Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

I will try especially hard to cut my sarcasm way down. It won't be as much fun, but in the interests of fair play and improving our relations to each other and our image as Christians to outside observers, I will live to higher standards in future posts. My apologies if I have offended anyone as well or made them feel bad about themselves. My goal has always been to enlighten and help others grow in knowledge and faith. Sometimes my tactics get off the mark; thanks to Don, Dave, and Stu for bringing attention to our misguided techniques in growing our Brotherhood! I can't promise that I can do what you have asked sarcasm free, but I think I might be able to change my knock out punches to love taps. Still in the match; let's go at it!

I will be happy to give you my perspective on day three: the rising of the continents. I'll give you a response soon.

Lee

Lee -- Please see Bret's post. Do you want to play by the rules?

Stu ...

Did you read Lee's last Post?
Personally I have zero problems with it ...
and actually think it's hilarious!
But ... in light of the new rules ...
It is blatantly pretentious, insultingly
condescending, and dripping with sarcasm!
I don't mind the double standard ...
and would really like for You, Lee, & Dave
to answer my Timeline question?
Isn't this a fair question to ask?

Bret*

Bret -- what makes you think otherwise?

Definition of sarcasm - the use of scornful remarks. Tell me where in the Bible that's justified among brothers? Sarcasm is a choice, not a handicap.

Nobody is forcing you to agree -- and nobody is forcing you to be part of this discussion. Do you want to play by the rules or not? I would like a yes or no answer.

I'm sorry (sound familiar?)... for personally bringing the Blog to the brink of extinction!
The Creationist tent may not be big enough for ALL of us? I hope this isn't the case?
I'm glad that Jesus didn't put any restrictions or conditions on Forgiving my Sins, welcoming
me into His Family, and Granting me Permanent Irrevocable Eternal Salvation in HEAVEN !!!
I will try very hard to abide by the NEW rules ... even if nobody else is required to do so!
But ... for someone to ask me to stop being Sarcastic ... is akin to asking a hair-lip if he
could please stop mumbling! (let's call that ... one for the road)
**********************************************
I would like to pose a serious question to each of the Old-Earthers!
Dave went through each Day of Creation ... and explained what he felt actually happened!
This was VERY helpful for me to understand (a little better) where he was coming from!
But ... (without rehashing How or Why)... it would be extremely helpful to me ... if each
of you (including Dave)... could give me the 7-Days of Creation laid out in a "Simple"
Timeline (starting at T=0) that tells me What Happened ... over What period of Time?
i.e.
Day #1 lasted for ~5,000,000,000 years while the Universe expanded ... but nothing solid
(or technically completed) has yet to be fully Created?
Day #2 ... ~year 5,000,000,001 to ~year 7,500,000,000 this & that were Created ... etc ... ???
This would greatly help me to get my head around your Creation views!
I will NOT question your #'s with ANY alternative Data ... Secular or otherwise !!!
This request should not restrict any other Topics from being posed at this time or any!
I welcome Lee's offer to explain the Facts of the Pangaea Theory!
Thank you for your help!

Bret*

I suggest that we make a final run at discussing a subject a little closer to home since points of light in space seem to be not acceptable as stars vast distances away from us and existing long long ago. 

The new topic is geology which in my view makes an excellent case for an old earth and is independent of the speed of light (at least to my thinking). When discussed earlier, a few Emails were written by the the YEs and the entire subject was cavalierly dismissed faster than the speed of light just like the expanding universe got stretched by the same Brothers.  I think plate tectonics makes an undeniable case for an old earth and I would like to present it's case over the next few weeks to enlighten our Brotherhhood with the natural evidence for it. Of course if natural evidence is no longer of any value to members of this eternal family, I will save ourselves from the effort of presenting and challenging it.  We can continue our trip through Wonderland otherwise and discuss strings, sealing wax, how babies are born out of thin air and other fancy stuff.   Anyone interested in geology (I hope)?

Lee

OK guys - we'll give it one last try ... and if doesn't work this time we'll just part brothers in Christ -- unfortunately not helped much by the hundreds of hours spent in discussion so far.

Bret - your many apologies are accepted. I hope you will not have to give anymore.

