From O’Leary: Recently, I promised I’d say a bit about that, and a bit is all I am going to say.
It is much more difficult to explain why you are not something than why you are something.
Usually, a person is not something because of an infinite array of counterfactuals. But what the person is, is factuals, which are often quite easy to explain. (= I know that town because I grew up there. I got a scholarship for the X program, not another one. I moved to the city to find a job. I went to the Billy Graham Crusade. Etc.)
So, a little background: I grew up in communities where most people held contradictory views of the history of life. That is, they believed in Adam and Eve and also in The Caveman.
If this bifurcation seems counterintuitive, consider that a human being can easily espouse contradictory views on the same subject, so long as the views are not a source of conflict in himself or his community, such that he is forced to choose between them. And they weren’t, with us.
In public schools in the 1960s, we memorized passages from the Bible and sang hymns. The mainline denomination my cradle Catholic parents had joined when I was a small child had no problem with Darwinian evolution, even for the origin of life, that I ever heard of. But we still learned about Adam and Eve from Sunday School teachers.
One town in particular was a respectable working class community where intellectuals were rare. One resident was something of a mystery to us because he taught at the university. Who knows, he might have raised a question, but no one else did. Like most Canadians, we believed in “peace, order, and good government”, and simply did not raise issues where the public welfare was not at stake. Putting Adam and Eve to a vote against The Caveman would have seemed an utterly needless contention.
It makes for a much less dynamic society than the U.S., compensated for by a much lower rate of crime and violence.
I only had occasion to become aware of YEC in the 2000’s, while indexing books written by authors of that persuasion for a religious publishing house. Now, an indexer skim reads (to avoid starvation) but I gathered that these authors thought the authority of Scripture as divine revelation was the principle issue at stake. If the first few verses of Genesis were not to be understood literally, the whole edifice would fall apart.
Later, I learned more about YEC. For example, the role of water engineer Henry Morris in creating its theoretical basis after World War II. Indeed, I ended up writing several chapters of By Design or by Chance? on young Earth creationism. These chapters were aimed at people who, like me, were neither foes nor fans, but wanted to know why people they respected were concerned enough to espouse it. At any rate, what was clear to me was that the need for YEC, quite apart from evidence for it, depends on taking a specific view about how Scripture is to be read, a view I didn’t happen to take.
The evidence may be good; I am no judge of that. I use NASA’s dating because it is widely accepted and comprehensible. I can (and have) written a “stasis” chart, listing life forms I have heard about that are unchanged over vast periods of time and through many ecological developments. The chart uses NASA’s dating. But many science-based estimates of Earth’s age have been offered over the decades. And for all I know, NASA will one day announce that Earth is really only 100 million years old or maybe 10 billion, and I must then recalibrate it all, based on what they say afterward.
By now, you may get at least some sense of why ID supporters generally don’t fight among ourselves about the matter. Why bother? We are united by the perception that Darwinism and its offspring are just one of many current melds between science and crackpot metaphysics (one could add multiverses, “evolutionary” psychology, and “the mind is just the brain buzzing” neuroscience to the list). Darwinism happens to be the meld that we, as a community, know the most about.
For example, if you wanted to know more about what’s wrong with “the mind is just the brain buzzing” neuroscience, you would do better to talk to “mindfulness” neuroscientists than us. There is overlap, of course. I myself am co-author of The Spiritual Brain. But they are a whole separate group engaged with that issue.
Incidentally, it certainly doesn’t help Darwinism’s reputation to be infested by atheist trolls who broadcast their anti-religious opinions in foul language, then hypocritically obsess about other people’s religious commitments, generally uglifying public debate.
One can’t help but ask, what kind of “science” attracts such people? A range of reasonable answers to that question is quite short. And it does not make Darwinism sound like a science so much as a metaphysic for trolls.
Of course not everyone who believes in Darwinism is by any means a troll. But if you have condemned yourself to being a troll, please do be a Darwinist. Rant and curse, and try to get books suppressed—and let the rest of us get on trying to understand the true history of evolution in relation to the creation and flow of information, of which Darwin did not dream.
Now, I slowly made my way back to the Catholic Church, and am a Catholic in communion with the Church. Traditional Catholics have a very high view of Scripture, as will be evident to anyone who pays attention at Mass.
But we tend to interpret Scripture on many levels (literal, mystical, allegorical, anagogical, for example, just to start).
The Church takes no official position on the age of Earth. Its position on evolution generally has been grossly misrepresented, whether intentionally or from ignorance or from—I suspect this is most common—the deception of Catholic Darwinist academics. See, for example Douglas Futuyma whose simply wrong comments may well stem from the third cause.
So, yes, a Catholic can be a YEC in good faith, and some are. Most are not. The Catholic approach to Scripture does not drive us in the direction of making a formal decision in such matters.
(Believe you me: When the Church thinks she must make a formal, official decision, via an Encyclical—a letter addressed to all Catholics—she just does, and damn the torpedoes.)
So there it is. That is why I am not a YEC, and also don’t have a problem with people who are.
Thanks for posting. I was raised an Old Earth Darwinist in a Roman Catholic home. My current church affiliation, The Presbyterian Church in America, has no stance on YEC either.
I’m sympathetic but not convinced of YECs truthfulness. I wouldn’t necessarily wager on it in other words.
Not so with ID. That’s a good bet.
The YEC debate on scientific (not theological) grounds has relevance to ID as I discussed here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....yec-to-id/
I would not count the YECs out in terms of how much irritation they will be to the Darwinists in the not too distant future. They’ll continue to assail the geological ages and other sacrosanct ideas, not because of theology, but because there will be, like Michael Denton was for ID, dissent from secular quarters. It should be very entertaining!
Get your popcorn from CostCo and save. – O’Leary 😉
YEC is the only logical alternative to Darwinism. It’s one or the other, as the mechanism of creation is either instantaneously-miraculous or it’s not. OEC is not only illogical but it lacks any sort of evidence that “ID,” whatever that is is capable of turning monkeys into humans, much less bacteria into humans. To me, the soft tissue thing in the t-Rex sealed the deal that the world is probably young. There’s lots of other stuff but to me that isnimpossible for the old-age crowd to explain.
Denyse
The Canadian situation you describe was pretty much identical in Britain in the 60s. The first discussions I remember (other than at home) were at Cambridge University, where Evangelical Christians (as well as the Catholics I knew) held and discussed a range of options from YEC through OEC to TE – ID of course did not exist then.
The odd thing was that though people disagreed, they neither considered it a matter for religious infighting nor for doubting others’ intelligence or honesty.
It’s actually still quite like that here, outside of the media realm – every now and again I have to get out of the blogosphere long enough to realise that ordinary people – especially ordinary Christians – are often just interested to weigh the evidence if you discuss it with them.
It’s a very real problem, and there are more fossils and problems to come.
There are astrophysical observations that will happen in the future. I expect some awesome surprises.
Now with respect to my OEC brethren, I see no reason for YECs to ever be hostile to their OEC brethren. The OECs are the ones taking the brunt of persecution in academia. Many of those in the movie Expelled were not YECs. YECs need to care and support their persecuted brethren even if there is disagreement.
