed Humphreys' model and concluded that it was mistaken. I have no evidence of this anywhere other than your (Ross') assertion. Can you document this in any way, shape, or form such as a summary by the ICC peer review committee?

Well the ICC doesn't seem to put their stuff on the web, at least that I can tell. So here is what Ross says in his footnotes:

The ICC's re-evaluation of Starlight and Time was communicated to SRC in the course of a conversation with Robert Walsh and Steven Rodabaugh in the Summer of 1996.

Here is a link to the presentations at the ICC's 1994 conference. Both of these names are listed as people presenting there:

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc94.html


I was referring to their webcast, the one interviewing Dr. Wiens. Throughout the entire broadcast the repeated several criticisms (such as excessive heat) as if the RATE scientists had never addressed (or even thought about) them. The fact remains that several of the researchers had previously dealt with such issues going back even as far as the publication of the first RATE book. This leads me to conclude that they hadn't even read the technical papers on the subject that they were attempting to critique for if they had, they would not have claimed that there were such problems (as excessive heat) that needed to be addressed (more correctly they didn't even imply that they were problems that needed to be addressed, they implied that they were problems that no one addressed AND could not be overcome!).

Well what about all of the stuff Dr. Wiens talked about? There was way more than just one criticism offered. Dr. Wiens sounded like he was pretty knowledable about dating methods and he seemed to think that when used correctly they are reliable and he gave a lot of examples.

Note that I have ONLY dealt with the scientific aspect of the above positions, not once have I implied or asserted anything that would make you conclude the following...

I know that. I never once asserted or implied that you said anything that would lead me to believe this. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

This sounds to me like a regurgitation of some of the polemics used by RTB rather than a reaction to anything I've posted. In addition, there is nothing that I've read in the writings of Humphreys on this issue that would lend support to your above accusation either. Rather, it seems that such a charge is nothing more than a debate tactic used by RTB to caricature YEC'ers in order to emotionally bias readers/supporters against them.

Not at all. If anything just the opposite. This is a conclusion I have come to after listening to and reading many exchnages between the two camps. I have heard Ken Ham of AIG say this sort of thing, as well Kent Hovind. Listen to the Hovind vs. Ross debate and you will see what I mean. I agree I have never heard Humphrey's say this sort of thing; I am talking about many other YEC's.

I've heard some things that I take issue with theologically, but I'm able to separate those things from the scientific ones.

YEC's seem to connect them at every turn.

Lastly, with regards to other scientists that concur with Humphreys what about all the others on the RATE group that have impeccable credentials like Dr. Eugene Chaffin, or Dr. John Baumgardner? I'll list their credentials for you (for the sake of brevity I've ommitted their published scientific articles)...


Wait I thought the RATE study had to do with dating methods? What does that have to do with comsological theories?

[TheFiveSolas]

rlj51:
However, I don't personally know that Hyn's criticism's are identical to Connor and Page's.

I should have clarified, their criticisms included but were not limited to only the mathematical "errors" alleged by Byl (and yes, Byl was who I was referring to, I was trying to go by memory as to his name and only got the middle letter of his three letter name correct).

rlj51:
Well the ICC doesn't seem to put their stuff on the web, at least that I can tell. So here is what Ross says in his footnotes:

The ICC's re-evaluation of Starlight and Time was communicated to SRC in the course of a conversation with Robert Walsh and Steven Rodabaugh in the Summer of 1996.

Here is a link to the presentations at the ICC's 1994 conference. Both of these names are listed as people presenting there:

Yet, on the ICC site that you link to we find that Dr. Humphreys' model was accepted (not rejected), via peer review, for presentation...


T-44 Progress Toward a Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology-D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Which is why he asserted as much (and more) in one of the exchanges published in TJ...

...as I mention in my reply
The peer reviewers who accepted
my papers for the 1994
International Conference on
Creationism and for last year’s
CEN Technical Journal were (as
I now know) competent, secularly-published theorists with
PhDs in physics and mathematics,
and graduate-level
training in general relativity. In
addition, I have received private
advice and encouragement from
over a half-dozen general relativity
theorists in the academic
world.


rlj51:
Well what about all of the stuff Dr. Wiens talked about? There was way more than just one criticism offered.

You mean like Ross' assertion that all uranium would have detonated if there had been accelerated nuclear decay of the type proposed by the RATE group, all the while ignoring (and I believe it's because he didn't read the technical papers) the fact that Dr. Chaffin had addressed this very topic in the RATE book and in his paper on uranium fission. Or Ross' assertion that accelerated nuclear decay would eliminate the possiblity of supernova explosions, all the while ignoring that Chaffin had addressed this topic in chapter 6, and Humphreys in chapter 7. By the way, Wiens' claim that the RATE group didn't have a way to resolve the problem of excess heat evidences the fact that he never read Humphreys' explanation (in chapter 7 of the RATE book) that "volume cooling" based upon Einstein's general theory solves the problem, or Dr. Baumgardner's observation (in chapter 3) that the heat produced would solve a long-standing mystery of geoscience. Or how about Dr. Wien's "scientific" explanation that the RATE scientists hold to their position out of fear, all the while ignoring the fact that YEC'ers are severely ridiculed for their position! I can go on and on about Ross' assertion that helium is too slippery to keep track of or Wiens' mis-characterization of the work of Snelling, Austin, and Bloesch or Ross' absurd suggestion that carbon-14 could have gotten into the center of a diamond (that was tested by an independent lab) via "dirty gloves"!!!, but that should suffice for now.

[rlj51]

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240961#post240961)
TheFiveSolas:



I should have clarified, their criticisms included but were not limited to only the mathematical "errors" alleged by Byl (and yes, Byl was who I was referring to, I was trying to go by memory as to his name and only got the middle letter of his three letter name correct).

Ok I trust you.

Yet, on the ICC site that you link to we find that Dr. Humphreys' model was accepted (not rejected), via peer review, for presentation...

Yes it was originally accepted in 1994. You'll notice that Ross's footnote says 1996. So obviously the ICC was able to review Humphrey's theory more in-depthly and by 1996 decided to distance themselves from him.

Which is why he asserted as much (and more) in one of the exchanges published in TJ...

Yes and Ross says about this:

To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12.

this includes 1) astrophysicists and a general relativity theorist in the team assembled by RTB, 2) two young-earth scientists who have spoken up on this subject and 3) the team of reviewers selected by CEN Tech. J. to referee the latest published exchange. Based on the evidence available to us, we are confident in our conclusion that the original ICC reviewer (of reference #1) was not sufficiently skilled in general relativity to discern the errors in the original paper. Humphreys' recent retreat from most of the physical claims of that paper (discussed below) confirms this, and similar conclusions have been drawn by the leaders of the ICC.