We are doing this to learn from each other -- not convert. That means when we ask another person a question it is in good faith, trying to understand why they think differently than we do. It is not because we think they are less intelligent or less Godly -- or part of some scientific conspiracy. And as Don reminded us from Col. 4:6, when we give an answer, "Be gracious in speech. The goal is to bring out the best in others, not put them down, not cut them out."

As Dave reminded us -- if you can't agree that scientific facts are legitimate knowledge, then you have no business participating in this forum. Of course all scientific theories (even some theological doctrines) are tentative. But they are held because of legitimate knowledge -- some of which supports the theory or doctrine, and some of which refutes it. So let's learn both sides. Let's not pretend that any one of us have all the facts. Let's "clothe ourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:6).

State why you believe what you believe -- and why something is important to you. Give your source of knowledge and authority; your source of understanding; your logic. I'm interested in, "Did dinosaurs co-exist with man?" Bret gave me Dr. Carl Baugh's presentation as his authority. Lucien gave me a number of thoughts from Job, and thoughts to check out about dragon myths. Keith gave me Ken Hovind as a source of dinosaur information, and Don Deyoung as a source for moving him from old earth to young earth thinking.

Lee gave Swartzchild as a source of his knowledge of stellar models (cosmological not feminine ones I presume). I gave Augustine and others as sources of theological authority. All references can be and should be checked out. And, let's not forget that even their authority as sources is tentative.

This is not a forum for sarcasm, bluster or put downs. In fact, I don't know any Christian venue appropriate for that. Much of what I see out on the web is of that variety. So, if that's what you are looking for, there are many places to do it. This is not one of them.

Humor is very welcome (Lee's ubernerd post is hysterical), but potty humor is not -- unless it's clever like "Lucien's baby fart" and Bret's retort of a "breath of fresh air") which were given to make a legitimate point about gases diffusing.

And one final admonition. Let's have this dialog in front of the King. Let's imagine that we are doing this in His presence (it's all on the tapes anyway). How might we formulate our thoughts and say them before we post them? Perhaps we should pray and reflect on that before we post?

Anyone who has something to add please do so now. Otherwise, let the Final Round begin.

This is just a brief reply to Bret's comment regarding The FACTS:
Bret stated: The "Model" predicts our Milky Way Galaxy to see a Supernova about every 50-years!
"Observation" has recorded only *8* Supernovae in our Galaxy during the last 2000 years!
The last one occurring on October 9th ... 1604 !!!

Reply from Lee:

The vast majority of stars lie in the galactic plane behind one spiral arm of our galaxy or more which contain large amounts of gas and dust which greatly attenuate the light that a supernova transmits before it reaches earth since it lies in the galactic plane that helps to protect it from this type of radiation. Because of this and the great distance to most of the supernova near the center of the galaxy, it would be remarkable to see many more than we did during this two thousand year period without the aid of a telescope for over 1600 years. .

I have been called many things in my life: smart, intelligent, knowledgeable and a nerd. I have never been called an ubernerd. In a way, the name seems somewhat endearing coming from Bret; it's a somewhat nice alternative to toilet humor. Since they don't have anything technical to add, it's the YE contribution to our entertainment. I guess I will have to live with it as our trip through Wonderland comes to an end. May God bless us all as we stretch the limits of our civility to the Brotherhood.

Lee

If it wouldn't offend, I would like to make one more request concerning our dialog. If someone here is feels it is necessary to dispute commonly held scientific theories that are the foundations of the physical sciences, it is incumbent upon them to offer alternative perspectives that attempt to reconcile what we see as honest observers and scientists with the Word of God. When we are not willing to do this, we are doing the same thing the Vatican did when it denied the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

If this is to be an intelligent dialog, there must be standards we all agree to which enable us to have reasoned conversation. This does NOT mean that evolution is accepted science and beyond refutation (far from it!) but we should not reject scientific knowledge that is in fact, knowledge.

Interested in your perspective here. If this rule cannot be put in place, I personally see no possible way we can have a meaningful discussion. It just becomes a bunch of conjecture and at times, only snarky prose.

