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

Hi Lee.

I think you make a good point, in that we need to agree on the terms and definitions before we can have a sensible discussion.
So let's see where young earthers and old earther take separate paths.

1) God created and makes the rules
(everybody still there?)
2) He also invented and started natural laws (gravity today tends to be the same tomorrow, etc.)
3) these laws must be universal (space). I.e. they apply throughout the universe.
(hoping everybody is still here?)
4) God performs miracles.
5) we perceive these miracles as something that is out of the ordinary, i.e. it does not follow the normal, daily routines.
-example. normal (natural) laws dictate that a human baby can only come from a fertilised egg and this is done through the sperm of a male. As far as I know there are no known human instances of asexual procreation, but if someone is better informed than, please let me know.
Jesus was born as a human baby, but yet no (biological) father, in the sense of a sperm donor. In my view, and this might yet change, God did not break his natural laws, he expanded on them briefly. And He is of course a tliberty to do so.
(PS, I hope no-one here disputes the virgin birth or we are entering a whole new discussion)

At this point I fear this may become lengthy, so I'll try to keep it short.

We should all agree that God, in the beginning created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) and that goes against some of our current understanding of the thermodynamical laws:
1) one cannot create/destroy energy/mass (but God can and He did).
2) things go from order to disorder over time, not the other way around. Unless it is a closed system and you put useful energy into it. If you trace this 2nd law of thermodynamics back through time, you come to the conclusion that someone (God) wound the clock up, or in other words started it.

As a young earther I do not believe in mysticism, but do believe in miracles. Books have been written about miracles, but if you don't believe in them as a Christian... well... to me it sounds like you would have a problem.

Miracles cannot be reporoduced. Even Aslan said it, "things don't happen the same way twice". Jesus healing the blind was different everytime. I'd like to see a scientist doctor now spitting on the ground and making some mud and then sticking it on someone's eye. (S)He certainly would be frowned upon, to say the least.

Now, back to Lee's queries.
I believe the laws are consistent. But I believe in catastrophe's, which follow the natural laws (mostly). Wy did I add mostly there? Well, I think the 2nd coming will be catastrophical (2 Peter 3 says the judgement will be by fire this time, not water) and I have a suspicion there will be some supernatural effects added, but I guess Lee was referring to present and past.

Is the present the key to the past then? No, the past is the key to the present. And the past is first and foremost revealed in Scripture. If we cannot trust Scripture, well, then anyone's guess is as good as any. We cannot reporoduce the past but we have an eye witness who was there (Job 38:4).

Do we ever dig up the past? NO. When we dig, no matter how deep we go, we always dig up the present. The facts of anything can be detected in the present with our senses (and natural laws), but the stories around it are interpretations, typically based on assumptions (not natural laws).

Anyway, I could ramble on, but not sure if that leads anywhere. Perhaps to take this further we could discuss one or two specific examples where Lee has a natural law that he thinks the young earthers are bending. Starlight and time maybe? That seems to be a favourite...

Cheers,
Lucien

I sometimes feel that data and truth have no bearing on the discussion threads. Similarly that logic and rationally hold no sway to the arguments posted. If factual data is presented about our world to the YE side, it is ignored or claimed to be invalid if it conflicts with the YE paradigms. Other new laws of physics are claimed to be in effect the first few days that makes the world young even though it looks old to the people that study it in detail (our scientists).   Two of our members have now informed me that the laws of physics were not the same as our present set during Creation Week. Do you not realize that a different set of physical laws invalidates all of the data collected relating to geology, astronomy, and others except for recent events and short distances in space.  Variable physics permits any view to be accepted as valid.  This makes the natural world data of no value in making a case for an old earth. This is because all of the scientific models are based on only one set of physical laws. If we all were to accept that the natural world was created under a myriad of physical laws which we know nothing about, then we might as well stop the debate forthwith, since there is no way of knowing what natural evidence is valid and what is not. There is no longer any way of knowing what is true and what isn't in the natural world.  We will be living then in a mystical world where anything goes and all truth is questionable.   If we have other physical laws in place during Creation Week then the world as we know is a mirage and unworthy of study using the scientific method. I ask the YE group: do we embrace mysticism or not?  If you do not believe that there is only one set of laws that govern the operation of the universe for all time then all of the natural data in the world will never convince you that the world could be old. You could simply reply to each and every fact about the real world that 'God modified the physical laws to appear that way'.  It seems that you have accepted only limited data that you believe supports the YE view but none of the data that supports an old earth view. This seems to me to be a logical impass to any further meaningful discussion. If this is not the case then please tell me the limits of the natural data that you will accept as valid.  I ask, do you believe there is any value to scientific inquiry?  