You mean like Ross' assertion that all uranium would have detonated if there had been accelerated nuclear decay of the type proposed by the RATE group, all the while ignoring (and I believe it's because he didn't read the technical papers) the fact that Dr. Chaffin had addressed this very topic in the RATE book and in his paper on uranium fission. Or Ross' assertion that accelerated nuclear decay would eliminate the possiblity of supernova explosions, all the while ignoring that Chaffin had addressed this topic in chapter 6, and Humphreys in chapter 7. By the way, Wiens' claim that the RATE group didn't have a way to resolve the problem of excess heat evidences the fact that he never read Humphreys' explanation (in chapter 7 of the RATE book) that "volume cooling" based upon Einstein's general theory solves the problem, or Dr. Baumgardner's observation (in chapter 3) that the heat produced would solve a long-standing mystery of geoscience. Or how about Dr. Wien's "scientific" explanation that the RATE scientists hold to their position out of fear, all the while ignoring the fact that YEC'ers are severely ridiculed for their position! I can go on and on about Ross' assertion that helium is too slippery to keep track of or Wiens' mis-characterization of the work of Snelling, Austin, and Bloesch or Ross' absurd suggestion that carbon-14 could have gotten into the center of a diamond (that was tested by an independent lab) via "dirty gloves"!!!, but that should suffice for now.

I'll have to do some research to find out who is right in these issues.

TFS, I guess the main point is: Do you actually think Humphrey's theory is TRUE? Isn't the traditional BIG BANG model held almost universally by scientists?

[Socrates]

rlj51:

Was that a paper you read, or their webcast or..? Their 9/18/2003 webcast talks about the RATE study. They interview Dr. Roger Wiens who is a geochemist, who is a christian, and who seems to think radiometric dating is pretty reliable.

Note that he rebuked some RTB staffers at a couple of points for misrepresenting RATE. And TheFiveSolas has shown where the RTB radio program erred critically in many areas.

That one thing I have noticed in the YEC and OEC debates that may give me a favorable view of RTB is this: YEC seem to commonly imply that OEC believe in heresy and are not Christians, or are seriously misled. I don't see those same charges coming from RTB or other OEC's. They say that YEC are wrong about scientific views, yes. But they never accuse them of being involved in heresy or not being Christians etc.

For goodness's sake, you just swallow RTB's martyr complex. Never mind that Ross has claimed that YEC views ‘encourage a form of Gnosticism’, compared YECs with Galatian Judaizing heretics, and crassly claimed, ‘Young-earthers sentimentalize the deaths of nonsoulish animals because it makes them think of their pets.’ RTB also portrays the saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher in a dunce cap www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165323#post165323

rlj51:

TFS, I guess the main point is: Do you actually think Humphrey's theory is TRUE? Isn't the traditional BIG BANG model held almost universally by scientists?

So? The leading big-bangers regard the big bang as a classic atheistic theory. E.g. Morton's hero Alan Guth is the rabid atheist who concocted the inflationary model to get around the intractable horizon problem, and said that the big bang is "the ultimate free lunch."

[rlj51]

Ok, this is turning into a your word vs. his situation. I have no way to determine which scientist is correct.

If you guys are soooo adamant about YEC, which I am open to, why don't you give me some evidence to support this theory? What proves that the earth is so young?

If you would like to start a new thread that would be fine.

Thanks,
Randy

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=243017#post243017)
rlj51:

Ok, this is turning into a your word vs. his situation. I have no way to determine which scientist is correct.

Right, so stop being so respectful of "scientists" and be more respectful of God's Word. I speak as a Ph.D. scientist myself.

If you guys are soooo adamant about YEC, which I am open to, why don't you give me some evidence to support this theory? What proves that the earth is so young?

The only thing which we can use to prove age -- the reliable eye-witness of its formation, i.e. the biblical creation account. This always trumps circumstantial evidence adduced by deists and atheists.

[rlj51]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244563#post244563)
Socrates:



Right, so stop being so respectful of "scientists" and be more respectful of God's Word. I speak as a Ph.D. scientist myself.

Hold on; all I am doing is looking at their arguments and evidence and seeing what it says. Its not like I am idolizing scientists. Should I just ignore what they say? Its not like I agree with everything that comes out of their mouth. I definately don't think that Darwinian evolution is true.

And I really don't think I am not respecting God's word. For one I don't think the bible was written as a scientific textbook, so we shouldn't read it like one. If you are a scientist please present me with some evidence for a young-earth. I am genuinely interested in hearing it.

The only thing which we can use to prove age -- the reliable eye-witness of its formation, i.e. the biblical creation account. This always trumps circumstantial evidence adduced by deists and atheists.

What eyewitnesses would those be? Most of the creation happened before Adam and Eve were created correct? Also you know as well as I that the evidence for an old-earth is not presented by only deists and atheists. There are conservative Christians that do as well.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244603#post244603)
rlj51, replying to:

Socrates:

Right, so stop being so respectful of "scientists" and be more respectful of God's Word. I speak as a Ph.D. scientist myself.

Hold on; all I am doing is looking at their arguments and evidence and seeing what it says. Its not like I am idolizing scientists. Should I just ignore what they say?

Not at all. You should check them with Scripture, like the Bereans did with Paul (Acts 17:11). And if they are atheists, they are fools (Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:20 ff.); and even if they are Christians, they teach folly if the beginning of wisdom and knowledge is "science" rather than the fear of the LORD.

Its not like I agree with everything that comes out of their mouth.

But the only reason you believe in long ages seems to be what "scientists" say. Yet you have been confronted with evidence that other scientists disagree. It shows that science should never be used to overturn the teaching of the infallible God in Scripture.

I definately don't think that Darwinian evolution is true.

But if you went by majority opinion in biology as you do for geology, then why not?

And I really don't think I am not respecting God's word. For one I don't think the bible was written as a scientific textbook, so we shouldn't read it like one.

I don't. Scientific textbooks all have mistakes in them, and they become outdated quickly, so I'm glad the Bible is not one. Anyway, I have always said that Genesis is not science but history.

If you are a scientist please present me with some evidence for a young-earth. I am genuinely interested in hearing it.

But it seems that you only want to hear it on your own terms, i.e. ignoring revelation. I refuse to play by evidentialist fallacies that posit neutral data and ignore the fact that they must always be interpreted in the light of theory. And the theories are determined by one's underlying presuppositions. But see Young Age Evidence articles (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp)

Soc: The only thing which we can use to prove age -- the reliable eye-witness of its formation, i.e. the biblical creation account. This always trumps circumstantial evidence adduced by deists and atheists.

RJ: What eyewitnesses would those be? Most of the creation happened before Adam and Eve were created correct?