I'm sorry if my sharp & biting wit is occasionally leaving teeth marks?
I thought that by now ... we ALL have come to agree that we are here as:
Friends!
Brothers in Christ!
Allies in the defense of God's Creation!
But ... honest adversaries when it comes to How & When?
If Lee took my description of him as an Uber-Nerd ...
as anything less than an extreme intellectual complement? ...
I stand corrected! ... & I totally apologize !!!
Lee has a great sense of humor! ... and it is because of the FACT
that he is so extremely intelligent ... that I feel it's O.K. for me
to hold his feet to the fire ... when it comes to Scientific scrutiny?
Heated Debate produces Energized Ideas !!!
Without the Heat ... there's NO Energy!
But Don ... I do understand & appreciate your concern for us as
Christians to NOT lose focus on the Love of Christ!
I agree with Stu that we are NOT here to prove each other wrong!
My goal is to show Lee that he "could" be wrong!
And ... to show him that I "could" be right?
I already accept the inverse premiss!
Coffee?

Bret*

Bret,

I hope you won't mind me expressing my concerns over your latest posts. Please accept them with the same sense of graciousness with which I am attempting to make them.

As I've indicated in the past, my lack of scientific background disqualifies me from making critical evaluations of the "science" being discussed in this forum. However, equal in importance to the science--if not more important-- is the attitude we as Christians display when discussing our differences. A little humor along the way is appreciated and can reduce the tension level. But with all due respect, I think your use of sarcasm goes a little beyond healthy humor. I would find it much easier to understand and respect your YE position without what seems to me is a bit of inelegant disrespect for those with whom you disagree.

As brothers in Christ, we need to demonstrate love one for another. After all, it is our love that must be the distinguishing mark of the Christian, not our "science" (and not even our straw hats!).

"Be gracious in your speech. The goal is to bring out the best in others, not put them down, not cut them out."
Col. 4:6 The Message

With love one for another . . .

--Don

PS - Whereas I've directed this primarily to Bret, it is intended for all our consideration. I don't think any of us has or ever will have all the "right" answers. So where we have differences, let us all disagree graciously, speaking the truth (as we understand it) in love.

Yeah!  Bret understood my message about fixed laws at T0.  Great!  Since he agreed to fixed laws at T0+ he has escaped and is not in Wonderland anymore.  I hope he has accepted these fixed laws within femtoseconds of zero, otherwise he hasn't escaped LaLa Land until they have become fixed.   If it's six days that's how long the journey through Wonderland will last.

All views of how creation occurred should initially be considered a postulate until  physical evidence is shown that there is a reason to believe that the postulate is true since no one was there to observe what happened, even the YEs. When enough physical evidence can be found and proven mathematical models of the physical laws show by calculation and simulation that the postulate is valid, then the postulate is promoted to a theory. The sequence of stellar evolution in Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is a theory because it has supporting evidence from astronomical  observations of the color and luminosity of a particular type which corresponds to the stellar output from detailed star simulation models based on the known physical laws. With all of the stars in the Heavens and light from them reaching us from all time periods throughout the history of the universe, we have a lot of empirical data to compare the models against. A lot of thought and technical review has been put into these models to ensure their correctness and conformance to the physical laws. This comparison of model predictions and real starlight is what gives the scientists their confidence. There is a match!  

The big difference between the YE view and the secular view is the validation of physical laws by scientific methods. The YEs have not provided a rational alternative to the fixed laws that show any hope of supporting their postulate of creating the heavens in a 24 hour time period.  There also has not been any technical validation of the models since they don't exist.  If the YEs have something of value to offer to the world, they should propose it and see if it passes technical review from the geniuses that work in this field. 

I personally don't believe those points of light in space have a physical basis for existance if they are not stars, groups of stars, exploding stars, quasars, or nebula made very long ago with their light just now reaching us. Please tell me what they are if they are not one of the above. All of the ones above have been modeled and conform to the known physical laws; not the laws of Wonderland.   
  
All of the physical laws have been independently tested and validated. They are then used to model the various stellar processes. Numerous scientists, such as Schwartzchild, developed stellar models over the past 70 years and have worked very hard to correlate model prediction with actual observations of star spectra over the range of star types. 