There will be lots of surprises. I’m cautiously optimistic. 🙂
Thanks, Jon. That sounds right, culturally. Everyone knew there was a problem and agreed on what it was. Many Christians here who have no issues around the age of Earth insist that Adam and Eve must have been actual people, principally because no other option feels right to them as an explanation for humanity as we know it. But infighting on that subject or on the age of Earth is rare here too. We all have bigger issues, ones that we can and must settle in real time. – O’Leary
This is an excellent, thoughtful and honest OP. Thank-you very much. The true divide is between those who believe that it all made itself by accident (most, but not all, atheists) and those who believe it was made on purpose. YEC, ID and even TE are all in the latter camp. BioLogos, Ken Miller and even Nick Matzke are all in the same camp as those who believe it was made on purpose. They just have furious rows about the technical details because they are confused about where the true divide lies.
I’m not a YEC, I’m not even a Christian, but like O’Leary, retain an open mind about the age of the Earth. Unlike O’Leary, I’m sceptical about radiometric dating and think YEC scientists offer intriguing and valuable facts and findings about the age of the Earth which we would otherwise not discuss or even know about.
From O’Leary: I don’t have an opinion about radiometric dating. I use NASA’s date system because it is well-organized and widely accepted. My business is communication, so that figures.
I don’t agree that BioLogos, Ken Miller, or Nick Matzke are in the same camp as I am, nor would they. But I would rather report than argue in any event.
Well, NASA’s date system relies on radiometric dating: hence the disagreement.
The acid test for BioLogos, Miller and Matzke: did God plan for mankind? Unless the response is: “God? There is no God!” then Internet Atheists everywhere – those who believe that it all made itself by accident – will turn the flames up to maximum and burn until there is nothing left!
Astronomy is still an obstacle for YEC. Geometric dating can be explained, but stellar light projection verses the expanding universe still leaves me completely agnostic on the age of matter in the universe. I believe that the universe is infinite and part of God’s infinite domain. Time and Space both infinite – so I have no issues with the age of the universe (just the galaxies). Perhaps I suppress a desire to be YEC. I was YEC briefly in the 1980’s (but I was also briefly T.E. near that time (when I was a very liberal Christian) bouncing around a lot in the 80’s). I have never been able to swallow inerrancy (in the sense of verbal plenary inspiration)even as a child – I always saw the imperfections of human languages but I have always believed that God’s Word (logos)is 100% but it is contained in the scriptures (grapha) but not exactly equal to it. I would welcome any links to a scientific case for YEC. I used to read Russell Humpreys and John Baumgardner but the flood model only makes the case for “young human race” and doesn’t demonstrate real limitations on the length of an antediluvian period or earth prior to Adam. Welcome responses.
Breckmin,
Actually I think the radiometric dating problem is the most difficult right now.
The speed of light had been postulated to be faster in the past, and right away that made many YECs leap for joy. This was not from YEC quarters but secular ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....d_of_light
Alternatively, and maybe better there may be an existing mechanism for distant starlight to reach us quickly. One reason, just on evidential (not theological) grounds to suspect this possibility is that the age of the stars far from us seems too similar to the age of stars close to us. This sort of violates the presumption of the invariance of the speed of light in all parts of space, because if light speed were invariant in all parts of space we ought to see stars looking younger if the are far away, they don’t, and this is causing serious indigestion among some astronomers.
Too early to tell what’s going on, but like I said, we could be in for some surprises as we improve our space probes and telescopes.
Professors at one of my alma maters, George Mason, had skepticism of the Big Bang. Lots of things are on the table. I can’t cover them all in the short space of this discussion, and new data could start causing anarchy in cosmology and astronomy in the not too distant future. We’ll see! Should be entertaining!
Interesting autobiography on a personal opinion.
For YEC like me it all starts with fantastic confidence in the bible as true.
Its claiming to be a witness to origins of this and that.
So its a witness in good standing until shown otherwise. Just a credible witness I mean.
Its makes sense to evangelicals that the bible is true front to back.
So correction of it by man (however brilliant ) is still reasonably held in suspicion. In short PROVE the bible is wrong!
YEC therefore takes on any evidence brought against the bible.
Our conclusions come first from scripture but our aggressive opposition comes from intellectual confidence and investigation of our opponents evidence.
They only have the evidence of nature. So if we are right it shouldn’t be too hard to beat them up.
They do try to mess up methodology stuff but ID people screw this up too.
YEC always asks creationists(Not however YEC) things like did GOD creat man/woman so separate as to not be born OR about the flood claim or why God would have a long time existing planet with nothing going on important about peopleETC ETC.
It does seem to us fellow creationists don’t think Genesis got it right!
Man got a lot more right even while getting some wrong.
Who do you trust??
For me personally, scordova, C-14 and geometric dating was always the easiest to explain due to false assumptions regarding uniformity and especially assumptions regarding a denial of a flood (antediluvian carbon rates, as well as assumptions regarding any parent element. Your observation of the theory regarding the age of stars has been made before, but there is still the question of distance of travel regardless of age speculation. I thank you for your response.
@ Robert Byers
We know that the Holy Spirit of God convicts us to the truth of the scriptures… but there is a clear difference between essential content and non-essential detail. Perhaps you do not see the pragmatism of minor human error being part of the process of biblical authority…or how the prophets and apostles keep their authority even if they make a minor mistake on non-essential detail. If I could find doctrinal statements that say “the scriptures are God-Breathed”(theopneustos)rather than “inerrant” I could sign whole-hardheartedly because I almost always agree with the doctrinal points that follow… but for those of us who have studied extensively in the science of textual criticism it seems pointless to deny the minor discrepancies and textual variances we see (not to mention the imperfection of the paleo Hebrew, Aramaic and common (koine)Greek languages. These clearly make the concept of the English word “inerrant” inapplicable from a practical standpoint. We still stand on the authority of the writings of the apostles and prophets…we still take a literal interpretation unless logic (practical wisdom) dictates that we shouldn’t (phemonicalogical,anthropomorphic, idoms, hyperbole, etc).
Most importantly, we submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and funnel all theology and cumulative case arguments to be consistent with His teachings.
Genesis, however, is not written as a meticulous scientific text. There are many many questions we could raise regarding simply dating the age of the earth. I remain agnostic on the age of the earth. If it’s 100,000 years or 20,000 or even a million… it doesn’t underscore or change my theology.
apologize for the phenomenological typo
scordova said, “…radiometric dating problem is the most difficult right now.”
Any YEC responses?
Breckmin@15
I’m a YEC. Even though I suspect there is quite a bit of confirmation bias going on with dating methods, I do suspect that much/most of the radioactive decay surmised as having happened has actually occurred. So, accelerated nuclear decay is fine with me. I know this has a question/problem of what to do with the heat energy from all that decay..but..I consider our universe as wearing down in ways. So, things like VSL [see scordova above] seem as likely appealing/elegant ideas/outcomes. But other cosmic level changes… such as a period of rapid expansion of space coinciding with the accelerated decay. This may very well absorb the energy of that mentioned decay into the fabric of space itself. Perhaps, akin to super critical water suddenly expanding in volume may cool it. Just some thoughts.
Psalm 102:
“24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.