God Himself. Or are you denying divine inspiration for Genesis? :huh:

Also you know as well as I that the evidence for an old-earth is not presented by only deists and atheists. There are conservative Christians that do as well.

Invariably they are hardly any different from the deists who founded long-age garbage. They follow the same methodology of ignoring the eye-witness account a priori and concentrating on equivocal circumstantial evidence. They also often yoke with overt God-haters against biblical Christians.

[rlj51]

Today @ 05:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244641#post244641)
Socrates:



Hold on; all I am doing is looking at their arguments and evidence and seeing what it says. Its not like I am idolizing scientists. Should I just ignore what they say?

Not at all. You should check them with Scripture, like the Bereans did with Paul (Acts 17:11). And if they are atheists, they are fools (Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:20 ff.); and even if they are Christians, they teach folly if the beginning of wisdom and knowledge is "science" rather than the fear of the LORD.

I agree with all of the above and I don't think I have violated any of that.

But the only reason you believe in long ages seems to be what "scientists" say. Yet you have been confronted with evidence that other scientists disagree. It shows that science should never be used to overturn the teaching of the infallible God in Scripture.

1. What other source do I have for the age of the earth besided scientists? The bible does not say "The earth was created in year xxxx". It doesn't say how old the earth is.

2. No one has presented any evidence of why the earth is on 6-10,000 years old or whatever. All I have been told is that there are a group of scientists who believe that. There are of course in a vast minority compared the scientists who believe in an old earth. That makes me skeptical of their beliefs.

But if you went by majority opinion in biology as you do for geology, then why not?

Actually as far as I can tell its not geology, but astronomy that gives us a multitude of evidences for an old earth. As for the evolution debate, I don't believe in evolution because I see it as absolutely contradictory to the bible. So I am following your advice about putting the bible first. As for the age of the earth, I do not see it as contradictory to the bible, so I am still putting God's word first.

I don't. Scientific textbooks all have mistakes in them, and they become outdated quickly, so I'm glad the Bible is not one. Anyway, I have always said that Genesis is not science but history.

Right I agree. Thats why when science says God didn't create the world, I don't believe them. When science says Adam and Eve weren't real people, I don't believe them. When science says the earth is x years old, I believe the scientists with the best evidence, because the bible is silent on exactly how old the earth is.

But it seems that you only want to hear it on your own terms, i.e. ignoring revelation. I refuse to play by evidentialist fallacies that posit neutral data and ignore the fact that they must always be interpreted in the light of theory. And the theories are determined by one's underlying presuppositions. But see Young Age Evidence articles (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp)

Well if all theories and evidences are determined by presuppositions, that how do we know whats true? Ans what revelation am I ignoring? Certainly not the one that says God exists, or that he created the world, or that we are sinners. So which one is it?

RJ: What eyewitnesses would those be? Most of the creation happened before Adam and Eve were created correct?

God Himself. Or are you denying divine inspiration for Genesis? :huh:

Of course not. I believe in divine inspiration. I just don't see where God says "this is the year I started creating things". God doesn't say how old the earth is.

Invariably they are hardly any different from the deists who founded long-age garbage. They follow the same methodology of ignoring the eye-witness account a priori and concentrating on equivocal circumstantial evidence. They also often yoke with overt God-haters against biblical Christians.

Hold on, those are big accusations. An atheist might believe in the following:

God doesn't exist
morality is subjective
people are born good
the earth is old

An OEC Christian would believe:

God does exist
morality is objective, determined by God
people are born sinners
the earth is old

They have 1 thing in common! Almost everything else is absolutely contradictory. And they do not yoke with God-haters.

Now if you would be willing to, I would like to have a conversation with you about the evidences for a YEC view. I don't really feel like reading all of the articles on AIG; I would rather talk with someone. Why? Because if I am reading an article, and I have a question or don't understand something, I can't exactly ask the article a question can I?

[Socratism]

rlj51,

Do you believe in evolution from a primitive protocell? If not why not?

[rlj51]

Today @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245511#post245511)
Socratism:

rlj51,

Do you believe in evolution from a primitive protocell? If not why not?

Seems quite implausible. My wife is going through nursing school right now, and she has recently taken microbiology, physiology, etc. I've had many discussions with her about those classes. It is absolutely astounding how complicated and well-designed the human body is. I find it extremely hard to believe at best that our bodies could have evolved from lower lifeforms.

Randy

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245548#post245548)
rlj51:



Seems quite implausible. My wife is going through nursing school right now, and she has recently taken microbiology, physiology, etc. I've had many discussions with her about those classes. It is absolutely astounding how complicated and well-designed the human body is. I find it extremely hard to believe at best that our bodies could have evolved from lower lifeforms.

Randy

Good for you. It was something similar that caused me to reject evolution 20 years ago and start on the path of having faith in the accuracy of scripture.

[rlj51]

Today @ 07:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245557#post245557)
Socratism:



Good for you. It was something similar that caused me to reject evolution 20 years ago and start on the path of having faith in the accuracy of scripture.

So do you believe in a young-earth? Why or why not?

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=245467#post245467)
rlj51:

1. What other source do I have for the age of the earth besided scientists? The bible does not say "The earth was created in year xxxx". It doesn't say how old the earth is.

It does by implication. Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6). This is reasonable if Adam was created on Day 6 about 4000 years before Christ spoke -- on a time line, this would be 0.0004% from the beginning, so indistinguishable for a culture that normally worked with whole numbers. But if we arose less than a million years ago, 15 billion years after the big bang, then humans are right at the end of the numberline, not the beginning. See Jesus and the age of the world (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp#jesus_age).

And we can work out when Adam lived because he was 130 years when he begat Seth, the replacement for Abel. Seth had a son at 105 whom he named Enosh. These are clearly father-son relationships, the age of the father at the birth of the next in line is provided. Adding those up and correlating with known dates for the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar allows us to work out that creation must have been about 4000 BC.

The best estimate IMO was by the late Dr Gerhard Hasel, who was Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University. In his paper The meaning of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (www.grisda.org/origins/07053.htm), Origins 7(2):53–70, 1980, Hasel calculated from the Masoretic Text that Abraham was born in about 2170 BC. Thus, given that the chronogenealogies were tight, the Flood occurred at 2522 BC and Creation at 4178 BC.

Some of my YEC friends on TWeb allow for gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11, but recognise that there is a limit to how far they can stretch them--certainly no where near even a million years. All the same, I explain why I see no gaps in www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=22112#post22112

Another problem discussed at length on TWeb is sin-death causality. Human death is explicitly stated to be the Adam's sin in Genesis 3:19, Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. Also, because Adam was the federal head of creation, his sin resulted on a curse on the whole creation (Romans 8:20-22). This included an end to the original vegetarian diet of all animals (Genesis 1:30), which will one day be restored (Isaiah 11,65). The problem with long ages is that it puts millions of years of death and suffering before Adam's sin and calls it "very good", although death is "the last enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26). See the cartoon below.

