Old Earth vs Young Earth Noah's Ark

[celticfisherman]

I misread light and read "time" Time is not a constant. I am challenging the assumption on light being a constant. It is a cardinal assumption in cosmology that I find uncessisary and allows free thinkers to think outside of the box.

Do what? The speed of light if I am not mistaken is a law of physics. Speed equals time.

 

[celticfisherman]

It misses the point. Just as a ressurection is supernatural, so is creation. It is GOd's sovereign perogative to do what he wishes with natural law.

Then why does he write so often that the laws are constant?

You are saying there is no other way than for God to work outside of what HE established. Then why establish it that way?

 

[celticfisherman]

God bless you, I never had the gout.

WOW... You don't want to go there!!! Man can it hurt. I've broken bones that didn't hurt as bad as gout. Fortunately this is just a very mild bout. Been hangin on for 3 days and is finally going away.

 

[fivesolas]

Then why does he write so often that the laws are constant?

You are saying there is no other way than for God to work outside of what HE established. Then why establish it that way?

We are flying past each other here. There is obviously natural law. I am not speaking here of the Law of God, moral law, et.

I am speaking of natural law, i.e. gravity. At God's own sovereign will, because He is God, He is not bound by the natural laws He created. The natural law of gravity and the natural properties of water do not allow observed science to conclude that an adult male may walk on it.

But the Son of God, being God, may do so.

 

[celticfisherman]

We are flying past each other here. There is obviously natural law. I am not speaking here of the Law of God, moral law, et.

I am speaking of natural law, i.e. gravity. At God's own sovereign will, because He is God, He is not bound by the natural laws He created. The natural law of gravity and the natural properties of water do not allow observed science to conclude that an adult male may walk on it.

But the Son of God, being God, may do so.

We aren't flying by each other. You are making an assertion that God would not do all of this (the world and creation) in a manner that would not be visible thru the laws he set up. Gravity and Light and the laws of physics and science.

 

[fivesolas]

We aren't flying by each other. You are making an assertion that God would not do all of this (the world and creation) in a manner that would not be visible thru the laws he set up. Gravity and Light and the laws of physics and science.

I am saying God created supernaturally, ex-nihlio, and not naturally. That is the testimony of Scripture.

 

[celticfisherman]

I am saying God created supernaturally, ex-nihlio, and not naturally. That is the testimony of Scripture.

Again it is only the testimony of the scripture if you ignore the other four uses of the hebrew words. Which are literal translations which line up with the ENTIRE Bible. Again we can go back to Genesis and look at it.

Adam named all the creatures of the earth, acknowledged he was lonely and needed a help mate, underwent surgery, and woke up and saw Eve and said (again phonetically because I never took Hebrew...) "Oppa Ohm" which means At Long Last. All in the same day he was created. He would have to be super human and we know he was just like us. And why would he be lonely in a day??? That is the very definition of time passing.

 

[celticfisherman]

An explanation of the Biblical Big Bang Cosmology:

by Jeff Zweerink, Ph.D., Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Big bang opponents are a diverse lot. Some promote an infinitely (or near infinitely) old universe to avoid a creation event in the relatively recent (roughly 14-billion-year) past. So, they argue that the universe is static or semi-static-no general cosmic expansion. Others promote a very young creation (6,000-10,000 years old) to fit a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. They need the expansion to occur much more rapidly than a few billion years. Nestled in between is the established scientific-and biblical-model saying that expansion has occurred continuously over the past 13.7 billion years.

Recent measurements of Type Ia supernova eruptions, however, rule out all options except those fitting the latter model.1 To understand how, a little background is useful. Atoms of a given element absorb or emit light at unique wavelengths, so the spectrum of a particular element will show lines of specific colors instead of a rainbow of colors. When astronomers look at distant galaxies, the spectral lines from atoms in those galaxies are redshifted, or "pulled," toward the red end of the radiation spectrum.

The simplest way to explain the redshift is to say that the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is continuously expanding, the more distant galaxies will manifest a greater redshift-which is precisely what is measured. Through the years, some astronomers who dislike the implications of cosmic expansion have proposed other explanations for redshifts and their relation to distance.

Two static-universe alternatives are the "tired light"2 and "varying mass"3 models. The former model says that as light propagates through space it loses energy, and this loss increases its wavelength. The "varying mass" model says atomic masses increase as the universe ages. Light from more distant objects was emitted when the universe was younger and, therefore, the masses of the atoms were smaller. Smaller atomic masses mean longer wavelengths. Both of these models were developed solely to explain the redshift/distance relationship without appealing to continuous cosmic expansion from a creation event about 14 billion years ago-not because astronomers actually predicted light to lose energy in transit or atomic masses to change.