I hope you get my point and why this is fundamental to the debate, that all truthful and valid natural data should be useable to either prove or disprove a theory. I have observed that the YE strategy in all cases is to challenge any scientific theories and the data collected unless it supports the YE view. When snippets of data are found they are tenaciously defended as scientifically valid.  Sorry but you can't condemn science in one case and praise it in another. Science works the same across all boundaries and it's not a giant conspiracy to confirm evolution in spite of your assertions to the contrary. 

The scientific approach is to use valid data to either prove or disprove any theory.  If the theory is disproven then a modified theory is produced until it matches the data. Furthermore, all scientific theories must be consistent over time back to the beginning of our universe and compatible with the other evidence collected. Science tries to work toward a consistent and complete understanding of how the universe operates.  If the physical laws were not consistent over time then studying them would be a waste of time.  Fortunately, the Bible and God tells us that they are consistent and worthy of our study. This point was also made by Stu recently.  I hope you all see how fundamental this is to our debate.      

Lee

First of all ...
Let me take a moment to apologize to Stu for pushing back
so firmly (and rudely)... !!!
Because you responded to my simple open-ended Post with
such a rapid & ill-informed denunciation of what could possibly
be the final Death-Nail in the FAILED theory of Evolution ...
I lost track of the source (the ultimate Christian teddy-bear)...
and attacked the propaganda (standard Secular Party line) !!!
It struck me as though ... you were more concerned with defending
your Old-Earth stance than CRUSHING our common ENEMY Darwinism?
Every time Creationists find this kind of evidence ... the "Real" Scientists
have the same standard reactions (ALWAYS!):
1). Straw-Man & Whole-Clothe arguments!
2). Accusations of Fraud & Forgery!
3). Attacks on the credibility of the Presenter & Discoverer!
4). Nitpicking, Cajoling, & Haranguing about the evidence (perceived, implied, or actual) !!!
or their FAVORITE method of all ... for dealing with HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
that contradicts Satin's Evil-Solution (remove the "ils" and compress) "Evolution"...
ABSOLUTE & TOTAL SILENCE !!!
What I don't understand is ... why you feel that you would have to come all
the way over the fence to my side (YE)... just because there might be solid proof
that Dinosaurs & Man were contemporaneous?
Dave is 5/7ths (OE) ... and I don't think that he has a problem with this ???
Man & the Dinosaurs were both Created on the same Day-6 !!!
So why is this a deal-breaker for your stance?
Maybe ... this is why I find Dave's (scoop of each) approach slightly more
appealing & reasonable than the ALL or NOTHING presentation of (OE) ???
Young Earth evidence is Kryptonite to Darwin's pseudo-Superman !!!
For this reason ALONE ... I would hope that we ALL (as Christians) might be
slow to criticize ANY (YE) evidences ... unless there is REAL PROOF to discredit it!
(Not just the Secular opposition's standard textbook smokescreens!)
I will Post more links that are (at minimum)... food for thought? ...
in my next Blog entry.
**********
I'd also like to welcome "Sumiala" (Lucien) to Team (YE) !!!
I'm the Ham-fisted guy on our Team that has also read "Thousands not Billions"
and watched all 3-DVDs as well ... !!! (Good Stuff!)
I'm more of a self described "Turd in the Punchbowl" as opposed to the Peacock analogy!
Please ... don't be afraid to mix-it-up with these guys!
We're ALL Christian MEN here ... and can take it & dish it out ... with the best of them!
ALL of our Hearts are in the right place ... but our views on the validity & variability
of the Scientific data & evidences are in parallel Universes!
WELCOME .......

Bret*

Thanks for the welcome.
I laughed out loud at your description of yourself and the others on this forum.
I hope I will find time to read some of the earlier posts, but for starters I will check what goes on from now on. It appears that one gets emails if a reply has been posted, so that is a good help.

Looking forward to engage with you God-fearing servants, as well as His opponents.
At least we will be gathered unto Him, and that is a good place to be.