2. No one has presented any evidence of why the earth is on 6-10,000 years old or whatever. All I have been told is that there are a group of scientists who believe that. There are of course in a vast minority compared the scientists who believe in an old earth. That makes me skeptical of their beliefs.

So "science", in effect, is your authority for the history of the earth.

Actually as far as I can tell its not geology, but astronomy that gives us a multitude of evidences for an old earth.

Nice ipse dixit.

As for the evolution debate, I don't believe in evolution because I see it as absolutely contradictory to the bible.

Indeed it is. But so is geological evolution, which historically paved the way for biological evolution. And this is not just in "science", but also in the methodology, i.e. letting "science" trump the Bible when it came to the past. Also, even today, when people abandon YEC, it's very hard to stop a slippery slide into total evolution, such as Morton.

They have 1 thing in common! Almost everything else is absolutely contradictory. And they do not yoke with God-haters.

Well, Ross parrots evolutionary accusations that YECs believe in hyper-evolution. And he has praised the atheist founded and operated NCSE, an organization totally devoted to attacking creation and defending goo-to-you evolution.

[rlj51]

Alright Socrates, now we are getting somewhere!

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246012#post246012)
Socrates:



It does by implication. Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6). This is reasonable if Adam was created on Day 6 about 4000 years before Christ spoke -- on a time line, this would be 0.0004% from the beginning, so indistinguishable for a culture that normally worked with whole numbers. But if we arose less than a million years ago, 15 billion years after the big bang, then humans are right at the end of the numberline, not the beginning. See Jesus and the age of the world (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp#jesus_age).

Hmm well here is what the NIV actually says in Mark 10:6:

6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female."

My NIV study bible says this about the verse:

"at the beginning of creation. Jesus goes back to the time before human sin to show God's original intention. God instituted marriage as a great unifying blessing, bonding the male and female in his creation."

This verse is in a section where Jesus is talking about divorce. So obviously his point is not how long the earth was around before humans came into being. He is saying that since the first human beings were created, Adam and Eve, they have always been male and female. They were joined together by God, so do not seperate them. Do no divorce your wife and husband. So this seems like pretty shaky ground to defend a young-earth on.

And we can work out when Adam lived because he was 130 years when he begat Seth, the replacement for Abel. Seth had a son at 105 whom he named Enosh. These are clearly father-son relationships, the age of the father at the birth of the next in line is provided. Adding those up and correlating with known dates for the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar allows us to work out that creation must have been about 4000 BC.

The best estimate IMO was by the late Dr Gerhard Hasel, who was Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University. In his paper The meaning of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (www.grisda.org/origins/07053.htm), Origins 7(2):53–70, 1980, Hasel calculated from the Masoretic Text that Abraham was born in about 2170 BC. Thus, given that the chronogenealogies were tight, the Flood occurred at 2522 BC and Creation at 4178 BC.

Some of my YEC friends on TWeb allow for gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11, but recognise that there is a limit to how far they can stretch them--certainly no where near even a million years. All the same, I explain why I see no gaps in www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=22112#post22112

I agree that the gaps cannot accomodate millions or billions of years. But what about thousands of years? I imagine you are familiar with recent Y-chromosone testing done to find out how old man is? RTB has a very interesting article here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/chromosome.shtml?main

The article ends by saying:

"This newest date for man's progenitor has come within the range of biblically determined dates for Adam. If the Genesis geneologies are anywhere from 10 to 80 percent complete, as most conservative scholars suggest, the Adam of Eden lived between 7,500 and 60,000 years ago."

From what I can tell, many people feel that the geneologies do have gaps. If that is so, it seems that that by adding a few thousands years to your orginal 4000, we agree. BTW I am not sure why you brought up the "millions or billions of years" years thing. RTB has never advocated that humans have been around for millions of years. They have always said (to my knowledge) that we have been around a relatively few thousand years.

Another problem discussed at length on TWeb is sin-death causality. Human death is explicitly stated to be the Adam's sin in Genesis 3:19, Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. Also, because Adam was the federal head of creation, his sin resulted on a curse on the whole creation (Romans 8:20-22). This included an end to the original vegetarian diet of all animals (Genesis 1:30), which will one day be restored (Isaiah 11,65). The problem with long ages is that it puts millions of years of death and suffering before Adam's sin and calls it "very good", although death is "the last enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26). See the cartoon below.

I have not really studied this issue so I don't have an opinion. However I have read the article here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creature_mortality.shtml?main

He goes over all the verses you quote and shows that these refer to man, not animals. But like I said, I need to study the issue more.

So "science", in effect, is your authority for the history of the earth.

Where it does not contradict the bible, yes.

Nice ipse dixit.

Well it seems that astronomy poses a lot of problems for YEC that have not been answered well. "AiG currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight, although neither AiG nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Indeed it is. But so is geological evolution, which historically paved the way for biological evolution. And this is not just in "science", but also in the methodology, i.e. letting "science" trump the Bible when it came to the past. Also, even today, when people abandon YEC, it's very hard to stop a slippery slide into total evolution, such as Morton.

I am not advocating science trumping the bible. I said I am willing to listen to science when it doesn't contradict the bible. And I can assure you I am not on a slippery slope towards evolution.

Well, Ross parrots evolutionary accusations that YECs believe in hyper-evolution. And he has praised the atheist founded and operated NCSE, an organization totally devoted to attacking creation and defending goo-to-you evolution.

I have seen no evidence of any of these claims. Can you substantiate them? I can however show you where YEC have called Ross and RTB heretical.

[Socratism]

When one refers to "science" I think it is critical to distinguish between the kind of science that studies what is happening today and the kind that uses current evidence to speculate about what might have happened in the past.

I have always had a love affair with this first kind of science and have developed a distinct skepticism and distaste for the second (might that be because of the excessive claims and emotionalism of much of the field of Origins?).

[Socrates]

10-17-2003 @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246708#post246708)
rlj51:

Hmm well here is what the NIV actually says in Mark 10:6:

But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.

My NIV study bible says this about the verse:

"at the beginning of creation. Jesus goes back to the time before human sin to show God's original intention. God instituted marriage as a great unifying blessing, bonding the male and female in his creation."

This verse is in a section where Jesus is talking about divorce. So obviously his point is not how long the earth was around before humans came into being. He is saying that since the first human beings were created, Adam and Eve, they have always been male and female. They were joined together by God, so do not seperate them. Do no divorce your wife and husband. So this seems like pretty shaky ground to defend a young-earth on.

But this ignores what the text actually says. Humans have been around since the beginning, not 15 billion years later.