The most widely accepted young-universe model acknowledges that while the universe exhibits billions of years of development,4 due to a (hypothesized) gravitational time dilation effect, only a few thousand years have elapsed on Earth. In other words, the rates of all distant phenomena occur thousands to millions of times faster when measured from Earth. Big bang models, however, predict the opposite-that velocity time dilation effects will make very distant phenomena appear to proceed more slowly (by a few tens of percent).

Recently, a team of American astronomers developed and applied a robust new method for testing and distinguishing among the different models.5 The test involves multiple spectral measurements of Type Ia supernovae eruptions-events that last about 7 months in the absence of time dilation effects. The team looked at how the different spectral line intensities change over the supernova eruption phase and thus determined how far into the 7-month period the eruption has progressed. The time dilation factor is determined by dividing the time between observations by the change in time progressed into the eruption. Say an astronomer made two spectral observations 20 days apart and determined the time progressed into the eruption was 10 days and 26 days, respectively. The time dilation factor would be 20/(26-10) = 1.25. For static or semi-static universes, the time dilation factor will be 1. For a young universe, the time dilation factor will be near zero. For a big bang universe, the time dilation factor will be one plus the redshift of the object.

So far, the method has been accurately applied to one distant supernova, 1997ex. The results were perfectly consistent with continuous cosmic expansion from a cosmic creation event roughly 14 billion years ago. At the same time, they definitively falsified both the nonexpanding universe models and the young-universe models. As with previous tests based on a variety of methods,5 the biblically anticipated cosmic creation model has been vindicated with flying colors.

References

Ryan J. Foley et al., "A Definitive Measurement of Time Dilation in the Spectral Evolution of the Moderate-Redshift Type Ia Supernova 1997ex," Astrophysical Journal 626 (2005): L11-L14.
David F. Crawford, "Curvature Pressure in a Cosmology with a Tired-Light Redshift," Australian Journal of Physics 52 (1999): 753-77.
J. V. Narlikar and H. C. Arp, "Time Dilation in the Supernova Light Curve and the Variable Mass Hypothesis," Astrophysical Journal 482 (1997): L119-L120.
D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Hugh Ross, "Time Dilation Attests Cosmic Creation Models," Connections 5, no. 3-4 (2003), 1-3.
Hugh Ross, "Tolman's Elegant Test," Facts for Faith, no. 8 (Q1 2002), 10-11; Hugh Ross, A Matter Of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 149-55, 163-72.

 

[footjunior]

I misread light and read "time" Time is not a constant. I am challenging the assumption on light being a constant.

Ok. So you are challenging the assumption that light is a constant. Sounds awesome. What evidence do you have?

It is a cardinal assumption in cosmology that I find uncessisary and allows free thinkers to think outside of the box.

Why wouldn't it be an assumption? We have no data that suggests otherwise. I'm sorry but this all sounds very intellectually dishonest. You're rejecting the assumption that light is constant just so you can "free think" about certain implications of young-earth creationism?

 

[fivesolas]

Ok. So you are challenging the assumption that light is a constant. Sounds awesome. What evidence do you have?



Why wouldn't it be an assumption? We have no data that suggests otherwise. I'm sorry but this all sounds very intellectually dishonest. You're rejecting the assumption that light is constant just so you can "free think" about certain implications of young-earth creationism?

How many theories started out with a hypothesis?

You can scoff at it. Mock it. Do whatever you want with it.

 

[fivesolas]

Again it is only the testimony of the scripture if you ignore the other four uses of the hebrew words. Which are literal translations which line up with the ENTIRE Bible. Again we can go back to Genesis and look at it.

Adam named all the creatures of the earth, acknowledged he was lonely and needed a help mate, underwent surgery, and woke up and saw Eve and said (again phonetically because I never took Hebrew...) "Oppa Ohm" which means At Long Last. All in the same day he was created. He would have to be super human and we know he was just like us. And why would he be lonely in a day??? That is the very definition of time passing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-069/adam-how-did-name-animals

Also I want to add, and this may come from your reading of Dr. Ross, you rehearsed a logical fallacy that Dr. Lisle points out in a debate with Ross. And I quote, "The particular hermeneutical fallacy that Dr Ross committed is called an unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field. That’s a fancy way of saying that if you’re taking a word that can have more than one meaning and you’re taking it from one context and placing into another context where it can’t mean that. That’s the particular fallacy that he has committed in Genesis."