Amen,
Lucien

Welcome to the blog.
We're all a bunch of windbags that like to strut our creation stuff like a peacock with impressive plumage, but at the end of the day we love Jesus & try really hard to love each other back despite our different views! Sometimes it gets a little heated. I've learned a few thing so far in my brief time here.

I'm a big Don Deyoung fan as well, I have three of his books & his fresh insight was a big revelation to me 20 years ago. In a sense I traveled through time--from billions & billions to mere thousands.
Welcome to the blog!
Keith

First of all I want to welcome my "How Now Shall We Live - Study Group" friend Lucien Tuinstra who is posting from bonny Scotland under the name sumiala! Lucien is a young earth advocate and I have encouraged him to post his insightful comments.

Also I welcome Keith's thoughtful response to my questions. And Bret -- I have now viewed Carl Baugh's entire presentation. Is there another one you wanted me to watch as well? I am doing some studying and reflection on the man/dinosaur issue and will comment shortly. Thank you all.

Hi Keith,

I just wanted to respond to your questions. Please see below.

1. Am I reading your points correctly?

Yes. According to the law of general relativity, the rate that time flows varies depending on the environment and relative speed. Mankind has very limited capability to affect this flow rate. God, on the other hand, obviously has excellent control based on creating the universe from a timeless point, stretching spacetime and performing miracles where relative time was affected such as keeping the sun in the sky for twice the normal duration.

2.Also based on what you are saying--I am curious do you think it is ever possible for man or those on earth to travel BACKWARDS in time?

The laws of physics are symmetric with time except for entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. This is because spacetime Is stretching. I personally don't believe mankind will ever be able to go back in time on his own and we would violate causality if we did. However, God is eternal and outside of our time so He could violate causality, spend an eternity in a single moment of our time or make our eternity a moment of His time. Since we are partially material based we seem to be trapped within the limits of our physics while in this world. Only God could intervene by reversing entropy. More to come on this subject in future posts.

Hi Stu!

Have you ever heard of pictographs and petroglyphs of dinosaurs, made by humans who supposedly should never have seen them?
How about George and the Dragon and so many dragon tales from China?
There are many other "leads" to believing that humans and dinosaurs lived together. The strongest in my opinion being Job 40:15 and further, describing Behemoth. Leviathan also is described (Ch.41), although technically you could argue that only the land-dwelling animals (day 6) are dinosaurs.
I recommend the book "after the Flood" by Bill Cooper.
He traces British and Danish royal ancestry lines back to Japhet (son of Noah) but also has a chapter on beowolf, and suggesting, although never spelling out such a dramatic conclusion it could be a T-rex...

For an excellent challenge on the underlying assumptions on radiometric dating, I refer to ICR's "Thousands...Not Billions". The book compiled/edited by Don DeYoung puts some serious challenges to all assumptions, but the most compelling one (also not done before) is probably the queationing of the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e. constant decay rate.
To summarise in a nutshell, they seem to find enough daughter isotope material to be worth millions/billions of years of decay at today's rate, but only thousands of years of Helium by-product (alpha particles). The diffusion of Helium can be very accurately measured and most of it should have diffused away ages ago, since it is a very "slippery" gas. So why does the Helium diffusion not tally up with the parent-daughter decay?

Anyway, the book or DVD goes into much more detail than I can possibly do justice in a few lines, but food for thought.

Most of the geological features off the earth that we observe today can be explained by either plate tectonics or earth mantle hot spots. The remainder seem to be related to either weathering/ erosion, glaciation, or space object impacts. Of course, all of these effects can be measured today and have led virtually all scientists to the belief that the earth is very old.  Radiometric dating is used reliably and extensively in measuring rock samples and have provided good evidence that the oldest rocks that mankind has found are 4.36 (zircons crystals) to 4.28 (faux amphibolite) billion years old. 
According to this scientific picture, these rocks formed under ancient oceans and rose to the surface during tectonic plate formation or formed the surface from volcanic flows due to tectonic action

I am curious about how many readers believe any of this plate tectonic theory is true and if they don't what aspects are invalid. Would you also tell us why you have this view?  

Lee.  

Stu,

Ken Hovind is alot of things, but I've heard him speak on more than one occasion & he doesn't strike me as a liar.

He may be doing time in federal prison for tax evasion, but I think its just because he refused to pay taxes based on religious reasons. A weak position no doubt but I don't think this affects his scientific reasoning.