The physical laws and models also place restrictions on the rates that these stellar processes can occur. Although , stars can blow up in less than a second if they are large enough, others can slowly fade or shrink to a singularity depending on their size.  The rates at which these occur are severely restricted based on natural laws.   One finding is that it takes about a million years for photons produced in nuclear reactions at the center to randomly make their way to the surface due to the emmission/ absorption rates resulting from the tremendous density at the center of the star and its plasma constituents.

Another finding is that slight density variations in large volumes of low temperature gas and dust will condense due to the effects of gravity. Yes, gas normally diffuses in space, however, the very low force of gravity in space slows molecules over long time periods as they attempt to escape the cloud. If it's speed is less than escape velocity, the molecule will be pulled back within the cloud. The temperature is also reduced as the particle slows since it's temperature is related to its kinetic energy. The lower the temperature the slower the gas cloud expands until it finally starts to contract as the velocity is reduced to zero and it begins to accelerate toward the cloud.  Detailed models based on the known physical laws have demonstrated to the scientific community that these clouds will condense into stars as the force of gravity increases during cloud condensation. They condense into stars, not to justify evolution, but because the materials and processes adhere to the fixed laws of Heaven and earth. i.e.  the strong, weak, electro-magnetic and gravitational force. If you have a complaint with the rate of gas condensation or the process of burning hydrogen being too slow you need to take it up with the Creator and His covenant with His laws not the scientists.  They are only documenting the way it is. The physical laws tell us it must be this way.

Lee         

Tell me you didn't do that...

You Wrote:

Further, I always thought that gases tend to diffuse, rather than lump together and become a solid.
I am pretty sure that was what I was taught in school.
Simple example, why is it that parents smell their baby's bottom (no really, why do they do that?). It is because the fart/poo smells strongest at its source.
For similar reasons, a fart smells nowhere near as good (did I just say that) after a few minutes. But isn't it a masterpiece within the first few seconds?
Sorry for the vivid analogies, but I am hoping to get a point across here.
Unless an external force is acting upon a gas, it does not decide to draw together under gravitational forces, it rather likes to diffuse, especially since there is plenty of space (something I belive we all agree on) to diffuse into.

Gases diffuse when there is a concentration gradient that drives it, and when there is a lower energy state that results from its happening.

The formation of solid planets from gaseous clouds is different than fart smell diffusing in air; it reaches a lower energy state when it diffuses in the air.

How do you know God didn't have the planets form from gas over the period of a day? Could have happened, right? Since no one was there but God.

[Bret]- What do we really know about Supernovae?
[LH reply]- Quite a lot, they are modeled and observation matches the models well.
[Bret]- How much HARD observational data do we really have?
[LH reply]- Hundreds of supernova have been observed. We see one in this galaxy about every 50 years and they are intensively studied when they occur. The supernova of a white dwarf as it acquires additional mass provides an extremely repeatable signature and intensity as this Type 1a supernova occurs. It is used to accurately determine the distance to other galaxies when they occur by examining the signature and intensity which can gauge the distance accurately.
********************************************************
NOW ... "THE FACTS !!!"
The "Model" predicts our Milky Way Galaxy to see a Supernova about every 50-years!
"Observation" has recorded only *8* Supernovae in our Galaxy during the last 2000 years!
The last one occurring on October 9th ... 1604 !!!
THAT'S 5-YEARS BEFORE THE TELESCOPE WAS EVEN INVENTED !!!

Bret*

Lucien ...

I must admit ... that your Fact-filled Fecal Analogies
along with your Flatulent sense of Humor ... is truly
a Breath of Fresh Air around this Blogosphere !!!
I can't remember the last time that I laughed so hard!
I must concur with your doubts about this so called
Stinker-to-Star Theory!
Ignoring the fact that Gas tends to diffuse when given
the chance ... there are a few more things that seem
to swim up-stream with this Theory!
They say that this condensing caused by gravitational
attraction will cause the Hydrogen molecules to Heat
up enough to start forming heavier & more complex
elements until ... "Shazam"... "Bingo" ... a brand New
Star appears?
Here's my problem!
It takes more than 50-atmospheres of pressure to
compress Hydrogen over 800 times smaller than its
natural state!
When this is achieved ... (certainly not of its own accord)
the Gas begins to condense into a Liquid ... !!!
But guess what?
Rather than getting all heated-up through the process ...
Liquid Hydrogen has a Boiling Point of -423*F !!!
That's just 20*K above ABSOLUTE ZERO !!!
Where's the HEAT ???
But let's pretend that in Alice's Wonderland that this
isn't the case?
As you climb up the Elemental Chart ... we have a HUGE
problem when we get to Iron!
You can NOT fuse past Iron without causing a Supernova!
Then we're back to Gas & Dust again ... aren't we?