This is the response to the claim regarding the four uses of the heberw word Yom, translated Day in our Bibles.

 

[fivesolas]

An explanation of the Biblical Big Bang Cosmology:

by Jeff Zweerink, Ph.D., Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Big bang opponents are a diverse lot. Some promote an infinitely (or near infinitely) old universe to avoid a creation event in the relatively recent (roughly 14-billion-year) past. So, they argue that the universe is static or semi-static-no general cosmic expansion. Others promote a very young creation (6,000-10,000 years old) to fit a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. They need the expansion to occur much more rapidly than a few billion years. Nestled in between is the established scientific-and biblical-model saying that expansion has occurred continuously over the past 13.7 billion years.

Recent measurements of Type Ia supernova eruptions, however, rule out all options except those fitting the latter model.1 To understand how, a little background is useful. Atoms of a given element absorb or emit light at unique wavelengths, so the spectrum of a particular element will show lines of specific colors instead of a rainbow of colors. When astronomers look at distant galaxies, the spectral lines from atoms in those galaxies are redshifted, or "pulled," toward the red end of the radiation spectrum.

The simplest way to explain the redshift is to say that the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is continuously expanding, the more distant galaxies will manifest a greater redshift-which is precisely what is measured. Through the years, some astronomers who dislike the implications of cosmic expansion have proposed other explanations for redshifts and their relation to distance.

Two static-universe alternatives are the "tired light"2 and "varying mass"3 models. The former model says that as light propagates through space it loses energy, and this loss increases its wavelength. The "varying mass" model says atomic masses increase as the universe ages. Light from more distant objects was emitted when the universe was younger and, therefore, the masses of the atoms were smaller. Smaller atomic masses mean longer wavelengths. Both of these models were developed solely to explain the redshift/distance relationship without appealing to continuous cosmic expansion from a creation event about 14 billion years ago-not because astronomers actually predicted light to lose energy in transit or atomic masses to change.

The most widely accepted young-universe model acknowledges that while the universe exhibits billions of years of development,4 due to a (hypothesized) gravitational time dilation effect, only a few thousand years have elapsed on Earth. In other words, the rates of all distant phenomena occur thousands to millions of times faster when measured from Earth. Big bang models, however, predict the opposite-that velocity time dilation effects will make very distant phenomena appear to proceed more slowly (by a few tens of percent).

Recently, a team of American astronomers developed and applied a robust new method for testing and distinguishing among the different models.5 The test involves multiple spectral measurements of Type Ia supernovae eruptions-events that last about 7 months in the absence of time dilation effects. The team looked at how the different spectral line intensities change over the supernova eruption phase and thus determined how far into the 7-month period the eruption has progressed. The time dilation factor is determined by dividing the time between observations by the change in time progressed into the eruption. Say an astronomer made two spectral observations 20 days apart and determined the time progressed into the eruption was 10 days and 26 days, respectively. The time dilation factor would be 20/(26-10) = 1.25. For static or semi-static universes, the time dilation factor will be 1. For a young universe, the time dilation factor will be near zero. For a big bang universe, the time dilation factor will be one plus the redshift of the object.

So far, the method has been accurately applied to one distant supernova, 1997ex. The results were perfectly consistent with continuous cosmic expansion from a cosmic creation event roughly 14 billion years ago. At the same time, they definitively falsified both the nonexpanding universe models and the young-universe models. As with previous tests based on a variety of methods,5 the biblically anticipated cosmic creation model has been vindicated with flying colors.

References

Ryan J. Foley et al., "A Definitive Measurement of Time Dilation in the Spectral Evolution of the Moderate-Redshift Type Ia Supernova 1997ex," Astrophysical Journal 626 (2005): L11-L14.
David F. Crawford, "Curvature Pressure in a Cosmology with a Tired-Light Redshift," Australian Journal of Physics 52 (1999): 753-77.
J. V. Narlikar and H. C. Arp, "Time Dilation in the Supernova Light Curve and the Variable Mass Hypothesis," Astrophysical Journal 482 (1997): L119-L120.
D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994).
Hugh Ross, "Time Dilation Attests Cosmic Creation Models," Connections 5, no. 3-4 (2003), 1-3.
Hugh Ross, "Tolman's Elegant Test," Facts for Faith, no. 8 (Q1 2002), 10-11; Hugh Ross, A Matter Of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 149-55, 163-72.