About 10-15 years ago I heard him speak about a recent discovery of human & dino prints in Texas, where the prints run together along a riverbed. I don't recall the exact location, I'm sure its out there on the net somewhere.
He said after the prints were discovered they brought out news crews & secular scientists to do more excavation. He said he watched them unearth more of the river bed to uncover more of the fossils (under layers of rock/mud, therefore impossible to fake or create a hoax when you are digging up new fossils in realtime)...and he said the secular scientist refused to even turn around and see for himself when they in fact unearthed more human/dino prints together.

This discovery may surprise most OE scientists but it doesn't surprise me. There is no reason dinos & man couldn't & didn't live together (this is supported biblically also). Except for those that are held steadfast to the OE position which requires dinos lived over 40 million years ago.

This discovery as well as the one Bret speaks of are just another example of how God confounds the wise.
If you were able to view the entire video Bret posted, albeit long, there is an incredible amount of science that was performed on these prints (700 scans, etc, including those that verified the density of the fossil well below the print which indicates weight & pressure, something that is impossible to fake)

Another point I'd like to contrast with your view--you did say one time that we aren't here on the blog to change each other's minds. Well, I respectfully ask then 'what are we here to do'? I actually am trying to change some minds but I am also here trying to learn why you guys believe what you do. Which I am learning.

When we minister to someone, a non-believer or even a wayward Christian, we are trying to change their way of thinking, even though it is God that does the conversion. We are the conduit.
Most of the Epistles were written with the idea to change some minds. I don't think Paul was just trying to share his opinion.
Obviously none of us are bible authors or coming out with any Epistles of our own, but my point is I don't think its a bad thing at all to try to change someone's mind on a particular issue. I am also open to having my position changed, but I haven't seen any strong evidence yet to convert me back to an OE view. But I am glad to hear we can now consider you a potential YE prospect.

Blessings,
Keith

Lee,

A question regarding your four points at the end of your post...specifically points 1 & 4 where you say time can speed up or slow down depending on local conditions...and I think you are saying in point 4 that God works within these natural laws to accomplish His purpose but never violates these laws.
My questions:

1. Am I reading your points correctly?

2.Also based on what you are saying--I am curious do you think it is ever possible for man or those on earth to travel BACKWARDS in time?


Keith

Whoa Bret -- I'm not attacking you, setting up straw men, nor desiring to parade around EVERY Atheistic Christian-Hating Secular Darwinian Anthropologist. I'm not even out to change your mind. I thought you wanted to get to know how we OEers think and on what information we base our conclusions? Please remember you brought this topic up for comment. I just gave you my honest understanding -- I am not knowledgeable about the subject -- and haven't been following it. But I will from now on!

If you are right -- this is the greatest scientific discovery of the century. It would be powerful enough evidence to convert me to a YEer!. I've already stated that the earth could be 6000 years old. But I'm going to need facts beyond one alleged footprint. Please look at me as an open-minded YE prospect -- not an antagonist. I just happen to believe the current evidence (both biblically and scientifically) points to an OE conclusion. But I hold that position tentatively.

So Bret, may I ask you to "Come, let us reason together" -- and do so Christianly? If dinosaurs and man co-existed 6000 years ago there should be good evidence for it. May I propose two small steps to start finding out?

(1) It sounds like a good place for me to start is with Dr. Carl Baugh's presentation to which you refer. How do I get a copy of that?

(2) In our early blog days there was a lot of discussion discrediting radiometric for dating anything before 6000 years ago. But I thought you had all agreed that the methods were at least valid for going back 6000 years. What do those methods tell us about the age of dinosaur fossils?

Your Brother in Christ, Stu

Dave,



These are most of the suspects that I have heard about as the cause of the accelerated stretching of the universe. All are based on different models postulated to bring about accelerated stretching. Dark energy is the name used by cosmologists to describe the antigravitional effect that is accelerating the stretching of space.   We have real data to show that the universe is undergoing accelerated stretching in our observable universe. These various concepts have been proposed as the source of the stretching. For instance, if there really is a small positive cosmological constant in the General Relativity equation it could produce the effects observed.  The problem with it is that atheistic scientists don't like its extremely small value since it suggests extreme fine tuning of this one constant to one part in 10 to the 120 th power.  Quintessence is similar but as space expands the energy  of space grows since the amount of energy stays constant per unit volume,  it again would have to have an extremely small value.  But this concept defies the conservation of energy.   