Ross: This newest date for man's progenitor has come within the range of biblically determined dates for Adam. If the Genesis geneologies are anywhere from 10 to 80 percent complete, as most conservative scholars suggest, the Adam of Eden lived between 7,500 and 60,000 years ago.

Isn't that wonderful -- since Ross believes that the Australian Aborigines have been around for 40,000 years (because he accepts 14C-dating), this entails that he allows the possibility that they were not descendants of Adam.

From what I can tell, many people feel that the geneologies do have gaps.

Some of my YEC friends agree. But they realise that you couldn't possibly have hundreds of missing names required for Ross's view. However I don't believe that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have gaps, as I explain at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=22112#post22112

He goes over all the verses you quote and shows that these refer to man, not animals. But like I said, I need to study the issue more.

But see my post .http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=246086#post246086 (]Animals and humans were created vegetarian, according to Genesis 1[/url)

Well it seems that astronomy poses a lot of problems for YEC that have not been answered well. "AiG currently prefers Dr Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight, although neither AiG nor Dr Humphreys claims that his model is infallible"

[url]www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

And justifiably so. They regard Scripture as infallible, not any model trying to explain it.

[dizzle]

10-16-2003 @ 02:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=246708#post246708)
rlj51:

Hmm well here is what the NIV actually says in Mark 10:6:

6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female."

My NIV study bible says this about the verse:

"at the beginning of creation. Jesus goes back to the time before human sin to show God's original intention. God instituted marriage as a great unifying blessing, bonding the male and female in his creation."


Your NIV Study Bible is wrong. Just look at what the text says. Jesus says nothing of the sort. He says that Adam and Eve were around at the beginning of creation.

This verse is in a section where Jesus is talking about divorce.

So? He uses original creation to back up His point. You don't think His supporting arguments to His main point would be accurate? That is a silly objection.


So obviously his point is not how long the earth was around before humans came into being.

And where then is His point that He is simply talking about before sin entered the world?


He is saying that since the first human beings were created, Adam and Eve, they have always been male and female.

And He said when they were created. I am sorry but this is a huge problem for OEC.


They were joined together by God, so do not seperate them. Do no divorce your wife and husband. So this seems like pretty shaky ground to defend a young-earth on.

But you have yet to propose an explanation that accounts for Jesus' specific words. The NIV note is bare hand-waving.



I agree that the gaps cannot accomodate millions or billions of years. But what about thousands of years? I imagine you are familiar with recent Y-chromosone testing done to find out how old man is? RTB has a very interesting article here:

Give the futurists time. I suspect that the gap in Daniel 9 will last tens of thousands of years.


"This newest date for man's progenitor has come within the range of biblically determined dates for Adam. If the Genesis geneologies are anywhere from 10 to 80 percent complete, as most conservative scholars suggest, the Adam of Eden lived between 7,500 and 60,000 years ago."

Did Christ die for the Aborgines? This is horrifying.

From what I can tell, many people feel that the geneologies do have gaps. If that is so, it seems that that by adding a few thousands years to your orginal 4000, we agree.

I agree with you contra Socrates on this point.


Where it does not contradict the bible, yes.

The order is all wrong in the Bible, according to human science, you do realize that don't you?



Well it seems that astronomy poses a lot of problems for YEC that have not been answered well.

Perhaps so. I don't know. But I do know that the Bible is pretty clear, and I am not going to come up with a meaning that is foreign to the text, and to the persons closer in time to the languages to accomodate fallible human understanding.



I have seen no evidence of any of these claims. Can you substantiate them? I can however show you where YEC have called Ross and RTB heretical.

Do you think cartooning Usher as a dunce is appropriate? And if a YEC called Ross heretical on that basis, I would have to ask a few questions. Technically any belief that is wrong is heretical. Technically if I am wrong about preterism I am a heretic. The person may have been using it in that sense. If so, I would be opposed to such a use in any event for it cheapens the word. But before gettings one nits all in a bunch, we need to clarify what is meant by words. If such YEC is consistent and labeling all that disagree with what they believe as Biblical truth heretics, then it isn't a Ross thing.... now I would still disagree.

However, I betcha I can find a whole bunch of YEC that say a bunch of objectionable things, as I could OEC, and any other "ism" we can dream up. That is a fact of humanity.

[rlj51]

Yesterday @ 10:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=251853#post251853)
Socrates:



But this ignores what the text actually says. Humans have been around since the beginning, not 15 billion years later.

That doesn't seem to be the point Jesus was trying to make. In fact that issue was not in dispute in the ANE culture was it? So why would Jesus be trying to make that point if everyone already agreed upon it? Why can't "creation" mean the creation of humans? After all humans were not around since the very beggining of creation. I think it makes more sense to view the verse's meaning as:

Since humans were first created they have been male and female.

Than to view the meaning as:

Humans have been around since the very beginning of creation AND they have always been male and female.

Isn't that wonderful -- since Ross believes that the Australian Aborigines have been around for 40,000 years (because he accepts 14C-dating), this entails that he allows the possibility that they were not descendants of Adam.

I don't know what Ross thinks about the Aborigines. I did a search on his website and all that came up was a link to one of his webcasts which I don't feel like listening to right now. As far as I know, he views all humans as descending from Adam.

Some of my YEC friends agree. But they realise that you couldn't possibly have hundreds of missing names required for Ross's view. However I don't believe that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have gaps, as I explain at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=22112#post22112

I didn't know Ross's view requires hundreds of gaps. Where do you get that idea?

But see my post .[url]http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=246086#post246086 (]Animals and humans were created vegetarian, according to Genesis 1[/url)

ok I'll try and take a look at it.

And justifiably so. They regard Scripture as infallible, not any model trying to explain it.

Strange, so does RTB. I agree that you should put scripture in front of science. That was not my point. My point was that modern cosmology indicates that the universe has been around for awhile. AIG responds to this by tentatively holding to Humphrey's model, which is highly controversial. Doesn't seem like much of answer to me. If Genesis really does say that the earth is young, why doesn't current cosmology evidence support it?

[rlj51]

Yesterday @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=252661#post252661)
Dee Dee Warren:




Your NIV Study Bible is wrong. Just look at what the text says. Jesus says nothing of the sort. He says that Adam and Eve were around at the beginning of creation.

See my comments to Socrates.

So? He uses original creation to back up His point. You don't think His supporting arguments to His main point would be accurate? That is a silly objection.

Thats not my objection. Of course his supporting arguments would be accurate. I just don't see this verse meaning what Socrates (and you) say it means.

And where then is His point that He is simply talking about before sin entered the world?

Before humans were created, there was no sin in the world.

And He said when they were created. I am sorry but this is a huge problem for OEC.

Possibly. Problems abound for all the models.