Bret*

Forgot to add this--Actually Stellar Evolution should really be called Stellar Decay. The stars may go through a process but its most likely just breakdown, not evolution. Funny how the evolution angle always arises, even when we're talking about stars.

Hi Lee,

Regarding your post, this is all conjecture. None of this has been proven because no one has ever watched first hand the life cycle of a star. So please at least admit that it is a theory.
As is typical the OEers have to use a long time line for stellar evolution because it has to fit into the evolutionary box. As I have said before, the evolutionary timeline is always the underlying assumption in modern science before they do anything else, which is problematic in itself.

Let's face it, it wasn't until very recently that ALL stars were only visible as points of light from earth telescopes, the only difference was color & intensity. It was never possible to magnify a star beyond a point of lite (unlike planets).
So it is amazing to me how science has supposedly amassed this wealth of information on stellar evolution passed off as gospel, all based on what they think happened.
It is entirely probably that there is no real stellar evolution going on, at least notto the degree that OEers see it...but rather God just created different kinds of stars that happen to look different.
Once again there is no hard evidence that stars are evolving, just conjecture-which always matches the OE model, how nice-right? Supernovas don't prove stellar evolution, neither do nebulae or black holes.

Keith

InfinitLee wrote:You would be waiting a long time while observing a particular gas cloud as it turned into a star.

Furthermore, we are seeing new stars born out of gas and dust clouds using astronomy and using the existing laws of nature over millions of years.

Hi Lee.

Sorry for being the obnoxious newby here, but did I spot a contradiction there?
(see above)

Further, I always thought that gases tend to diffuse, rather than lump together and become a solid.
I am pretty sure that was what I was taught in school.
Simple example, why is it that parents smell their baby's bottom (no really, why do they do that?). It is because the fart/poo smells strongest at its source.
For similar reasons, a fart smells nowhere near as good (did I just say that) after a few minutes. But isn't it a masterpiece within the first few seconds?
Sorry for the vivid analogies, but I am hoping to get a point across here.
Unless an external force is acting upon a gas, it does not decide to draw together under gravitational forces, it rather likes to diffuse, especially since there is plenty of space (something I belive we all agree on) to diffuse into.

So, not convinced, sorry.


Lucien

My reference to rehashing ... was actually
directed to Lee's last Post!
I actually felt that Lee & I were starting to
see the same Data for what it is ... "less than perfect"?
We actually BOTH agree that the Fixed Laws of the
Universe are just that ... FIXED !!!
I do NOT believe that these Laws are EVER violated !!!
(nor ... can they be!)
I do believe that they will someday be removed
by God forever!
I believe that these Laws were "most likely" Fixed to
autopilot sometime slightly after T=0 ... !!?
I think that Lee is saying that if these Laws were NOT
totally Fixed right at T=0 ... then we might well be
living in Alice's Wonderland?
Lee knows VERY WELL that his peers & colleagues in the
microcosm that is Astrophysics ... are also proposing
that "maybe" these Fixed Laws breakdown as they
approach T=0 ... !!?
But ... to Lee's credit ... he firmly disagrees with them
as well on this hypothesis!
I doubt that he has told any of them that ...
"I just can't even talk to you anymore ... unless you
accept my premise" ???
This is why I proposed a live get-together ... to hopefully
wright the ship?
Plus ... I do love Coffee !!!
Haggis? ... I don't think so!

Bret*

Bret wrote the following in a post long ago (about 28 back) and I had too many other things going on at the time to respond. This is my reply.


[Bret]- What do we really know about Supernovae?

[LH reply]- Quite a lot, they are modeled and observation matches the models well.

[Bret]- How much HARD observational data do we really have?