25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:”
– KJV w/ my bold emphasis.
scordova @
What is the evidence for this?
And what about measurements of objects like the supernova of 1987 where we can calculate, by trigonometry, that it occurred over 160,000 years ago regardless of whether the speed of light has changed from its present value? Isn’t that rock-solid disproof of a young-universe scenario?
I tend to agree with CLAVDIVS that there are some non-radiometric observational data that undermine a creation date of 4004BC. Though that might make the universe too old for a strict interpretation of the Bible, the universe could still be too young for neo-darwinism. The moon, for example, gives us good reason to consider that possibility…
That pertained to a special case of decreasing speed-of-light scenarios such as proposed by Barry Setterfield, not something like alternate solutions to General Relativity such as Hartnett-Caremeli-Humphrys. The prevailing cosmological solution to General Relativity is Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) for the big bang, but FLRW is only one of an infinite number of solutions to Einstein’s field equations for General Relativity.
I mentioned John Hartnett here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ce-grants/
who proposed the Hartnett-Carmeli solution to the Einstein Field equations.
But all this is way beyond the scope of Denyse’s OP. It’s worth talking about sometime, but probably not today!
Well said. We have other problems like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....un_paradox
Which means the Earth could be young!
and the scientific journal Nature points out the paradox is unresolved:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....09961.html
And I wrote about problems regarding the geological column:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....al-column/
and see this comment in that thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-456078
What did I say about future developments being entertaining. 🙂
The Bible doesn’t say when the earth was created. That is all “determined” by genealogies.
I guess I would self-identify as an OEC, although I am a Christian.
To me, the facts disagree with YEC logic:
(1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old.
(2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.
scordova @ 19
This is not evidence. You’re the one that claimed evidence – do you actually have any that distant stars do not appear young enough?
scordova, you should know that your response has nothing to do with trigonometric measurements of a “right next door” object in the Large Magellanic Cloud like supernova 1987A. FLRW and Hartnett are talking about the large-scale structure of the universe. And we know from measurements of SN1987A that it occurred at least 160,000 years ago, regardless of whether the speed of light was the same then, or whether it has sped up or slowed down.
It’s not beyond the scope of the OP, which is specifically about YEC. It’s understandable you want to avoid discussion because YEC conflicts with the evidence so badly. But avoidance wont make the problems go away.
Clavdis @ 23
http://www.setterfield.org/000.....supernovas
JGuy @ 24
Sorry, Setterfield’s discussion simply misses my point. I’m not referring to SN1987A as evidence that c has remained unchanged.
Rather, simple trigonometry shows that SN1987A must have exploded at least 160,000 years ago regardless of whether c has changed. The reason is simple:
a. The supernova was observed to explode on 23 Feb 1987.
b. About 8 months later (0.66 years) the light from the explosion was observed to illuminate a ring of dust/gas around the supernova.
c. The angular size of the overall ring was measured to be 1.66 seconds of arc, so the angular size from the centre of the ring to the edge was 1.66/2 = 0.83 seconds of arc.
All this tells us the light from the supernova explosion has travelled along all three sides of a right triangle:
a. The base – from the supernova to the earth.
b. The height – from the supernova to the ring which took 0.66 years
c. The hypotenuse – from the ring to the earth
Now, we have measured the angle between the hypotenuse and the base to be 0.83 seconds of arc, and time taken for light to travel the height of the triangle to be 0.66 years. Therefore, by simple trigonometry the base of the triangle – or the time taken for light to travel from the supernova to the earth – is equal to 0.66/TAN(0.83″) ~ 164,000 years.
What’s even more interesting about this is you can plug any speed of light you choose into this calculation, or even a changing speed of light, and you will find that you cannot make the base of the triangle come out any less than ~160,000 years. This shows that a changing speed of light doesn’t solve the problem of distant starlight for a young-universe scenario.
I urge you to try to calculation yourself – let me know how you go!
Not if we’re talking a Humphrey’s solution to GR, because in their cosmologies, 160,000 may have actually passed. I don’t personally agree with it. Further, the SN1987 wouldn’t matter if light were indeed actively faster today (via spatial variation rather than temporal variation) than a slow down scenario.
I don’t appreciate such smears. I’ve publicly critical of YEC and ID problems. You’re insinuating I’m somehow trying to cover up the problems. I’ve publicly said YEC has serious problems. I don’t appreciate you smears.
The OP is why Denyse is not a YEC. These topics might be explored in due time. I have other discussions of interest to me right now.
Entire galaxies:
Btw, I really don’t appreciate your smears. I reserve the right to cease talking to you. I will talk on these matters later, but terms convenient to me, not you. YEC has serious problems, and I don’t appreciate your smear that I somehow insist otherwise or am trying to somehow avoid pointing them out. I’ve been one of the most vocal at UD in saying YEC has problems.
scordova @ 26
The OP is about YEC. You brought up evidence you said solves YEC’s problem with distant starlight. When I challenged this, you gave an extremely vague response then asserted this was off topic and a subject for another day.
That’s avoiding the subject.
I make no pretence that you are obligated to respond to anything I say – of course you’re not. But by the same token I am not obligated to refrain from pointing out that you avoided the subject, because that’s what you did.
You object to my implication that you avoid pointing out serious problems with YEC. But, again, that’s exactly what you did and I do not apologise for the implication. Have a look at your post 11 and note that nowhere do you point out serious problems with those proposed solutions for distant starlight. You compound this by later referring to Humphrey’s cosmology without mentioning its serious problems either, e.g. that it predicts distant starlight should be blue-shifted, the very opposite of what is observed.
If you have elsewhere pointed out serious problems with these YEC concepts (something I have no knowledge of), then why on earth are you raising those concepts here, in the context of this thread, as though they were credible ideas? That’s exactly the kind of avoidance I was commenting on. Don’t blame me for the own goal.
Sorry if this seems harsh. In light of these remarks, if you still believe I have unfairly smeared you, I am open to discussing it further with you.
Cheers
PS: Thank you for providing the evidence requested in relation to distant stars that appear too old – I will have a look.
Deference isn’t the same as avoidance, and neither is admission and recognition of a problem avoidance. I don’t a appreciate the smear, or at least your wording is inaccurate and insinuates something untrue.
Never said YEC solves problems of distant starlight, YEC has serious problems with distant starlight. Now you’re fabricating stuff about things I never said on top of making smears.
scordova @ 29
Thanks for responding. Help me understand, then: What did you mean by this (@ 11)?
I took it to mean you were suggesting a solution to YEC’s problem with distant starlight. Did you mean something else?
March 8, 2012
I sketched out one of the problems with YEC:
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/.....st30364058
I posted this comment WT Bridgman’s website:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.....4847616795
Speculating. I didn’t claim there was actually a workable solution, which I’m skeptical exists now or even in the near future. The problem is everyone needs empirical verification of ideas using space probes, better telescopes, and some serious astrometry. That’s not happening anytime soon….
One priority is to establish the distance ladder as valid (it may still have problems).
Next, establish Quasars might be closer than their red shift indicates.
If this happens and there is anarchy in cosmology, then maybe people have reasons outside of theology to really clamor for brand new solutions.