But you have yet to propose an explanation that accounts for Jesus' specific words. The NIV note is bare hand-waving.

Well Jesus's words seem to be more or less quotes of Genesis 1:27, 5:2 as my NIV notes.


Give the futurists time. I suspect that the gap in Daniel 9 will last tens of thousands of years.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I am not very knowledgeable in eschatology. BTW I have been talking to my father-in-law about preterism (I was exposed to it here on TWEB and also on tektonics.org) He says its orthodox but has many problems and much prefers the post-millenial or whatever the more commong view among Christians is today. We've had many discussions on why Preterist's reinterpret things to fit their views :)=. Anyway I hope to get him invloved in the upcoming paltalk event so he can ask some questions.


Did Christ die for the Aborgines? This is horrifying.

Why? Whats the big problem?

I agree with you contra Socrates on this point.

:teeth:

The order is all wrong in the Bible, according to human science, you do realize that don't you?

No I didn't. RTB seems to have harmonized it though. One more thing to put on the list of things to study.


Perhaps so. I don't know. But I do know that the Bible is pretty clear, and I am not going to come up with a meaning that is foreign to the text, and to the persons closer in time to the languages to accomodate fallible human understanding.

Well the cosmological evidence is in direct contradiction to a YEC view from what I understand. And I think we shouls try and understand the original meaning and intent of the original author of any scripture. Of course we should not come up with a meaning that is foreign to the texts.


Do you think cartooning Usher as a dunce is appropriate? And if a YEC called Ross heretical on that basis, I would have to ask a few questions. Technically any belief that is wrong is heretical. Technically if I am wrong about preterism I am a heretic. The person may have been using it in that sense. If so, I would be opposed to such a use in any event for it cheapens the word. But before gettings one nits all in a bunch, we need to clarify what is meant by words. If such YEC is consistent and labeling all that disagree with what they believe as Biblical truth heretics, then it isn't a Ross thing.... now I would still disagree.

I have never heard of the Usher dunce cartoon until now. Did Ross draw this himself? Who did? Why? As for YEC accusations, I have heard Ken Ham say that YEC is a must for a biblical worldview and that to believe differently is to compromise your Christianity or something similar. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was an audio clip from AIG. Kent Hovind makes similar claims in his debate with Hugh Ross. Now the reason I brought this up in the first place was to explain *my personal experience* which is that I hear YEC's make these sorts of accusations against OEC's. I have NOT heard this coming from the other direction. Maybe it has happened, but I haven't observed it. This has made me sympathetic towards OEC.

However, I betcha I can find a whole bunch of YEC that say a bunch of objectionable things, as I could OEC, and any other "ism" we can dream up. That is a fact of humanity.

Of course which is why it bothers me when people become so convinced of their rightness on non-essential doctrines.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=252661#post252661)
Dee Dee Warren, replying to:

RLJ: From what I can tell, many people feel that the geneologies do have gaps. If that is so, it seems that that by adding a few thousands years to your orginal 4000, we agree.

I agree with you contra Socrates on this point.

It actually makes little difference to the time scale. E.g. take
When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.Even if Jared was merely the ancestor of Enoch and not his biological father, there are still 162 years between them. Therefore the chronology is still straightforward even if the genealogy is incomplete.

Also, Ross ‘dates’ the Flood to ‘between twenty thousand and thirty thousand years ago’ (The Genesis Question p. 177). A straightforward reading of the chronogenealogy places the Flood at about 4500 years ago. But since the Genesis 11 people had sons at age 35 or less, to add even 20,000 years would take over 550 missing generations in Genesis 11! Are any biblical genealogies THAT incomplete?

DDW: The order is all wrong in the Bible, according to human science, you do realize that don't you?

He evidently does not, since he advocates Ross's shameless rationalisations. E.g. Genesis says that the Sun was made after the earth, on Day 4. But Ross claims that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with the atheistic evolutionary order of events. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah). After all, He did so in the same chapter, when He said that the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9).

In fact, a previous day-age compromiser, Davis Young, eventually abandoned this nonsense because of the asinity of the rationalisations. Let him speak (from The harmonization of Scripture and science, science symposium at Wheaton College, 23 March 1990):

‘The Day-Age hypothesis insisted with at least a semblance of textual plausibility that the days of creation were long periods of time of indeterminate length, although the immediate context implies that the term yôm for “day” really means “day”. Having devised a means for allowing Genesis 1 to be in harmony with an ancient planet, Day-Age advocates needed to demonstrate that the sequence of creative activities of Genesis chapter 1 matched the sequence of events deciphered by the astronomers and geologists. Well, Day-Agers outdid themselves in constructing impressive correlations. Of course, these correlations … all differed from each other. While a fairly convincing case could be made for a general concord, … specifics of these correlations were a bit more murky.

‘There were some textual obstacles the Day-Agers developed an amazing agility in surmounting. The biblical text, for example, has vegetation appearing on the third day and animals on the fifth day. Geology, however, had long realized that invertebrate animals were swarming in the seas long before vegetation gained a foothold on the land. This obvious point of conflict, however, failed to dissuade well-intentioned Christians, my earlier self included, from nudging the text to mean something different from what it says. In my case, I suggested that the days were overlapping days. Having publicly repented of that textual mutilation a few years ago, I will move on without further embarrassing myself.

‘Worse yet, the text states that on the fourth day God made the heavenly bodies after the earth was already in existence. Here is a blatant confrontation with science. Astronomy insists that the sun is older than the earth. How do Day-Agers worm out of this? The usual subterfuge involves the suggestion that the light originally visible on earth was sunlight that was obscured and diffused by the thick atmosphere that began to dissipate with the separation of the waters on the second day. Not until the fourth day, however, had the mists thinned to the point where the sun became visible from the earth. …

‘Genius as all these schemes may be, one is struck by the forced nature of them all. While the exegetical gymnastic manoeuvres have displayed remarkable flexibility, I suspect that they have resulted in temporary damage to the theological musculature.’

[Socrates]

rlj51:

That doesn't seem to be the point Jesus was trying to make. In fact that issue was not in dispute in the ANE culture was it? So why would Jesus be trying to make that point if everyone already agreed upon it? Why can't "creation" mean the creation of humans?

Because it doesn't say that. It is rather a typical phrase used to talk about the creation itself.

After all humans were not around since the very beggining of creation.

They were, to within 0.004%. This is right at the beginning in a culture that generally worked to the nearest round number.

I think it makes more sense to view the verse's meaning as:

Since humans were first created they have been male and female

It doesn't say that, and it's stating the obvious. What else would they have been -- a third sex you picked up from watching too much Star Trek?

I don't know what Ross thinks about the Aborigines. I did a search on his website and all that came up was a link to one of his webcasts which I don't feel like listening to right now.