An inflaton's field was proposed originally by Alan Guth to explain his inflation theory. It is a new type of force field that occured early in the universe that caused an early rapid inflationary period then decayed away to zero. Some people are thinking these days that it didn't totally drop to zero but has a residual extremely low value many many orders of magnitude lower than it's starting value.  

The Wave is a brand new postulate based on ripples of gravitational energy from the original Big Bang on the larger universal pond. Some of the hypothesized hyper inflated universe is outside of our event horizon so we can't see what is going on way out there. The local ripple of gravitation energy is located just so that it looks like the rest of the universe is accelerating away from us but if we could see the entire universe we would find that it is just a local condition and dark energy doesn't really exist. 

All of these ideas are interesting but everyone needs to realize that the concept needs to be validated with real data. By the way in this case, no one will ever be able to get there hands on the data to either prove or disprove  that the universe is much bigger than what we now observe or that there is more than one universe. This is all the data we have and the rest is speculation based on models. We are all aware of the use of mathematical models to show just about anything real or imaginary. So don't put much faith in any of these models or concepts because the data is just not there to prove or disprove any of them from an astronomical observation perspective. 

 It is the data that confirms or denies the postulate and defines good science from bad science. No data, no science, just pure conjecture!  

More data and careful analysis is needed to determine if any of the above concepts hold up to scrutiny or can be eliminated by weighing the models predictions against the measured data.

I hope this has helped you understand these concepts better and put them in a realistic perspective for you. 

Lee

Bret -- I thought this one was old and discredited news and that most credible YE scientists are distancing themselves from it.
You thought wrong! ... and isn't this "credible YE scientists" an oxymoron in your eyes?

Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino and not a very credible source) popularized the idea, but I thought most others have withdrawn the claim now thinking the smaller footprints were made by a small carnivorous 3-toed dinosaur because:
Wrong again! ... while Dr. Hovind is busy reviewing his Federal taxes ... this little Darwin KILLER
was presented by Dr. Carl Baugh!
And ... How in God's Name ... could a "small carnivorous 3-toed dinosaur" make this 5-toed HUMAN footprint?

(1) there's a claw mark behind the heel (WHERE?)
(2) its stride is a foot longer than that of a human (Stride? ... It's a single footprint!)
(3) the chemical analysis of the residue shows it not of human origin (What residue? ... organic Dino DNA? ... Yeah right!)
(4) the actual footprint would have been larger than the fossil since mud collapses when a foot is withdrawn from a river bed.
(What kind of a Darwinian Straw-man argument are you trying to create out of whole-clothe here?)

Which credible sources do you know still hold to your position?
I'm sure that EVERY Atheistic Christian-Hating Secular Darwinian Anthropologist will back you up on this one ...
BUT ... I prefer to believe the 700 C/T Scans ... & my LYING eyes !!!

Too Rough?

Bret*

Lee ...
You need to call this weak-kneed Astronomer
for not understanding that "Science" has already
answered EVERYTHING about the Universe ...
and EXACTLY how it works !!!
The Heresy:

It's so unusual to find a suicidal planet that University of Maryland astronomer Douglas Hamilton questioned whether there was another explanation.
While it is likely that this is a suicidal planet, Hamilton said
it is also possible that some basic physics calculations that all astronomers rely on could be dead wrong.

Here's the full article:

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1120887

Bite thy tongue!


Bret*

Dave ...
I'm surprised at this article being posed as "News"?
Doctors have known this for well over 20-years now!
When we were kids ... they were snipping out everyones
appendix, for NO OTHER REASON than FLAWED Evil-lutionary
thinking based on Crap-Science, every time someone needed
any kind of minor surgery !!!
Yes! ... you can live without it ... and it should be removed
if it gets too infected or ruptures!
But ... the same things goes for other beneficial organs
as well ... including limbs!
THERE ARE "ZERO" VESTIGIAL ORGANS ....... PERIOD !!!
I'm sure it will take another 50-years to get this kind of
Pseudo-Science Propaganda out of our children's Textbooks!
*********************
Also Dave ... could you please remove Stu's vestigial Topic String?
Thanks ...

Bret*

Very interesting...it seems the appendix does have a use after all...

Even more interesting, they say the appendix has been around for 80 million years; not sure how they get there, but the scientists themselves are debunking Darwin's theory on the organ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising

What do we make of this? Personally, I see design...hate to say "I told you so"...