One proposed YEC solution is alternate classical electrodynamics:
http://tccsa.tc/articles/lucas_universal_force.pdf
When John Hartnett saw this at the 2008 YEC conference he threw a fit. Danny Faulkner joined in the shouting match while Russell Humphreys watched the spectacle. YEC physicists screaming at each other. Glorious!
Jason Lisle, a physicist, the current head of the ICR said he’s not convinced any YEC has solved the distant starlight problem.
YECs need experiments, testable hypotheses, proposed observations — they need to waste less on building creation museums that don’t scientifically advance their case. I’ll get flak for saying that. I don’t care anymore.
Breckmin.
Evangelical christians would take you on that there is no errors in the bible about anything. Possibly a dumb misprint here and there but maybe not that.
The bible is clear on dates.
Your still saying man knows better then god about origins since you believe the bible was created by God if I understand you.
Your saying this or that is wrong.
It isn’t.
Rejecting genesis is saying the author is wrong or lying.
The author was God .
YEC makes the lost logical sense if one is accepting a creator or a God even more intimate with mankind.
Its about Adam and noah. How one responds to their historical presence divides the species in creationism.
I’m still waiting for Salvador T. Cordova, highly ethical financial planner, to someday convert away from YECism.
Will he do it in public here at UD? Denyse has stepped up to the plate, at my request. Will Salvador eventually do the same?
To his credit, Salvador has come close. He acknowledges serious problems to YECism from knowledge gained in natural sciences. He doesn’t ‘insist on’ being self-labelled as a YEC.
But he likely still has some hesitation due to non-scientific committments. It is common that many YECs simply will not allow themselves the courage to reject the teachings of their local evangelical church. Such folks will not walk up to their local ‘pastor’ and tell him (or her) that they simply don’t know what they are talking about wrt the age of the earth. Such ‘pastors’ are actually promoting scientific illiteracy (and even unnecessary hostility), but their biblical literalism allows this to happen on purpose, as a martyr-like privilege.
BioLogos is trying to heal Christians like Salvador T. Cordova from their ideological YECism. But as an awoved IDist, Salvador likely just isn’t interested in learning post-YECism from BioLogos, who he would claim, just like Denyse and timaeus and others, that they are ‘compromisers’ of ‘classical’ theology, even though IDism is said to be theologically neutral.
“YEC physicists screaming at each other. Glorious!”
Peons.
scordova @ 32
scordova, I accept you have criticised YEC solutions to the starlight problem elsewhere. However, in my view it is irresponsible to sprinkle your comments here with what appear to be solutions to the starlight problem (c-decay @ 11, the Hartnett-Carmeli model @ 19 and the Humphreys model @ 26), without also specifying clearly that you do not believe any of them are workable.
Some who are not knowledgeable about such matters may be misled into thinking that workable solutions exist for the YEC starlight problem is solved; did you consider that?
And if you think these concepts are unworkable, why would you even bring them up in the first place in this context?
One final question: After trying for literally decades to reconcile YEC with physical evidence, at what point would it be reasonable to conclude YEC is just wrong, and further effort pushing the concept would be wasted? Just curious.
Hi Clavdivs,
Humphrey’s model is workable. And as far as I can tell, it is the only one that is so.
What is NOT workable is any model wrt materialism…
Joe @ 36
Please cite which version of Humphreys model you are referring to as workable. Starlight & Time (1994)? New Vistas from CEN Tech J (1998)?
One is an extension of the other.
Joe @ 39
Joe, you have avoided answering my direct request for a citation. Pick one of Humphreys’ models that you think is workable, because one is a contraction (not expansion) of the other and different criticisms apply.
Clavdivs @ 25
It’s not simple trig if the speed of light is continuously decaying over time. I can see how it works if you plug in any particular value for c, but not if you have, for example, an constantly decreasing c.
If a steady decreasing c is the case, then when light was much faster in the past, then it didn’t necessarily take .66 years for the light to reach the ring… it could have done it in, for example, a few seconds.
Here’s why:
Let’s suppose that light was a million times faster at one point and steadily decaying over time. It reaches the ring in time X. Once we see the initial explosion, we have then seen the initial explosion (just re-enforcing the point), how long from then until we see the light from the ring?
Will it take time X or shorter or longer?
Keep in mind, since the time of already seeing the initial explosion, light speed from the ring hasn’t reached you and c would still be decaying.
I don’t know that this solves the overarching problem, but it does show that the time from explosion to ring does not need to be the same.
p.s. With just a little more thought on it, it wouldn’t matter if we saw the initial explosion first or not.
So, it does appear to solve the problem you posed.
JGuy @ 41
Think about your “decreasing c” scenario for a moment.
Let’s assume, just for simplicity, that c was 100 times faster at the time of the supernova explosion. Nevertheless, we know the energy from the explosion still took 0.66 years to light up the ring, because that’s what we actually observed and measured. This means logically that the ring would be 100 times bigger.
But we also know the angular size of the ring in the sky was 1.66 seconds, because that’s what we actually observed and measured. Therefore, if the ring was a 100 times bigger, but still has that small angular size, it must be 100 times further away. This means you have to account for the light travelling 100 times further to the earth at a decreasing speed according to your scenario.
Accordingly, your scenario of decreasing c actually makes the supernova explosion much older than 160,000 years!
Clavdivs@43
Think more about it.
Yes, the 0.67 year lag may have been observed on earth. But revisit comment #41 to see why this would not be the actual lag time if c decreased steadily.
Because 0.66 years should not be used, for the reasons explained, then what you are describing here would not follow.
The only observed measurement that is so far unquestioned here – in the context of hypothetical c decay – is the angular size. And there isn’t a lot you can do with that if c has continuously decreased. Apart from measured c, with only the maybe two values used, it could be the size of a doughnut (perhaps with the teapot orbiting the sun), or the size of a billion galaxies proportionately that much further away.
Clavdivs.
To be clear, when I wrote:
“Yes, the 0.67 year lag may have been observed on earth. But revisit comment #41 to see why this would not be the actual lag time if c decreased steadily.”
It may have been more clear if typed this:
“Yes, the 0.67 year lag may have been observed on earth. But revisit comment #41 to see why this would not be the actual lag time (i.e. the true delta time from the explosion event to the time the event of the light energy illuminated/ionized the ring) if c decreased steadily.“
I am a Bible believer. Only the scripture can interprets scripture. I do not believe 10,000 years or less as the age of the earth. I am for Old Earth Creationism but not on evolution. Both YEC and Evolutionists had created problems in our educational system. I believe SCIENCE is the fulfillment of Daniel 12:4 “Knowledge shall increase at the end time.” God permits SCIENCE for us to clearly understand the Bible and not to refute His WORD. Here is what we believe about GENESIS 1;
THE AGE OF THE EARTH
The reason why SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE is because of unreconciled age of the Earth. The theologians say, it is only about twelve thousand years old. The geophysicists, the geochemists and the archaeologists
conclude with scientific facts that the Earth is about 4.5 plus/minus 0.05% billion years old.