You're missing the point. He accepts C-14 dating as reliable. C-14 dates place the Aborigines at 41,000 years BP. Ross's date of the Flood is 20-30k. Yet he says the Flood wiped out all humanity. Ross also allows Adam to be younger than the date for the Aborigines which he must logically accept.

As far as I know, he views all humans as descending from Adam.

Yes I know, and through Noah. But since C-14 dates for Aborigines make them older than his dates for Noah and even older than part of his acceptable date range for Adam, he has problems.

Ross would probably consider the Aborigines are human. But my point is that his uncritical acceptance of secular dates has appaling logical consequences.

I didn't know Ross's view requires hundreds of gaps. Where do you get that idea?

See previous post. It's third-grade arithmetic.

Strange, so does RTB. I agree that you should put scripture in front of science. That was not my point. My point was that modern cosmology indicates that the universe has been around for awhile. AIG responds to this by tentatively holding to Humphrey's model, which is highly controversial. Doesn't seem like much of answer to me.

It is. Why should AiG be dogmatic on any scientific model, since science is tentative?

If Genesis really does say that the earth is young, why doesn't current cosmology evidence support it?

It does.

rlj51:

Well Jesus's words seem to be more or less quotes of Genesis 1:27, 5:2 as my NIV notes.

I think 1:24 and 2:24.

I have never heard of the Usher dunce cartoon until now. Did Ross draw this himself? Who did? Why?

It was in a comic book Ross co-authored and promoted by RTB, H. Ross and R. Bundschuh, Destination: Creation, Reasons to Believe Comix, p. 5, 1997. So Ross is responsible for this outrage.

As for YEC accusations, I have heard Ken Ham say that YEC is a must for a biblical worldview and that to believe differently is to compromise your Christianity or something similar. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was an audio clip from AIG.

Well, why don't you find the exact wording then? I have documented exactly what Ross has charged the YECs with.

I have NOT heard this coming from the other direction. Maybe it has happened, but I haven't observed it. This has made me sympathetic towards OEC.

Only because you're too blinkered to see the beams in RTB's eyes.

Of course which is why it bothers me when people become so convinced of their rightness on non-essential doctrines.

Yeah, quite -- just why IS Ross so concerned to defend creation over billions of years? :huh:

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=253703#post253703)
rlj51:



See my comments to Socrates.


I am strapped for time, I will give way to Soc to answser that one.






I am not sure what you mean by this. I am not very knowledgeable in eschatology. BTW I have been talking to my father-in-law about preterism (I was exposed to it here on TWEB and also on tektonics.org) He says its orthodox but has many problems and much prefers the post-millenial or whatever the more commong view among Christians is today. We've had many discussions on why Preterist's reinterpret things to fit their views :)=. Anyway I hope to get him invloved in the upcoming paltalk event so he can ask some questions.

You mean premill. Okay that is tonight, I look forward to speaking with him.



No I didn't. RTB seems to have harmonized it though. One more thing to put on the list of things to study.


No actually they don't.




I have never heard of the Usher dunce cartoon until now. Did Ross draw this himself? Who did? Why? As for YEC accusations, I have heard Ken Ham say that YEC is a must for a biblical worldview and that to believe differently is to compromise your Christianity or something similar. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was an audio clip from AIG. Kent Hovind makes similar claims in his debate with Hugh Ross. Now the reason I brought this up in the first place was to explain *my personal experience* which is that I hear YEC's make these sorts of accusations against OEC's. I have NOT heard this coming from the other direction. Maybe it has happened, but I haven't observed it. This has made me sympathetic towards OEC.

I believe that the logical implication of nonYEC is to comprimise a Biblical worldview. I am not going to be PC and not say that if I believe it is the truth. OEC or Pogressive Creationists such as Ross say that YEC logically leads to a gnostic view of the world, okay so what? EAch side has strong opinions, I just see though generally (not with you) a martyr complex amongst certain OEC. Let me be frank, I think futurism of all stripes comprimises a Biblical worldview. Stuff may be secondary but that doesn't mean it isn't important, and that it doesn't have profound implications, even if it is not as utter as salvational. This whole 'let's just be nice and sweet and never say anything controversial unless it is a savlational' issue is patently unBiblical, and I would say ultimately, unloving.



Of course which is why it bothers me when people become so convinced of their rightness on non-essential doctrines.

Why? This is just silly. They are important, they affect the whole rest of our Christian worldview. You have confused two different ideas. Convinved of being right, and dividing. There is aboslutely nothing wrong with being convinced one is right on a secondary issue, in fact you have just done it yourself. It is secondary whether or not we should be convinced we are right on secondary issues, but you are convinced we should not be convinced, but that is a convincing belief you have, that you would like us to have, and is thusly self-defeating. We should be convinced. We should not divide. Do not confuse the two. If I am not convinced, why in the world should you even really listen to me? And what business do I have trying to debate with you on something that I do not really believe that has the ability to change your worldview, and we make life decisions based upon our worldviews. That would be trifling with your soul frankly.

[dizzle]

Soc, the point has been made about comprimise and the like. Frankly it is unnecessary to call someone in the context of this irenic discussion a "day-age comprimiser." It is off-putting, and I am saying this as a YEC to another. If it off-puts me, what is it doing to the brethren we hope to convince?

[Jedidiah]

Soc,

You're missing the point. He accepts C-14 dating as reliable. C-14 dates place the Aborigines at 41,000 years BP. Ross's date of the Flood is 20-30k. Yet he says the Flood wiped out all humanity. Ross also allows Adam to be younger than the date for the Aborigines which he must logically accept.

I believe this is a misunderstanding. As far as I know neither Ross nor RTB have ever given a firm date for the flood. They put it at around 40,000 years ago with a fairly wide error margin. I know that Ross and all of the RTB group believe that ALL men are descended from Noah and the flood survivors. The Aborigine problem is a non issue.

Having said this I believe it is appropriate to address the errors (or perceived errors) of the one posting rather than those of a group who believe similarly. I am an OE creationist, as you know and, while I respect and pay attention to what Dr. Ross and RTB have to say, I have significant differences of opinion. Please do not argue against Hugh Ross and RTB whenever an old earth view is given. I at least feel no need to defend Hugh Ross.

beeman

[Socrates]

10-26-2003 @ 01:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=256870#post256870)
beeman:

Soc,

I believe this is a misunderstanding.

Beeman,

You believe wrongly, sorry. I have understood perfectly -- you just don't like the logical implications, it would seem.

As far as I know neither Ross nor RTB have ever given a firm date for the flood.

You ‘know’ wrongly then, sorry. In The Genesis Question p. 177, Ross dated the Flood ‘between twenty thousand and thirty thousand years ago’ (GQ:177).