[LH reply]- Hundreds of supernova have been observed. We see one in this galaxy about every 50 years and they are intensively studied when they occur. The supernova of a white dwarf as it acquires additional mass provides an extremely repeatable signature and intensity as this Type 1a supernova occurs. It is used to accurately determine the distance to other galaxies when they occur by examining the signature and intensity which can gauge the distance accurately.

[Bret]- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080514-supernova.html

How about Star formation?
Astronomers see Gas & Dust ...
They also see Stars ...
Sometimes they see Stars in/or behind clouds of Gas & Dust ...
NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN A CLOUD OF DUST TURN INTO A STAR !!!

[LH reply]- Stars are a good example of why the universe must be billions of years old. They take a hundred million years to form in the first place under gravitational forces and they take millions to billions of years to burn through their natural cycles depending on whether they are large or small stars. The gas clouds consist of either primordial clouds of hydrogen and helium gas or the cooled remains of supernova explosions that contain dust and gases. These are very slow processes if you believe in the physical laws the way they presently operate. Our stellar formation models tell us this process on condensation under gravity takes a hundred million years for a cold gas cloud to condense into a star and it takes tens of thousands of years for the photon pressure from the star to clear the gases away sufficiently to see the star. You would be waiting a long time while observing a particular gas cloud as it turned into a star. It is only because there are a huge number stars and gas clouds that we can identify the process is occurring as we look at different stages of collapse around our galaxy.

[Bret]- Talk about playing around with the FIXED LAWS of Physics!

[LH reply]- The only playing around has been done by the YEs. To say all of the stars were created in one 24 hour period requires a new set of physical laws, ones that YEs haven’t got a clue about or any ability to assess since they no longer exist. Furthermore, we are seeing new stars born out of gas and dust clouds using astronomy and using the existing laws of nature over millions of years. The Heavens are telling us how how God's design works. Please refer to Psalm 19 if you doubt that the light coming from the heavens gives us reliable knowledge about how the universe operates.

[Bret]- What kind of MAGIC is needed to defy the LAW of Entropy?

[LH reply]- A shrinking a space-time would be needed to increase the energy density, information would still become more disordered however in this shrinking universe as the black holes slowly converged and merged with all of the information of the universe on its surface. Still entropy marches on. As long as our space-time stretches (or shrinks), we need not worry about the second law of thermodynamics, disorder will increase. Since only God knows how to reverse the stretching, and reorganize the information, no other human magic could possibly do the trick.


[Bret]- This sounds like a job for Lee to explain?
(come on Lee ... you know you Love it!)

[LH reply]- There you have it and I do love it!

Lee

Rob wrote:Of course, the age of the Universe is a different question. I think by definition (Universe: the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm) God is contained in the “universe.” God has “always” existed. As such, the age of the universe is incalculable. Infinite may be a better explanation, but the notion of infinity is a mathematical fiction (possibly derived in an attempt to understand an incomprehensible God).

What do you mean with "God is contained in the 'universe'."
This would imply that the universe is greater than God which is hard to swallow, but also that God is dependant on the universe for His existence, even worse.
Also it goes against my intuitive reading of Gen. 1:1 that the heavens were created by Him.
Maybe I just misunderstand you, always that possibility.
PS, this is me starting to play ketchup, eh, catch up.

Lucien

Hi Bret.

Maybe i am partly to blaim as well, since I have not really had time to read through previous posts, and thus mentioning things that may already have been covered.
My apologies for that.
I must endeavour to get through the now 10 pages of posts! gulp!

Lee, Stu, & Dave ...

I think maybe it would be best for us to have another
Face to Face at your local Starbucks?
It seems like we're starting to rehash to many items
that HAVE been "Asked & Answered"!
There have been hints that we should shift gears
to keep things fresh ... but after Lee's last Post ...
I'm not sure which direction we should (or could) take?
Theism vs. Deism?
Darwinism vs. Rationalism?
Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism?
Calvinism vs. Arminianism?
Vikings vs. Packers?
Ooops! ... I think I've drifted too Favre from the issues?
Let's go back to Fridays ... as I know that it seems to work
best for Lee & Stu !!?
How about 9/11 for a "Peace Summit"?
We can move the logistics to E-mail?
Well guys ... What do you say?

Bret*