There are some indicators in the Bible that could lead us to believe that the earth is not just thousands of years of age but even billions of years as the geophysicists believe. Prayerfully, consider the following:
Ezekiel 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz and diamonds, beryl, onyx and jasper, sapphire, carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your setting and your engravings on the day you were created they were prepared.” V14 “You were anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God, …” (The guardian cherub mentioned was Lucifer, Isa14:12, that became Satan.)
Take note: The first Eden, the garden of God was covered with stones while the garden of Eden during Adam and Eve was covered with trees, plants and vegetations.
As claimed by the scientists, we could believe that there was such a period called STONE AGE about 3.4 million years ago. Archaeologists have discovered thousands of fossils, evidences that there was life during this period. In their ancient groups of fossils were listed the dinosaurs, trilobites and fossils of humanoids dating about one to six million years of age. Some of these fossils can be found in the Smithsonian Institute.
There were even hundreds of fossils of dinosaurs found in the act of mortal combat; two were found somewhat (frozen) on the act of biting each other before they suddenly died.
The fighting of animals can be pointed to Satan. Ezekiel 28:16 says “In the abundance of your trade you were filled with VIOLENCE in your midst…” The violence created by Satan could have prompted God to cleanse the earth.
Apostle Peter had a revelation, that the earth had undergone cleansings; thru ice, water and will undergo cleansing by fire. Read 2 Peter 3:1-7 and pray for its revelation.
Genesis 1:2 “The earth was without form and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the FACE OF THE WATER.” It means that the land was fully covered with (solid) WATER. This was the condition of the earth before it was formed again. The earth was covered with ice- hence science claimed there was an ice age.
2Peter 3:5b “…and the earth was formed out of water and through water by word of God.” How?
Genesis1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” The light was restored! When light is generated it compasses HEAT. The heat melts the ice.
Genesis1:6 “..and let it separate the waters from the waters.” The liquid water because of heat melted away from the solid water. Genesis1:10 “And God said, ‘Let the water under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the DRY LAND APPEAR.” “And it was so.”
I believe as others do that there is a big gap between Genesis1:1 and Genesis1:2. In Genesis 1:1, God created the universe, the galaxies, the stars, planets, and then placed life on earth during the STONE AGE. The first cleansing of the earth resulted to ICE AGE . Then, Genesis1:2 happened- the formation of earth and the creation of a new life on earth for human and animals and trees to live again. In Genesis 1:28 God said to Adam and Eve “Be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth…” The word replenish means to fill up again. This means that there was life before (that’s the stone age) and another life will fill the earth again (the present age).
Science claims that humans and the neanderthals have about 99.5% identical DNA. Please also note that the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an erect mammal before he was cursed by God to be like snake that crawl on its belly. If you read closely, the serpent crawled only after the curse Gen. 3:14. What was the act of deception- not eating literal fruit but sexual intercourse with Eve that produced Cain and Abel became his twin after Adam had sex also with Eve. Note in the scriptures the word eat in Prov. 30:20 refers to adultery. In 1John3:12, it says “CAIN is of the evil one,” he was sired by the SERPENT. The Serpent is the missing link. After 7 generations, the descendants of Cain and Seth intermingled producing fleshly people, it is because the Spirit of God ceased to abide with man, Genesis 6:3.
For further clarity about this revelation, please go to You Tube and look for the “Original Sin” by Richard Gan from Singapore.
You just have uncovered two of the mysteries in the bible and hope that this solidifies your stand that the bible is true scientifically.
JGuy @ 44
Thanks for the response. I understand your point about arrival time of light beams at the earth not necessarily being the same as the “true delta” at the supernova. Fortunately the calculations are relatively simple to show how this does not rescue the YEC concept.
I grant you they’re not simple trigonometry; rather, they’re the simple equations of motion.
Here’s what we know from direct observation:
– Light from the explosion travelled to the earth covering a distance of d1 with a travel time of T1.
– Light travelled a longer distance d2 from the explosion to the ring, then to the earth, with a travel time of T2 which equals T1 + 0.66 years.
– The angular size of the ring is 1.66″
– The speed of the light when it reached the earth = 1c.
At this point we don’t assume we know the starting speed of light, the distances d1 or d2 or the travel times T1 or T2. Okay?
Now, let’s assume your scenario that the velocity of light has decreased from, say, v1 = 100c when the supernova exploded down to v2 = 1c when the light beams arrived at earth i.e. light has had negative acceleration a which applies to all light beams throughout the scenario.
Note: In all the calcs below time is in years, velocity is in light-years-per-year and acceleration in light-years-per-year-per-year.
The formula for acceleration is:
a = (v2 - v1) / TWhere T is the travel time. We know v1 = 100c and v2 = 1c but we don’t know either T1 or T2, so we can’t calculate a. Nevertheless we can reduce (1) as follows:
a = (v2 - v1) / T: a = (1 - 100) / T: a = (-99/T) ...... (1)The formula for distance travelled d is:
d = v1 x T + 1/2 a x T^2So now we go to work on d1:
d1 = v1 x T1 + 1/2 a x T1^2d1 = 100 x T1 + 1/2 a x T1^2 ...... {v1=100c}d1 = 100 x T1 + 1/2 (-99/T1) x T1^2 ...... {a=(-99/T) from (1)}d1 = 100 x T1 - 49.5 / T1 x T1^2d1 = 100 x T1 - 49.5 x T1d1 = 55.5 x T1 ...... (2)Now for d2:
d2 = 55.5 x T2 ...... {same calc as (2) only using T2}d2 = 55.5 x (T1 + 0.66) ...... {T2=T1+0.66}d2 = 55.5 x T1 + (55.5 x 0.66) ...... {expansion}d2 = 55.5 x T1 + 36.6 ...... (3)And now the “tadah” moment:
d1 = 55.5 x T1 ...... {from (2)}d2 = 55.5 x T1 + 36.6 ...... {from (3)}
:: d2 = d1 + 36.6
Therefore, assuming light decelerated from 100c to 1c as per your scenario, we can prove the light beam that went via the ring, and arrived at earth 0.66 years later, travelled an extra 36.6 light years — in other words, the radius of the ring in our scenario is 36.6 light years.
Now, an object 36.6 light years in size with an angular size of 0.83″ must be 36.6/TAN(0.83″) = 9,095,532 light years away. So now we know the distance we’re finally in a position to calculate the time travel time T1:
d1 = 55.5 x T1 ......{from (2)}9,095,532 = 55.5 x T1 ...... {substitute the distance}T1 = 9,095,532 / 55.5T1 = 163883 yearsWhat a wonder, we’re back where we started! Needless to say this is no help to the YEC position at all.
Try it yourself – you can plug in any starting value for the speed of light that you like!
Cheers
JGuy – D’oh! I made a mistake in the calcs. Fiddling around with CODE tags was distracting. Fortunately it doesn’t affect the overall result.
Where I calculated d1 = 55.5 x T1, it should actually be 50.5 x T1. Everywhere therafter where you see 55.5 it should be 50.5.
This would make the radius of the circumstellar ring 33.3 light years. Therefore the final distance d1 should be 33.3/TAN(0.83″) = 8,282,899 light years, and the light travel time T1 should be 164,017 years.
Clavdivs @ 46
Thanks. The math was compelling. And I can’t see where/if it is wrong yet. And…
…you almost had me leaning more towards Humphreys cosmology.
