Todd, Rod here.  Thanks for this interesting material on Cepheids and
light-transit-time.  You said [We are talking about aspects of the real
world. It is the truth that the universe is ancient, due to the fact that
astronomers literally observe the universe' ancient past.]

Your argument for an ancient universe relies heavily upon the assumption of
Relativity and light-transit-time.  I have two simple questions.

1.In Genesis 1:1-31, where does it tell readers what the velocity of light
is or was during the creation week?
2. How does the Barry Setterfield c-decay hypothesis with slow motion effect
alter your conclusions?

Thanks-----Rod

Hi, Rod.

Thanks for your questions. I shall comment on them in a moment.

First, I wish to mention that relativistic effects (or the lack
thereof) are not assumed with things like SN1987. (See
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html for SN1987A
info.) The lack of relativistic effects are simply what is observed.
See http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/08/index.html,
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/10/A.html, and
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/1999/18/index.html for some good
examples of relativistic effects that *are* observed.

Second, light transit time is also based on observation and not on
assumption. (I will grant that this may have been the case, say, 80
years ago, but the assumption has been borne out by observation.) I
speak to this more below.

To your questions:

(1) I don't think the velocity of light is discussed in Genesis 1:1-
31.

(2) From the Institute for Creationist Research (ICR) is the article
titled "Has The Speed of Light Decayed?" by Gerald E. Aardsma. (See
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm.) Setterfield's lightspeed
decay idea has also been disclaimed by the following young earth
creationists: D. Russell Humphreys, R. H. Brown, M. G. Evered, and R.
D. Holt. (Evered, in particular, has dissected the idea in a number
of articles in the YEC magazine *Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
Journal.*)

Setterfield ignored the error bars that went along with the data
points. Also, Setterfield "fudged" (I do not by this mean to imply
intentional deception) the 1675 data point, and the 1675 data point
is the only one that has much significance with Setterfield deriving
his exponential curve. It is also the case that even if you were to
grant Setterfield that particular data point, he makes some
additional artificial (arbitrary) assumptions to get his exponential
curve.

Barry Setterfield, by the way, is not an astronomer, though he does
work in physics.

There is more to this lightspeed decay topic, such as the fact that
if the speed of light really had followed such an exponential decay
curve, then astronomers would literally observe the decay all over
the universe because all astronomical observations would be subject
to a "slow-motion" effect which would vary proportionally with the
distance to the observed entities/events. No such "slow-motion"
effects are observed by astronomers.

There's is also the interesting implication that if the speed of
light were radically (exponentially) greater in the past, especially
right after the creation 6,000 years ago, then Adam and Eve would
literally have been "crispy critters" due to the correspondingly
higher energy of radiation!

Regards,
Todd


--- Roderick Bernitt wrote:
> Todd, Rod here. Thanks for this interesting material on Cepheids and
> light-transit-time. You said [We are talking about aspects of the
> real world. It is the truth that the universe is ancient, due to
> the fact that astronomers literally observe the universe' ancient
> past.]
>
> Your argument for an ancient universe relies heavily upon the
> assumption of Relativity and light-transit-time. I have two simple
> questions.
>
> 1.In Genesis 1:1-31, where does it tell readers what the velocity
> of light is or was during the creation week?
> 2. How does the Barry Setterfield c-decay hypothesis with slow
> motion effect alter your conclusions?
>
> Thanks-----Rod

Todd, you are correct that Genesis 1:1-31 does not declare the velocity of c
during the creation week.  Your position advocates an assumption based upon
secular science but not plain Biblical statements.  The ICR reference is
very old.  I recommend that you read Setterfield lastest postings on the
internet from this year.  Slow motion effect according to Setterfield would
not be detectable by modern astronomers.  His approach to SN1987A
demonstrates why.

Q:Did you read his report on SN1987A and slow motion effect?