Dave -- As I understand it no one knows what Dark Energy is other than it is an unexpected effect -- the increasing acceleration of the universe's expansion rate which demands a cause. They use the term "dark" to really mean "we don't know!" Amazingly they theorize it makes up 70% of the universe. With another 25% going for "dark matter" that leaves only 5% for what they believe is "real stuff." This is great apologetic material to use with naturalistic scientists for the reality of a supernatural dimension beyond the material universe.

Also, the heliocentric claim counters the prevalent atheistic version of the Copernican principle that the Earth is just an another "grain of sand" in the cosmos. This theory would give additional evidence that we are indeed a Privileged Planet -- and in my view ONE OF A KIND in the entire Cosmos!

Lee -- Thank you for clarifying your position on miracles. I don't know how God does them either but I agree it appears that He works through the laws of nature by overriding their normal operation.

Dave -- As I understand it no one knows what Dark Energy is other than it is an unexpected effect -- the increasing acceleration of the universe's expansion rate --which demands a cause. They use the term "dark" to really mean "we don't know!" Amazingly they theorize it makes up 70% of the universe. With another 25% going for "dark matter" that leaves only 5% for what they believe is "real stuff." This is great apologetic material to use with naturalistic scientists for the reality of a supernatural dimension beyond the material universe.

Also, the heliocentric claim counters the prevelent atheistic version of the Copernican principle that the Earth is just an another "grain of sand" in the cosmos. This theory would give additional evidence that we are indeed a Privileged Planet -- and in my view ONE OF A KIND in the entire Cosmos!

Lee -- Thank you for clarifying your position on miracles. I don't know how God does them either but I agree it appears that He works through the laws of nature by overriding their normal operation.

Bret and Stu,
Actually I was trying to help you get on the bus when you slipped. I seem to be accused of a lot of things these days but I am only trying to get everyone to see things from a logical perspective.  You know the phrase, test everything, hold on to the good. Some views are logically inconsistent and it's my nature to point of the inconsistencies to get at the Truth.  The bus driver must not have been paying attention to any of us otherwise he might have stopped so as to not run you YE and OE Creationists over. But then he could have been a secular progressive listening to our conversation and thought 'nows my chance!'   We all need to be more aware in this hostile world about what is happening around us and spend less time day-dreaming of world peace and immersed in fantasies.  Now back to reality. 
Good science was a gift from God (test everything) to keep us in touch with reality. It is based on logical consistency between data collected from natural events and theories proposed on how Nature operates. When logical inconsistencies arise between the data and the theory, the theory needs revision. People can come up with some really nutty views that are out of touch with reality. Hence there is real value in testing a theory.  You might have noticed by now that the YE belief is in that nutty category wrt the vast majority of the scientific community. It has become that way because of the mountains of data collected are saying 'it ain't so' to the harmonica and banjo playin moonshine sippers. The theory is logically inconsistent with the data collected on many fronts. We have just made a quick dash through the cosmological support for an old earth and cosmos and found that the YE view is not logically consistent with the data observed. I propose that we move to earth sciences, geology and plate tectonics next and see how the YE & OE views match up with the data collected (reality).  
Stu said in a post last week:
[Lee -- Jer 33 says God won't abandon the natural laws. It doesn't say he won't intervene, or make a supernatural exception to the regular course of the natural world.]

I agree with your statement,  I never wanted give anyone the impression that God doesn't intervene. I was only trying to say that God doesn't need to reinvent the laws of physics each time He performs a miracle but that He uses the laws that he made to effect his will. 

In Bret' s post he likens the fixed laws to HTML code. And another set of code superimpsed on top. Bret states:
 [His BETTER, SMOOTHER, & COOLER code runs right on top of "Our" existing HTML code!
Not NEW Laws! ... just different ones that can deliver the goods without crashing "Our" Laws!]

What I am trying to get across is that the laws of nature already have God's 'COOL' code embedded within. One program does all, the natural laws!  Put that in your pipes and smoke it! This is why the natural laws are so worthy of study.  See my recent post on time to see how time is adjustable. After studying science extensively, it looks to me that all of the miracles of the Bible can fit within the limits of the natural laws under God's control.  I will be trying to show you this in upcoming posts. 