But I ran across one, somewhat obvious, problem in the end result. Though I can’t see yet how it is coming into the math.
The anti-tadah moment:
We agree that the speed of light (c) would always be universally the same, regardless of whether it was 100c or any multiple of c decreasing to present c. In the above calculation, you determine that the ring is 36.6LY large (that is a distance measured as the present time c/year). And since the leading light and lagging light will always be at the same speeds, the distance between them will always remain constant. That is, the distance is constant regardless of changes in c. The packets of light from the explosion will always be 36.6LY distance ahead of the packets of light from the ring. Therefore, when the explosion occurred, the light from the ring would not arrived to earth until at earliest the year 2023 (i.e. 36.6 years or later). Since the ring light arrived 0.67 years later, then this math has a fundamental problem. Granted, I don’t see where it is yet. It’s late, so maybe I’ll look closer tomorrow.
CLAVDIVS:
Both are wokable- choose either one you want. However it is a given that you will never support materialism- it doesn’t even have a model…
There must be a reason why we can read two different Garden of Eden in the Bible, one was covered with stones (Ezek 28:13) and the other one was covered with trees, plants, and vegetations (during Adam and Eve)
In Genesis1:1, we read the word “create” , in 2Peter3:5b we read the word “form,” -“the earth was formed out of water and through water.” Here, Apostle Paul was talking about the cleansing of the earth, the last would be fire, but if you will study it closely, the first was by “ice”
In Ezek 28:, it tells that the “annointed guardian cherub” was filled with violence”(Science were puzzled why became instinct so suddenly. Archaeologists even found fossils of dinosaurs in mortal combat, two were in the act biting each other before they died suddenly.) This could be the reason why the earth then was cleansed by ice- resulted to Ice Age, as science said there is.
Genesis1:2 was the form of the earth during the ice.
Genesis1:3, God restored the light (when there is light, “heat” heat is being generated) The heat being generated started to melt the “ice”, hence Genesis 1:6 “let it separate the waters from the (solid) waters.”Genesis1:9 “…….and let the dry land appear.” God restored the 24/7 day night in Genesis1:14., the purpose? to restore the water cycle and have the correct atmosphere for life to exist again. In Genesis 1:28 (KJV) Adam and Eve were instructed by God “Be fruitful and multiply and REPLENISH the earth.(It means there was life before and were been wiped out.
Yes the earth is old. I believe Science is the fulfillment of Daniel12:4 “knowledge shall increase at the end time”. God permit Science to help us know the remaining mystery of the Bible and not to refute the WORD.
Romans 3:4 “God forbid! Let God be true and man are liar”
Have you ever study more deeply the sin committed in the
Garden of Eden. That, the SERPENT that deceived Eve was an upright creture, the only beast that could talk and communicate with Adam? And, that, he started to crawl like a snake after he was cursed by God!
Why was the female sexual organ cursed by God that her SORROW and. CONCEPTION were greatly multiplied?(Genesis 3:16) Have you ever wondered why the sexual organ was covered (Genesis3:11)and cursed rather than the mouth if it was indeed the mouth which was involved in the act of sin? To “eat” in Proverb 30:20 means sexual intercourse. There was a serpent seed. The SERPENT is the missing link, to explain why humans and primates have almost Identical DNA. Not the primate to evolve to become human.
2Corinthians12:1-3 “I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me. For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to ONE HUSBAND, to present you as a CHASTE VIRGIN to Christ. But I am afraid that as the SERPENT deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
Eve was an adulter. She conceived and give birth to Cain, the serpent seed , 1John3:13 “..who was of the evil one.”
Earth to CLAVDIVS:
Joe said:
One is an extension of the other.
JGuy @ 48
Sorry, lost a post last night with some more math.
Regarding the “obvious problem” I think you may have neglected that the lagging light is travelling sideways relative to the earth for the initial part of its journey, giving the leading light a small head start.
I’m also not sure why you think the lagging light will be 33.3 years behind (correcting for my math error). This would only be true on the assumption the speed of light has been constantly 1c the whole time, wheras we’ve assumed it starts off at 100c and decelerates to 1c, as per your suggested scenario.
Without doing all that math again, surely it is obvious that if you propose light was faster in the past, that must make the circumstellar ring around SN1987A much bigger. The reason is that its angular size and the time taken to traverse the ring were observed and measured, so the only variables that can change are the size of the ring, and thus its distance from the earth so we can hold the angular size constant.
And I don’t believe your idea works that the time delta to traverse the ring at the supernova might be different from the time delta measured at the earth. This is because we have assumed light speed = 100c at the time of the explosion, so if you think it took more or less time to traverse the ring than 0.66 years what you’re really saying is the ring must be either larger or smaller, which yet again means the ring must be further away/closer to the earth to keep the angular size the same. Even if you’re correct about the time delta this doesn’t solve the age problem for YEC.
All this of course is neglecting huge amounts of other evidence that light speed has remained constant at 1c for at least millions of years on both theoretical and evidential grounds. For example, if light was faster in the past we would see a “slow motion” effect where periodic phenomena like galactic rotation would appear to be slower at greater distances; such an effect is not observed.
If I can work up the courage I may tackle the maths again to address your concerns, but note the discrepancy you’ve pointed out is 30-odd years over 160,000-odd years or < 0.01%.
Cheers
Clavdivs @ 51
That it was traveling sideways makes no resolution to the problem. I hope you realize that. Afterall, this is WHY the light lags. This is WHERE the light then traveled for 0.67 years at super-light-speeds.
I didn’t neglect it per se, I simply disregarded it because it was trivial. The “little bit” of a lead, the radius of the ring as you calculated, was 36.6 light years of distance! Also, recall you calculated it’s distance as ~9 million light years away from earth… that’s why the ring needed to be 36LY large (or vice versa).
In the model, the light actually did travel for 0.67 years to the ring. But the distance it covered was 36LY (as you calculated). It would lag the leading light by approximately that much always.
I realize you started with the assumption that the T1 & T2 differed by 0.67 years. And this is why the math and conclusion are paradoxical.
Anywa, revisit my post #41 to understand why for light to reach the ring in 0.67 years, will not translate to 0.67 years on earth.
…
Clavdivs,
I think I know now why the math didn’t work. When you treated the light paths separately, they ended up being treated as constant velocity problems (e.g. as if the light were all moving at a constant 50.5c), for the duration.
I suspect the math required would be more complex than this. It might require calculus to model it. Maybe, not, I am not thinking to hard about it right now.
Clavdivs,
Maybe no calculus is needed after all.
Assumng 100c at the start. Seems at a cursory view that if SN1987 were only then about 1679 LY away, then it would work. The ring would have to be much smaller of course (do the trig to figure it out). This would account for the 0.67 years observed on earth.
Almost any distance should work. You’d simply have to resolve for an initial velocity and decay curve that makes a working solution.
Problem Solved.
Why make it complicated?
At the explosion the first light ray started its journey direct to us and at the same moment an other light ray took the way perpendicular out to the ring (with the radius R). When that second ray reached the ring it went on directed to us.
From that moment to the end of the journey the second ray always was the distance R behind the first ray.
Forget about the times and velocities and only look at the distance R.