Also Setterfield demonstrates why Adam and Eve could exist in a higher
velocity c universe and not get fried or have their mass change.  I don't
advocate his model but I find it very interesting in view of
light-transit-time arguments today.  Also Setterfield approach may explain
the origin of the CMB without the big bang explanation-----Rod

again the talkorigins faq is dated material.  I must ask the simple
question, has anyone in your group read Setterfield's analysis of slow
motion effect for SN1987A?  This addresses many of the issues you have
raised concerning slow motion effect.  If I understand Setterfield position,
you could apply this to all Type I and Type II supernovae.  As we observe
them today, they would all appear to have originated under a velocity for c
as we see today, but the initial conditions and original velocity would be
dramatically different.  Many of the effects you are claiming to find,
please cite Setterfield rebuttals to them, thanks----Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 10:32 AM
To: Roderick Bernitt; CreationProcessAge forum
Cc: Todd S. Greene
Subject: Velocity of light


Rod,

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics, so know something
about light.  You said:

"1.In Genesis 1:1-31, where does it tell readers what the velocity of light
is or was during the creation week?"

As the Bible doesn't say anything about this, this question is completely
meaningless.  The kind of audience the Bible was first written for had
no concept of this.  You might as well ask where in the Bible does it say
that Moses would have preferred Linux to Windows 98, or the dipole
moment of water, or the number of moons of Jupiter.

You said:

"2. How does the Barry Setterfield c-decay hypothesis with slow motion
effect alter your conclusions?"

This can be tested directly.  If the velocity of light was much higher when
it left a distant object which also acted as a clock, such as a pulsar,
a cepheid or other pulsating variable star, or an eclipsing binary, then it
is now, this could be seen.  Many of these objects can be timed very
accurately indeed.  If the velocity of light has been slowing down in the
last few 1000 years, we would see such objects in slow motion, and the
further in distance you looked, the slower the motion would appear.  Not
only that, but we would detect in the space of a few years that these
objects would consistently be speeding up, as the difference between
the speed of light when leaving these objects and the speed now and
here would decrease.  This effect is not observed.

Note that these arguments do not involve relativity or quantum
mechanics, just straight classical Newtonian physics.  If relativity is
also considered, from the energy production in stars, as E=mc^2, the
energy produced would depend on the velocity of light SQUARED.
This is not observed.  From quantum mechanics, the position of the
spectral lines also depend on the velocity of light.  In fact by changing
the velocity of light by even a small amount changes all the laws of
physics, which is not observed.

I should mention a brief point about above, at very large distances,
around billions of light years, you do see a slowing down effect.  This
is due to relativistic effects caused by the expansion of the universe,
but is irrelevant, as I am talking about looking at objects up to a few
million light years.

Finally, you may wish to look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Sincerely yours,

Christopher M. Sharp

FYI.  for anyone interested about c-decay they can find more at this url
http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

----Rod

Hi, everyone.

To post a message to this forum, using your email software, all you
have to do is send it to: CreationProcessAge forum

Additionally, you can also post messages to the forum online (through
your internet browser). The general address for the forum is:

   http://www.egroups.com/group/CreationProcessAge

and then you can click on the "Post" command in the menu on the left
(or if you are viewing a message in the messages archive you can
simply click on "Reply"), or you can post directly at

   http://www.egroups.com/post/CreationProcessAge

Of course, online you have to "sign in" for egroups to recognize you
as a member of CreationProcessAge (so that you are authorized to post
online).

If you have any tech questions about how to use the discussion forum,
please feel free to contact me directly at <tgreene@usxchange.net> But
please note that you can, of course, continue to just send
emails and reply to emails just as you are used to doing with your
email software using the CreationProcessAge forum email address.