Lee

Bret -- I have some of the same angst over science that you do when science --

• claims to be Truth (with a capital T)

• is a priori Naturalism so that one cannot follow evidence wherever it may lead

• is politicized and agenda driven

• is used primarily as an economic vehicle to generate another grant or another seminar

• used as a club to keep certain people out of the scientific establishment irrespective of their contribution

• when people hold Science above God

But none of the above is science -- but rather it is scientism. It results from a suspension or outright rejection in a belief that God created all things (so that He should at least be allowed in the discussion:). And it is a result of humanity's fallen nature, but this is true in any field of study - even Christian theology!

The above should not divide Christians. Instead, Christians should be showing the world what good science really is. As in everything Jesus gives us the example. Forgive my rough translations:

Doubting Thomas (John 20:25-28)
He tells the apostles that it is OK for Thomas to be a skeptic and that he should perform an experiment and observes the results. That should help Thomas with his faith.
"Reach here and see and touch so that you might believe." To which Thomas' reply, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus uses the scientific method to validate the most clear claim to His deity in the Bible!

Healing the paralytic (Mark 2:9-11)
To demonstrate to an observing public that He has powers both in the natural world and the supernatural world, Jesus performed an observable experiment for them. First He sets them up with "Which is easier to say, your sins are forgiven or take up you pallet and walk" (anyone can say something that is non-verifiable). "But in order that you may observe and know that I have supernatural powers I am going to do something in the natural world so that you will readily deduce Truth."

Educating Nicodemus about what it means to be born again (John 3:12)
"If don't believe things I'm telling you about how the natural world works, how will you ever believe the things I tell you about the supernatural world?"

One of the reasons I am so passionate about the truths of the Bible is becuase God has given me a natural curiosity about knowing how His universe works and has graciously invited me to use that passion to know Him.
"For since the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made, so I am without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
"Come Stuart, and let us reason together, says the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18)

Science is good and is a gift from God. He wants us to use science to explore, observe, experiment, and reason within the natural world so that we can create, formulate and validate our understanding about the natural world (what is seen) which in turn gives us confidence about the supernatural world, which is unseen and apprehended by faith. Through the scientific method (in any field including theology) we can discover Him, draw close to Him and grow to be like Him. We find out that we belong to God, "that He made us and not we ourselves" - Ps 100:3); and that "the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible" (Heb 11:3). Our faith is indeed founded on fact. And facts are founded on the reality of God.

Science is not an enemy - it is an ally. Science is a process not a destination. Regardless how any of us interprets the Bible YE, OE, GT (which is really between each of us and God the Holy Spirit), we need to work together to produce good science.

Now the question becomes - what is good science? Answering that should be the basis of our future discussions.

Bret -- I thought this one was old and discredited news and that most credible YE scientists are distancing themselves from it.

Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino and not a very credible source) popularized the idea, but I thought most others have withdrawn the claim now thinking the smaller footprints were made by a small carnivorous 3-toed dinosaur because:

(1) there's a claw mark behind the heel
(2) its stride is a foot longer than that of a human
(3) the chemical analysis of the residue shows it not of human origin
(4) the actual footprint would have been larger than the fossil since mud collapses when a foot is withdrawn from a river bed.

Which credible sources do you know still hold to your position?

Did Dinosaurs & Man coexist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA


Hmmmm?

Bret*

I think it is important to convey what scientists believe to be true regarding time and then to examine whether those views are compatible with Biblical statements without having to modify the laws of physics and if the scientific view is compatible with some of the Biblical miracles related to time.

At the beginning of the previous century,  time and space were thought to be endless, linear, and independent when Albert Einstein came on the scene and showed the scientists and the world that both were linked together. This relationship, that was first mathematically modeled by the Lorentz equation, showed that both space and time varied so that the speed of light would measure the same in any moving reference frame. 

This was actually a very good thing since it meant that no matter how fast we travel, the laws of physics operate the same during our experiments and in all the processes going on around us. The speed of light appears in the physics equations for electromagnetic forces with other constants of nature so that if the speed of light changed as a result of motion changes, so would chemistry and the property of materials. This is an essential characteristic of any universe that could produce complex sentient living beings. The details of why this is true were explained In a previous post on the variability of the speed of light.    

As a result of this design feature, humans and the processes around them have no ability to determine on an absolute basis how fast they are traveling or how fast time is changing. If we tried to detemine this difference of space or time, it is only measurable  on external objects outside of our own frame of reference. Our scientists have done this many times over the past century and can precisely calculate the rate that time slows down for accelerating or moving objects and objects in gravitational fields. They can't calculate the absolute difference of course but can calculate the relative difference in space and time between the two environments or reference frames. One result from this would be that time could greatly slow down for us relative to other observers if we were immersed in a strong gravitational field or we were traveling close to the velocity of light. We wouldn't sense this ourselves by the processes within our reference frame but the processes relating external objects and observers would appear to go faster relative to our reference frame. External observers would claim that our processes have slowed down during our trip and also see a lag in our clock when we rejoined them in their reference frame some time later.  