The two rays started at the same moment and moved along with the same velocity. That velocity could have been todays value of c or may have been slowing down from same very high value.
The first ray reached us in year 1987 and the second ray reach us 0.66 years later.
In year 1987 the velocity was c as today and R could be calculated to 0.66 ly.
Note that a ly is the distance a light ray reaches with todays value of c.
With the value R the distance to SN1987 could be calculated to 168000 ly.
That does not mean that the explosion took place 168000 years ago. It could have happened much later if the value of c have been higher.
The conclusion is that this observation of SN1987A tells nothing about the velocities or times involved and it can not be used to show anything about the value of c in older days.
This is for any YEC.
I’ve forgotten the rebuttal for naturally occurring Uranium particularly U-238 and the alleged half-life of 4.468 billion years. I have a brief memory of how it is fielded so to speak but always looking for more clarity in the argument.
Robert Byers @33
I don’t want to derail this thread any more that I already have on the complexity of biblical inerracy. You say that evangelical Christians would “take me on” regarding errors in the scriptures…I believe this is where the church needs intellectual reformation (in this information age) so point the way (where I can expose identifiable errors we see in textual criticism) and I would be happy to look at the actual textual evidence for these identifiable errors in the fragments/copies we have currently. I doubt even Dan Wallace holds to a verbal inspiration of the Autographa and I’m not certain how any practical textual critic could.
I’m not certain what you mean by “the Bible is always clear on dates.” Genealogies can have generational gaps (grand father or even great grand father. We are not even certain when Jesus was born (7 BC? 4 BC? 3 BC?) and there is much debate regarding when specific prophets wrote specific books.
“The Author was God.”
In a sense yes (divine ordination + God-Breathed)in a practical sense – we can not be so over simplistic as to deny what prophetic or apostolic authorship actually means. We must make a distinction between grapha (scripture) and logos (the Word). To fail to make this distinction is extremely over simplistic and really less than 500 years old.
I believe in Adam and Noah and agree with their approximate dates (although I am not certain how long Adam lived in the garden before he ate the fruit or whether he aged or his years were even counted/included in the 930 years. The O.T. is rarely hyper technically specific on details.
But back to the first point, please point me to a forum where evangelicals you know “take you on” on regarding identifiable errors in the ancient manuscripts. The truth of the uniformity in manuscript errors (on minor non essential details) should not be hidden.
I told my son the other day that the earth is probably somewhere between 6,000 and a few million but that I am completely agnostic on the age of the earth. I doubt 4 or 5 billion… but whatever the age it really doesn’t change my theology or my scientific investigations.
It is sort of like eschatology and whether there is going to be a Millennium or not. It doesn’t seem that important.
Awww, Breckmin… Don’t do that to your son!
Let him know that our best science gives an age of 4.54 billion years, plus or minus less than a percent.
keiths @ 62
He’s 23 (been to nuke school in the Navy)and has taken biology in College… so he’s aware of the alleged 4.54 billion claim. Far be it for me to end up on a red herring defending YEC here (my son would probably ask a similar question, btw) – but what do you think of the idea that the “best science” would not be one that would assume uniformity over the last 10,000 years…let alone millions of years (or even 4 billion years)…Why do you think the best science makes these assumption regarding the radioactive decay of isotopes … and how is this not in any way a bias?
@CLAVDIVS and @JGuy
I only skimmed your discussion (I was lazy) but do any of your calculations for distance regarding these two light rays include an expanding universe over the course of these light years traveled? (or do they not need to take this into consideration because of the angle or how the ring is being used?)
I’ve always thought that a much denser galaxy would throw everything off (regardless if the speed of light was a hundred times faster).
Breckmin,
It isn’t an assumption. There is solid evidence that the rates are (and have been) constant or very nearly constant. If there has been any variation at all, it’s far too small to support YEC.
@64 If the galaxy is expanding by both the movement of stars as well as the metric expansion of space (which means the solar system/earth is either moving toward or away from the SN) then something tells me that a simple right triangle to compute the number of ly(s)is too simplistic. (a red flag should be up). Not withstanding the mind wandering about all sorts of anisotropy (does aether wind even exist and can it affect such light? what about other anisotropy possibilities in space?) I agree with Lars-Erik Molin’s last sentence in post 58 but I disagree with the first part of 58 and suspect that it is even far more complicated then we are aware of.
keiths @ 64
What specifically is this solid evidence that “the rates are (and have been) constant or very nearly constant?”
Breckmin @ 64
1. The calculations I made on this thread were about JGuy’s “changing light speed” idea (for which there is no evidence), simply to show it does not make any difference to age of supernova 1987A. As such those calculations do not account for an expanding universe.
2. Are you are suggesting maybe the supernova started off close to earth, and via the universe’s expansion is now far away, and thus light from the explosion didn’t have to travel so far and therefore the light travel time fits within the YEC timeframe? If so, this doesn’t work for a number of reasons, such as red-shift – if the supernova was moving away from us at high speed the light would appear red-shifted, but it is not.
3. Astronomers have made very detailed measurements of the universe’s expansion, and the effect is negligible for a relatively “right next door” object like SN1987A. Expansion only comes into calculations for things tens of millions of light years away or more.
In simple terms, the expansion of the universe doesn’t solve the starlight problem for YECs.
Breckmin @ 66
Breckmin, the red flag is always up for astronomers. They are constantly looking for ways to test the speed of light and the expansion of space at different distances and times. The literature is full of such stuff. And what we’ve found is that c and the rate of expansion are such that they do not affect the calculation of how long ago SN1987A occurred.
Perhaps you don’t realise it, but if the speed of light or the rate of expansion had changed on the timescales proposed by YECs, we would be able to see it through measurements of periodic phenomena (like galactic spin) and red-shift. But we don’t see it. Instead, we see that the speed of light has remained fairly constant for billions of years (perhaps slightly different way back near the big bang billions of years ago, but we’re not sure) and we see the rate of expansion only noticeably affects calculations at distances of tens of millions of light years.
Breckmin,
Google is your friend.
Here’s a start.
Breckmin @ 67
1. The Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor discovered in 1972, that underwent fission about 1.8 billion years ago. According to creationist physicist Eugene Chaffin “…the Oklo data do provide a constraint on the difference in the half-life at the time of the Oklo reactions and the present. Half-life differences of more than one order of magnitude would seem to be ruled out…” (Actually, half-life differences of more than a couple of percent are ruled out)
2. Observations of radioactive decay in supernova remnants like (yes) SN1987A, SN1991T and many others, hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of light years away show no significant change in radioactive decay rates over huge timescales.
3. If radioactive decay occurred fast enough to fit a YEC timescale, the earth would have been toasted by the massive heat generated. This problem was acknowledged by the creationist RATE study group who had no solution other than miracles.
4. The structure and lifecycle of stars is based on physical parameters related to radioactive decay. If radioactive decay rates were different, stars would form and appear differently. Accordingly, stars further away, and hence older, would appear to have a different structure. But they don’t.