Thanks,
Todd S. Greene
<Todd S. Greene>

FYI here----Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:18 PM
To: Christopher Sharp
Cc: Todd S. Greene; Christopher Sharp
Subject: RE: Velocity of light


From your answers it is clear you have not read the Setterfield material.  I
provided a url that you can see.  One of the points stressed is spectral
lines, according to Setterfield this would not change and would not have the
impact you claim.  I really don't know who is correct or wrong.  However, if
Setterfield slow motion effect for SN1987A is applied to all Type I and Type
II SNs, then it is just assumption that c is uniform like today when these
SN exploded.  The talkorigins faq I believe mostly reviews reports from the
1980s for c-decay, the url I provided has dealt with these issues and moved
on.  You should discuss your concerns with Barry Setterfield directly and
get his views, thanks----Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Sharp
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:11 PM
To: Roderick Bernitt
Cc: Todd S. Greene; Christopher Sharp
Subject: Re: Velocity of light


The talkorigins faq is dated 1997, so is not old.  In any case, as
I said, there is simply no evidence that the velocity of light has
changed, and no physical mechanism is proposed that could
cause its change, such as the change in the quantum vacuum.

Also, as I said, relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which
have been verified to a very high accuracy, preclude any change
in c.  As the energy released is proportional to the c squared,
and that means all processes, not just nuclear, precludes any
change in c.  The decay of c is pure fantasy, it has no basis in
any observations, and contradicts the laws of nature.  If c were
even a small amount different, life would be impossible, so Adam
would not have been around in the first place.

Christopher M. Sharp

Rod said: "From your answers it is clear you have not read the
Setterfield material.  I provided a url that you can see.  One of the
points stressed is spectral lines, according to Setterfield this
would not change and would not have the impact you claim.  I really
don't know who is correct or wrong.  However, if Setterfield slow
motion effect for SN1987A is applied to all Type I and Type II SNs,
 then it is just assumption that c is uniform like today when these
SN exploded.  The talkorigins faq I believe mostly reviews reports
from the 1980s for c-decay, the url I provided has dealt with these
issues and moved on.  You should discuss your concerns with Barry
Setterfield directly and get his views, thanks----Rod"

There are several serious problems with Setterfield's writings.

1. Nowhere is relativity addressed.  The theory of relativity
is based on constancy of the speed of light.  If light is not
a constant, then what is the impact on relativity?  This is
not a minor problem.

2.  What makes you think that there is anything to quantized
redshifts?  That is, can you identify crackpots?  This is not a
minor problem, but the foundation of Setterfield's explanation.
As a matter of fact, Christopher Sharp is at the same University
as Tifft.  I wonder what he thinks of quantum redshifts.  Chris?

3. What makes you think the data analysis is nothing more
than wishful thinking?  Old measurements have large error bars.
Newer measurements have very small ones.  The speed of light
happened to stop measurably changing just as we have been
able to measure it precisely.  Perhaps you think it just
coincidence.

4.  There is no mechanism to make the speed of light change
by quantum increments, nor for it to be propagated throughout
the universe *instantaneously*.

5. The *temperature* of the microwave background radiation
- ignored.

6. No good reason for increasing ZPE is given.  What he mentions
as support is for conversion to radiation that is in *addition* to
the ZPE, not changing the ZPE itself.

7. Setterfield mentions a bottoming out of c decay in 1980, and
now oscillation in its value.  Couldn't possibly be noise due
to experimental errors, now could it?

8.  Now for the most serious error:  the changes that are given
by Setterfield himself are inconsistent with *each other*.  Let
the change be done by a scale factor s, and prime denote the
changed value from what is now observed.

"hc is a constant." Therefore h'=hs,
and c'=c/s.
"E=mc^2 is a constant" Therefore m'=ms^2.
"c2=1/(QR)"  Q'=Qs and P'=Ps
"Atomic radii are a constant".
The formula for a bohr radius is constant*Q*h^2/(me^2).
Is r'=r?  Let us see: r'=constant*Q'*h'^2/(m'*e^2)=
constant*Qs*h^2*s^2/(ms^2*e^2) =
rs

r'=r only if s=1, so c'=c, i.e. unchanged.  What a wonder!