Dealing with Hugh Ross:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp

Debate
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0414lisle_transcript.asp

There is more I can share. The dialogue/debate is good. I am reply with this just to make the point that there isn't just one scientific answer and explaination of the data.

-five

 

[footjunior]

How many theories started out with a hypothesis?

You can scoff at it. Mock it. Do whatever you want with it.

My point is that no one (myself, yourself, etc) can do anything with it until you back it up with data/logic. Hypothesis are usually created after observing some natural phenomenon. Have you observed light that was not constant?

 

[fivesolas]

My point is that no one (myself, yourself, etc) can do anything with it until you back it up with data/logic. Hypothesis are usually created after observing some natural phenomenon. Have you observed light that was not constant?

Perhaps I should call my university, from which I graduated with honors, and ask why in scientific research I am no longer allowed to ask questions and form them into hyposthesis and then begin research.

Where did you learn scientific research?

 

[footjunior]

Perhaps I should call my university, from which I graduated with honors, and ask why in scientific research I am no longer allowed to ask questions and form them into hyposthesis and then begin research.

Here's what you've done. You've created a hypothesis, done no research to prove it, but then proceeded to assume this hypothesis is true for use in further personal theories of the universe. The critical step missing is the research to prove your hypothesis. If you could prove that the speed of light is not constant, then that would be a groundbreaking discovery.

Where did you learn scientific research?

Georgia Institute of Technology. What school you went to or whatever GPA you graduated with does not matter.

 

[fivesolas]

Here's what you've done. You've created a hypothesis, done no research to prove it, but then proceeded to assume this hypothesis is true for use in further personal theories of the universe. The critical step missing is the research to prove your hypothesis. If you could prove that the speed of light is not constant, then that would be a groundbreaking discovery.



Georgia Institute of Technology. What school you went to or whatever GPA you graduated with does not matter.

1. I am not a scientist engaged as a profession, research. Are you?

2. Then you understand questions/hypothesis first, then research to support or not support that hypothesis.

 

[footjunior]

1. I am not a scientist engaged as a profession, research.

...

Perhaps I should call my university, from which I graduated with honors, and ask why in scientific research I am no longer allowed to ask questions and form them into hyposthesis and then begin research.

Are you?

No.

Then you understand questions/hypothesis first, then research to support or not support that hypothesis.

Yes. It matters not whether you are a professional scientist or an armchair scientist on discussion boards, you should avoid forming elaborate theories which require the assumption that the laws of physics are not as they seem to be. You are assuming that the speed of light is not constant, you have provided no data in congruence with your assumption, and you are then using that unwarranted assumption to provide support for other theories. If this is your idea of providing scientific evidence for your personal theory of creation, I would suggest simply saying, "God did it somehow," and leave it at that.

 

[fivesolas]

...





No.



Yes. It matters not whether you are a professional scientist or an armchair scientist on discussion boards, you should avoid forming elaborate theories which require the assumption that the laws of physics are not as they seem to be. You are assuming that the speed of light is not constant, you have provided no data in congruence with your assumption, and you are then using that unwarranted assumption to provide support for other theories. If this is your idea of providing scientific evidence for your personal theory of creation, I would suggest simply saying, "God did it somehow," and leave it at that.

*yawn*

I don't have to try to explain unobserved events without the supernatural. You do.

Yes, I am armchair commentary on a hunting discussion board. So are you. I have provided creation science research.

Do what you will with it.

-five

 

[celticfisherman]

Ok. So you are challenging the assumption that light is a constant. Sounds awesome. What evidence do you have?



Why wouldn't it be an assumption? We have no data that suggests otherwise. I'm sorry but this all sounds very intellectually dishonest. You're rejecting the assumption that light is constant just so you can "free think" about certain implications of young-earth creationism?

Seems that way...

 

[celticfisherman]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-069/adam-how-did-name-animals

Also I want to add, and this may come from your reading of Dr. Ross, you rehearsed a logical fallacy that Dr. Lisle points out in a debate with Ross. And I quote, "The particular hermeneutical fallacy that Dr Ross committed is called an unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field. That’s a fancy way of saying that if you’re taking a word that can have more than one meaning and you’re taking it from one context and placing into another context where it can’t mean that. That’s the particular fallacy that he has committed in Genesis."

This is the response to the claim regarding the four uses of the heberw word Yom, translated Day in our Bibles.

Again only if you don't look at all the creation accounts can you say that. 24 hr day only fits one place.