They put it at around 40,000 years ago with a fairly wide error margin. I know that Ross and all of the RTB group believe that ALL men are descended from Noah and the flood survivors. The Aborigine problem is a non issue.

It is no such thing. If Aborigines are ‘dated’ at 40 ka by a method they accept as reliable, then this should be a terminus ad quem for the Flood. IOW, the Flood MUST be older than 40 ka if it is to be anthropologically universal as Ross believes. But how on earth can you place Noah at ~38,000 BC?? Even my YEC friends who think there are gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy know full well that there are not a thousand names missing, which there would need to be to stretch the date that much (not that anyone has answered my post Why the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies must be tight chronologies (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=257597#post257597).

Also, OECs generally believe that at least human death came through sin. But they have the problem with fossil Homo sapiens ‘dated’ by methods they declare are reliable to as much as 160 ka. This is well before any possible biblical date for Adam. See the AiG article Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find: A severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’ compromise views (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp).

Having said this I believe it is appropriate to address the errors (or perceived errors) of the one posting rather than those of a group who believe similarly. I am an OE creationist, as you know and, while I respect and pay attention to what Dr. Ross and RTB have to say, I have significant differences of opinion. Please do not argue against Hugh Ross and RTB whenever an old earth view is given. I at least feel no need to defend Hugh Ross.

However, he is a leading proponent of OEC. Similarly, AiG is a leading proponent of YEC. Addressing RTB is not like anti-YECs attacking soft targets like Carl Baugh. And it is a problem for ALL OEC theories.

[jason]

Today @ 04:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272733#post272733)
Socrates:

It is no such thing. If Aborigines are ‘dated’ at 40 ka by a method they accept as reliable,
You never did provide those error bars I asked for.
Also, OECs generally believe that at least human death came through sin. But they have the problem with fossil Homo sapiens ‘dated’ by methods they declare are reliable to as much as 160 ka. This is well before any possible biblical date for Adam. See the AiG article Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find: A severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’ compromise views (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp).
They already addressed this find Now whos using outdated arguments ?

Jason

[grmorton]

TheFiveSolas:

Dr. Russel Humphreys has proposed a possible cosmology that answers this question. His hypothesis utilizes Einstein's general theory of relativity and the starting assumptions of a bounded (rather than an unbounded) universe.

A couple of people in this thread have cited Humphreys Starlight and Time and placed their faith in it. I am going to put out some of the math as to why his views won't work. Humphreys has an event horizon pass over the earth which supposedly slows earth time down relative to the rest of the universe. (of course then, ironically, Humphreys has to appeal to accelerated radioactivity in order to make the earth catch up in apparent age). Humphreys writes:

"The main point is that according to GR, time effectively stands still at the event horizon." ~ D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, (Great Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p. 28

"The shrinking event horizon reaches earth early on the morning of the fourth day. During this oridinary day as measured on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes take place in the distant cosmos. In particular, gravity has time to make distant clusters of hydrogen and helium atoms more compact." ~ D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, (Great Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p. 37

The problem with this last paragraph is that it contradicts the former. If time stands still, then an infinitude of time passes for the universe while the earth is at the horizon. INdeed, that is exactly what General relativity says. The standard American text of General Relativity today is Misner, THorne and Wheeler, Gravitation(hereafter called MTW). Humphreys doesn't even mention this nearly 1300 page tome. Here is what that book says about going through horizons.

For those who don't like math, I have quotes from relativity books after the math supporting what I am saying.

Relativity shows why the time you observe is not the time I observe. If you fall though a horizon, the time you experience is governed by the equation

tau/2M = -2/3(r/2M)^3/2 + constant

where r is the distance from the center of the black hole, M is the mass of the blackhole. The astute reader will say that you can't divide distance by mass, but in GR one can express mass in terms of distance. The mass of the sun is 1.4 x 10^5 cm (see red pages at back of MTW) Thus, when r = 2M, you think nothing is wrong with the rate time flows (unless you look at the space ship you left behind orbiting the black hole.

The equation which governs what the astronaut (or earth) going through a horizon is:

t/2M =ln((r/2M)^.5 +1)/(r/2m^.5 - 1)) + other terms

The reason I emphasize the term I do is because at r = 2M, the denominator of the above logarithm goes to zero.

(2m/2m)^.5 -1 = 1-1= 0.

The numerator goes to 2 at r=2M. So the term above is

ln (2/0) = infinity!

So, the astronaut or earth going through an event horizon would see the entire history of the universe play out above them. They would see their space ship orbiting faster and faster as they approached the event horizon and it would become a blur (as would everything else at the horizon. Infinite time.

To back this up, here is what MTW say:

"Of all the features of the travfeler's trajectory, one stands out most clearly and disturbingly: to reach the gravitational radius, r=2M, requires a finite lapse of proper time (traveler's experienced time--grm), but an infinite lapse of coordinate time (the time which passes for the rest of the universe--grm)." MTW p. 821

If you look at the earth going through the horizon from outside the horizion, here is what you would see:

"Instead, as the star nears its critical circumference, its shrinkage slows to a crawl. The smaller the star gets, the more slowly it implodes, until it becomes frozen precisely at the critical circumference. No matter how long a time one waits, if one is at rest outside the star (that is, at rest in the static external reference frame), one will never be able to see the star implode through the critical circumference." Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, (New York: Norton, 1994), p. 217-218

The earth going through a horizon would appear to freeze as well if viewed from the rest of the universe. And that is because an observer on the earth is seeing the entire rest of the history of the universe (an infinite time) take place in the short time (he feels) as he falls through the horizon. That consistency means that the earth simply wouldn't make the universe age 14 billion years, but an infinitude of years.

Thorne continues:
"The implostion freezes forever as measured in the static external frame but continues rapidly on past the freezing point as measured in the frame of the star's surface." Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, (New York: Norton, 1994), p. 218

One must realize that the relationship of time away from the earth as the earth goes through a horizon is the same as that between one standing on the surface of an imploding star and the rest of the universe.
Edward R. Harrison writes of a particle going through a horizon:

"If we are measuring its own intervals of time, it reaches the singularity after entering the black hole, in a time equal to the Schwarzchild radius divided by the speed of light. To the distan observer, however, the paricle takes an infinite time to enter the black hole (pass through the horizon--grm)" Edward R. Harrison, Cosmology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 191

It is this relationship of finite proper time and infinite time away from the horizon which is why Humphreys work won't stand. And even Humphreys knows that time stands still at the horizon. He said it above. But time standing still means an infinite time passes everywhere else before the earth would pass through the horizon, not merely 14 billion years. And Humphreys model needs only 14 billion years of aging, not an infinite aging which his mechanism would give.

Glenn, perhaps you didn't realize that this post was placed in Cosmogony, a restricted forum. If you have any questions, please PM me.