In another place:
"The equation reads 'c = FW.' If 'W' is constant and 'c' is varying,
then 'F' must vary in proportion to 'c'"

Why is W constant and F varying, when light going through
a nonvacuum changes W and F is not changed?

Oh well, perhaps he can change more constants of the universe.
I suggest that instead of us discussing these points with
Setterfield, he submit his work to Phys. Rev., and post the
pungent remarks he gets.  That should be entertaining.

Tracy P. Hamilton

I think the URL we're focusing in on is

   http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html

Am I right? (Rod, you didn't give this specific one, at least not
here in the forum. So if I've stumbled onto the precise one you are
referring to, please let me know. Of course, if I've stumbled onto
the wrong one, please let me know that too.)

We should, of course, dig into the appropriate details (it is our
responsibility to do so), but I do want to mention something to you,
Rod. I've been digging into creationist stuff for over 20 years, and,
quite frankly, the fact of the matter is that overall credibility is
seriously lacking. If there are specific details you want us to
examine, please point us directly to them, and please point out what
the specific issues are. So much of creationist material is buried in
misconstrued representation of relevant scientific and highly
speculative discussion.

Christopher, for example, is referring to astronomical observations
that must be accounted for by any model (though he could be more
specific where appropriate should we dig into specific examples).
While Setterfield might have a nice model consistent with YEC (which
remains to be seen, since his model may not even be an internally
consistent one), it has to be consistent not only with the redshift
cases he is focusing on, but must also correspond to pulsar cycles,
supernovae radioactive decay curves, and the like (across a range of
distances, not just from a fixed distance).

Additionally, as I already mentioned, the decay curve Setterfield
constructed back in the 1980s has been shown to be incorrectly
derived from the data - by YECs even. Setterfield now claims
that "The analysis was developed further and formally presented in
August 1994 by Montgomery [61]. These papers answered questions
related to the statistics involved and have not yet been refuted."
Uh... I guess he's right, because he says so himself. Right? Rod, I'm
sorry but I'm very skeptical. As I said, YEC credibility has been
very seriously lacking in the past. As Tracy Hamilton has noted, if
Setterfield is confident that he has fixed things, then he should
submit his work to the appropriate peer-reviewed journal(s) so that
experts in the appropriate field can review the work to see if it
even meets the basic standards for serious consideration.

Rod, of Setterfield's work at
http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html, which three points do
you think are the most significant that we could focus in on?

Christopher and Tracy, of that same piece, could each of you each
specify, say, the two significant criticisms of the piece that you
think are the most telling against it. Just as an example,
Christopher, you might cite "supernovae radioactive decay curves are
constant regardless of distance" and then you could flesh out a
couple of examples.

I'm just trying to get a little focus both for myself, and especially
for others who may have little or no science education at all.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

Hi Tracy,

Thanks for answering the query.  I wasn't aware that Setterfield had
"published" anything in the last few years, and didn't have the time to
check up the URL, but I'll look at it this evening.  I didn't have the
formulae readily at hand for the Bohr radius, the Rydberg constant etc.,
but having done atomic and molecular physics, I knew that if you changed
c, you would change everything else, and if you adjusted say h to compensate
for the change in c in one formula, you will still change other quantities.

What really astounds me is that anybody can propose c decay, but not present
any theoretical basis for this and make predictions, quite apart from the
absence of any observational or experimental evidence.  As neutrinos were
detected from Supernova 1987A, and as they move a practically the velocity
of light (exactly at c if the standard model is correct and they are massless,
but there is good reason to believe that they have a very small mass), is
additional evidence that c has not changed.

As to William Tifft, yes I know him, he is a few doors down from were my office
was.  He is rather out on a limb, and his theories on quantized red-shifts are
not accepted.  He is a good friend of Halton Arp, who I also know and met in
Germany, where he now works.  He shares the same unorthodox views of Tifft, but
both of them, as far as I know, do not accept a universe less than 10,000 years
old.

Christopher Sharp

Hello Everyone,

If there is anyone on this egroup who has an opinion about the age of
the Earth and the age of the Universe, please publicly state that
opinion.