5. Ages measured by radioactive decay line up with ages of objects of a known age and with many other periodic phenomena that allow age calculations such as tree rings, ice layers and sedimentary layers. Some ice layers and sediment layers show rhythmic variations that line up independently with astrophysical phenomena like the earth’s obliquity (axial tilt ~40,000 year cycle) and equinoctal precession (~26,000 year cycle) allowing us to confirm that each layer actually represents a true year (orbit of the earth around the sun).
All these multiple independent lines of evidence allow us to conclude that radioactive decay rates have remained constant for at least several hundred thousand years, and that ages determined using such methods are reliable within that timeframe, and thus YEC is not correct.
Breckmin @66
What in the first part of @58 is problematic?
Do you mean that the speed of light could have had different value for different locations at a given time?
The difference in location was R (or max 1,41*R) at any given time point during the journey of the two light beams. I suppose we all agree on that R is 0.66 ly. That means that the difference in location is cosmic very small and I also do not know of any theory that postulates different speed of light for different locations.
Clavdivs @ 71
Are you aware of that Setterfields theory says that a number of ‘constants’ are depending on the strenght of the Zero Point Energy?
It explains that although the radioactive decay rate was higher the radiation intensity remained invariable and that the earth was not toasted. If the RATE group had read these papers they would have no need for a miracle…
The theory has developed a lot since the eighties and there have been a lot of critics of the earlier versions. I have not seen much of critics of the actual version.
Lars-Erik Molin @ 73
In July 2013 answersingenesis.com acknowledged that:
In reality, any model that proposes changing rates of light speed or radioactive decay can be checked against actual observations. And unfortunately for Setterfields model, it entails that certain observations should be made – e.g. a slow-motion effect for galactic rotation at greater distances – which are not in fact observed. This is the “controversy” alluded to by answersingenesis.com that is not likely to be resolved any time soon – namely, Setterfield’s model has already been falsified by the data and appears to be beyond hope of rescue.
On this very thread scordova stated @ 32:
Very true.
Clavdivs @ 74
<blockquote cite="
And unfortunately for Setterfields model, it entails that certain observations should be made – e.g. a slow-motion effect for galactic rotation at greater distances – which are not in fact observed. This is the “controversy” alluded to by answersingenesis.com that is not likely to be resolved any time soon – namely, Setterfield’s model has already been falsified by the data and appears to be beyond hope of rescue.
Interesting. Have you any links about it? Can you be more specific about the slow-motion and what data you mean that falsificates Setterfield?
That Jason Lisle does not support Setterfield is well known. Before he went to ICR he worked for Answeringenesis and he has with his own ASC-theory made an attempt to solve the starlight problem.
Lars-Erik Molin @ 75
Hi Lars-Erik: To create a quote just use tags like this – don’t bother with the cite thing, and change the curly brackets to angle brackets:
{blockquote}Here is the quote{/blockquote}
Regarding the slow-motion effect, the following is from creationist Walt Brown’s book In The Beginning:
Bottom line: Even leading YECs think Setterfield’s idea doesn’t work. And it really doesn’t. The slow-motion effect is one reason; SN1987A is another. And yet this already-falsified-by-the-data concept keeps popping up. There must be some people out there who simply do not give two hoots about handling facts and evidence with care and respect for the truth.
Clavdivs @ 74
How about to combine them?
If the speed of light was higher at the time for the explosion the observation of SN1987A in year 1987 would actually be seen in slow-motion. If the ray from the center to the ring had been visible between the center and the ring we should have seen it moving with todays speed of light independent of the value of c when it actually happened.
Have you any comment to my @58?
Lars-Erik Molin @ 77
Sorry Lars-Erik I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
If you want to propose a specific speed of light that you think applied at the time of the explosion, then I will do a calculation to see if that changes things. You will find it doesn’t.
You should also note that decay time of the various radioactive elements produced by the explosion was carefully measured. Due to the slow-motion effect, as described by Walt Brown, we would expect this radioactive decay to appear much slower than the same elements decaying now on earth. However, the decay occurred at the same apparent rate in the supernova remnants as it does now on earth.
Since we know radioactive decay could not have occurred at much faster rates in the past than it does now (otherwise all life on earth would have been cooked) then we have rock-solid evidence that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the time of the SN1987A explosion, because of the absence of any slow-motion effect.
Test (can’t comment on another thread – just wondering …)
Clavdivs @ 78
In Setterfields theory c is just one of more ‘constants’ that is affected of the increase (or variation) of the Zero Point Energy. It is rather complicated and there are a lot of documents to read at his site setterfield.org. There is a document Research Papers/’Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants’ that describes this.
Setterfield discuss these things in the document Research Papers/Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants/Appendix 2: Radiant Energy Emission
In (i). Energy density of radiation he describes why the radiation intensities remain unchanged for a varying ZPE.
In (iv). Supernova 1987 A he describes how the shorter half-life and shorter transit times are lengthened by the slow-down in c so they appear to run at the same rate as these events do today.
There is also some questions answered under ‘Discussion’ about these things.
before I respond to CLAVDIS, keiths and Lars-Erik Molin I wanted to ask if any of you accept T.E? (theistic evolution)
Lars-Erik Molin @58 my response was in regards to your question “Why make it complicated?”
I think it clearly IS far more complicated than ANY of our assumptions and that is why I believe it is unknowable.
I am currently neither YEC nor OEC…I am actually what I like to call AAOTEC (agnostical age of the earth creationist – and this goes back to the 80’s where I used to use the adjective “agnostical” and many people would try to tell me it wasn’t a word and I would always argue that it “would be” someday..and finally, in the 21 Century, (thanks to the internet) it is an acceptable adj.)
There are many things that bother me about the link @70 and the post @71 that I can not be blind to (assumptions).
I was hoping that someone who is YEC would respond to them
so that I don’t have to play the devil’s advocate here and argue in defense of YEC. But something isn’t right here regarding the over confidence and denial of basic assumptions.. so before I go through these I would like to know if either CLAVDIS, keiths or Lars-Erik Molin are sympathetic to T.E.?
I backed up and erased the “V” and then C&P ed it later at the end..
so I know it’s CLAVDIVS sorry..
Breckmin @ 81
No, I don’t. I think it adds more problems than it solve.
The first assumptions I did was that the speed of light at any given moment was the same at different locations. In this case those locations was cosmological pretty near each other (less than one lightyear) so in here it is of no interest what happens with that assumption at the opposite ends of the universe, if that makes it easier to accept.
One light year is the distance light goes with today’s value of c, no matter if it earlier was different.
The second assumption was that the speed of light was known for year 1987 during the period from when the explosion was seen to the illumination of the ring was seen.
What about the assumption that nothing can affect light while traveling across the galaxy (aether wind, gravitational fields, etc)? What about the assumption that c remains a constant throughout the entire ly? I’m not saying that it’s not (since it travels in waves I expect it to be constant (and for other reasons), BUT testing it in our solar system by sending it to the moon and back (and other tests we have made) is not the same thing as observing it in open space for a whole light year) What about the assumption regarding a moving right triangle (movement of planets/stars plus the metric expansion of space therefore the continual change of starting/ending points with respect to their location in the galaxy) won’t possibly offset the expected distances traveled? I make no assertion here because I am not YEC.. I’m just asking questions off the top of my head…maybe there is something simple that I am overlooking regarding this right triangle.