The equations of general relativity show us why this occurs. Space time curvature is proportional to the energy density. This means that space and time dimensions shrink and grow as energy is added to or subtracted from the objects in a traveling reference frame. For the traveler, this has happened as a result of acceleration while moving  into a high gravitation environment, then spending time in that environment, then accelerating once again to escape this environment and returning to the point of origin. Whenever accelerating or decelerating, energy is added or subtracted.  When entering or departing from a gravitational field we are gaining or losing energy. The more energy that is added the more space time is adjusted, but in any case we don't notice it except for the tidal effects near a singularity which would tend to put stretching forces the object. 

Now the point of this technical detail is to point out that the flow of time between two objects in our universe can vary significantly and remain totally compatible with the physics of our universe. In this regard, known physics demands that this time flow vary between two objects with different velocities or in different gravitational fields.  As energy is added or removed from the fields that constitute the objects matter, the local spacetime curvature is proportionally adjusted and the processes slow down or speed up. The interesting part is that the matter is unaware and cannot sense its total absolute energy content all the while the rate at which time passes can be radically different than other objects in a different reference frame. 
Photons for example experience no time change since they travel at the speed of light. They can cross the universe and not one second has elapsed. Their fields haven't aged  at all for the entire trip, they are just as fresh as the day they started. If they have been stretched during the trip by expanding space dimensions then the energy taken from the frequency of the photon has been transferred to the stretching dimensions. The field amplitude stays the same because it is quantized by Planck's constant (h) according to the equation for all photons E = h x frequency. The photon doesn't know the difference since space time itself has expanded.  

We humans know of two ways thus far (and possibly one more as we come to know dark energy) to change the rate of time passage between two separable objects; we can accelerate them greatly or place them in a strong gravitational field. This has proven to be most difficult at our present level of knowledge and collective ability as beings. Our scientists have demonstrated small affects in the lab and observed greater effects through astronomy related to time variations. So we as scientists are confident that the equations of General Relativity accurately model the natural laws that govern space, time, energy, and momentum for our universe. The remaining uncertainty relates to it's connection to quantum mechanics and dark energy. Virtually all astronomical observations comply with General Relativity. 

Dark energy may be the constant that Einstein about in the General Relativity equation. As we study the data more and perform additional experiments we hope to find out how much variation it has if any. At present we can only be certain of two things: it is extremely small and second that it is causing a very slow accelerated expansion of the universe. If it is a dynamic quantity, then it could add another control aspect to the rate at which time flows between objects. Since the energy density term as well as the spacetime curvature term in the General Relativity equation is local and dynamic wrt space and time, the cosmological constant (dark energy) could be as well instead of an actual constant as Einstein originally drafted it. Some of our scientists think that it it might be a variable term and could have been a much greater value in the first stages of the Big Bang then settled to it's extremely low present value. If so it could be responsible for an early inflationary stage that many cosmologists find so endearing. This is a very active area of research at present among the cosmologists and mathematical physicists. There is no clear proof on whether this 'cosmological constant/dark energy' is dynamic, local, or not. It is rather interesting and fun for cosmologists to speculate about though!

There are four important points to take from this complex and deep topic on time variation as an essential component of our universe and it's relativistic laws 1) Time can speed up or slow down depending on the local conditions. 2) The laws of General Relativity permit control of rate at which time passes. 3) Humans are not very capable of controlling these rates at our present level of technology. Perhaps someday we will be better at it as we have seen ficticiously in the use of warp drive in Star Trek and perhaps we will not. 4) We only know for certain God has made the laws of physics controllable from His perspective and without having to abandon His laws in this area of phyics. He is firmly in charge of time using the equations of General Relativity. 

Lee

What do we really know about Supernovae?
How much HARD observational data do we really have?

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 !!!
Talk about playing around with the FIXED LAWS of Physics!
What kind of MAGIC is needed to defy the LAW of Entropy?
This sounds like a job for Lee to explain?
(come on Lee ... you know you Love it!)

Bret*