Here is my opinion:

The Earth is 4.5+ billion years old.

The Universe is 10+ billion years old.

If there is anyone on this board who disagrees with the above ages,
please make your objections known.  How old would you say the Earth
and the Universe are?

Thanks for your assistance,

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Tracy you bring up some interesting points.  One of which I care to examine
here.
Tracy said [4.  There is no mechanism to make the speed of light change by
quantum increments, nor for it to be propagated throughout the universe
*instantaneously*]

a. How large was 3D space before the big bang?  (Answer: perhaps <
Plank-Wheeler length, 10^-33 cm)
b. How large was 3D space immediately after the big bang?

Item b. shows that evolutionists believe in instantaneous action at a
distance in the big bang model.  If evolutonists embrace this belief what is
the difference with Setterfield view about instantaneous change in c?

------Rod

Todd, the url is close enough.  The information is posted at Lambert
Dolphin's website which you have.

Hi, David.

Perhaps I am less unequivocal about the actual ages of the earth and
the universe than this, but it is indeed my opinion that geological
considerations put the earth at somewhat more than 4 billion years
old and that astronomical considerations put the universe at more
than 10 billion years old (I think the "zooming in" process is going
toward about 13 billion). Where I am quite unequivocal (as I have
explained in two previous emails addressed to Dudley Ross Spears) is
that, while the precise ages of the universe and earth may be
somewhat "fuzzy" (10% to 20% error bars, perhaps?) it is *extremely*
clear that it is totally impossible to account for the accumulated
data in any time frame of less than 100,000 years time frame. Indeed,
in light of direct astronomical observations of the universe' distant
past, any such short time frame is absolutely absurd. The antiquity
of the universe and earth is as factual as the existence of the
planet Neptune or the germ theory of disease.

I urge others to state their position, for reference, as explicitly
as you and I have.

Regards,
Todd


--- David Mathews wrote:
> If there is anyone on this egroup who has an opinion about the age
> of the Earth and the age of the Universe, please publicly state
> that opinion.
>
> Here is my opinion:
>    The Earth is 4.5+ billion years old.
>    The Universe is 10+ billion years old.
>
> If there is anyone on this board who disagrees with the above ages,
> please make your objections known. How old would you say the Earth
> and the Universe are?

Thanks Christopher for these views.  My only comment about c-decay, I don't
advocate it, just find some of the debate interesting.  An area that would
help me is if modern measurements for the times of eclipses and other
activity associated with Saturn's moons and Jupiter's moons did indeed
support a slow down in light-transit-time.  I know Setterfield discussed
some data about Jupiter's moons but I have never seen anything on Saturn.
Both should be affected if c-decay was still taking place in the universe
today.  However I don't know what Setterfield error bars are here,----Rod

PREJUDICIAL RHETORIC BY ANY OTHER NAME STILL SMELLS THE SAME

In the "Open Letter"[*] the statement is made that:

     In recent years, acceptance and tolerance of what we consider
     to be a dangerous error has been increasing among our
     brethren. It is an error which, in our estimation, undercuts
     the very foundation of our faith. This is the view which
     suggests that the physical universe began as the result of
     the Big Bang and developed over billions of years of change
     by natural law to become capable of sustaining life. Brethren
     among us have both publicly and privately stated their
     acceptance of the basic tenets of uniformitarianism and the
     timetable associated with the general theory of evolution.
     While they maintain that God created life instantaneously by
     His word, they deny that a similar process obtained with the
     inanimate world....

     It is our conviction that if the concepts mentioned above are
     accepted or tolerated among us, the stage will have been set
     for an ever progressing acceptance of an evolutionary
     explanation for all things. We are convinced that when one
     accepts the basic principles of biblical interpretation
     undergirding such theories, there is no convenient or proper
     stopping point in their application.

What a dangerous and truth-spiting attitude this is! Truth is what is
important. The truth is what it is, and our feelings about it are
irrelevant. To argue that we should reject an idea based on prejudice
rather than based on checking the facts to determine whether or not
it is true is to take leave of truth-seeking and to engage in purely
prejudicial rhetoric. This very attitude of rejection by appeal to
prejudice is repeatedly expressed in the "Open Letter" through the
rhetoric that is used. Knowing full well the clear and obvious
distinction between evolutionists, and old earth creationists such as
Hill Roberts and Hugh Ross, the authors of the "Open Letter" clearly
work to inject the "bugaboo" word of "evolution" at every opportunity:

     These essays deal extensively with brother Roberts' support
     for a non-literal view of the creation account as well as his
     support for an evolutionary explanation for the *inanimate*
     world....

     Much of [Hill Roberts'] article, *Genesis & The Time Thing*,
     is spent defending the acceptability of the Big Bang theory
     and the timetable for such as defended by evolutionists....

     Yet, this timetable commonly accepted by evolutionists, is
     said to be harmonious with the Bible....

     [Hill Roberts] affirms the present order of the universe is a
     product of a relatively slow evolutionary process of natural,
     uniformitarian change, albeit guided by divine providence....

     Hugh Ross can accurately be described as a theistic
     evolutionist....

     [Hill Roberts] believes in "stellar evolution." The Big Bang
     gave the universe its beginning and stellar evolution gave it
     the form it eventually took. One who accepts the notion that
     God oversaw this process, as does brother Roberts, is
     undeniably a "theistic stellar evolutionist"....

Oh Lord, please deliver us from the "theistic stellar evolutionists"!
Of course, since astronomers directly observe aspects of stellar
evolution (see, for example, Hubble Watches Star Tear Apart its
Neighborhood at
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/23/pr-photos.html), and
since I highly doubt that the "Open Letter" authors would dare to
deny such directly observed changes (for example, the SN1987A
supernova) since this would put them in too obvious opposition to
truth, then they too are "theistic stellar evolutionists." Our "Open
Letter" authors are also "theistic meteorological evolutionists" due
to their acceptance of the mere fact that the weather changes day by
day according to naturally occurring processes. Look out for
these "Open Letter" co-authors and co-signers who are such appalling
uniformitarian evolutionists! I dearly hope you will, through the
sarcasm of my *argumentum ad absurdum* expressed here, see the point
being made, which is that the "Open Letter" authors (and the co-
signers signed agreement with) use such rhetoric for the intentional
purpose of instigating prejudice. Impartial consideration of the
relevant details is antithetical to the kind of rhetoric they have
used.

(Incidentally, it is factually incorrect to describe Hugh Ross as a
theistic evolutionist, because he specifically and explicitly
advocates the old earth creationist position and criticizes both the
theistic evolutionist position as well as biological evolution in
general. Ross advocates the same concept of biological "kinds" that
is advocated by young earth creationists, acknowledging "micro-
evolution" while denying "macro-evolution," just as they do. Thus,
again, the "Open Letter" co-authors and co-signers are just as much
evolutionists as Hugh Ross.)

I know that my claims here might be criticized with the plea that,
technically speaking, we really are talking about the evolution of
the "inanimate world." Well, yes, we are. So I would like to ask
which of the authors of the "Open Letter" dispute the fact that the
inanimate world is evolving right now? Contrary to their pretensions,
the issue is not over changes that take place in the due course of
naturally occurring processes. The use of the word "evolution" by the
authors of "Open Letter" is clearly a matter of using rhetoric for
the purpose of prejudicing readers on this issue, and such obviously
prejudicial usage of language can hardly be for the benefit of truth-
seeking.

Clearly, the issue between young earth creationism and old earth
creationism is over the time element involved, and this use of
prejudicial rhetoric by young earth creationists is a blatant attempt
both to incite antagonistic passion rather than clear-headed
consideration in discussion of the relevant details of the issues,
and to behave contrary to a proper attitude of truth-seeking by
appealing to prejudice in the first place as being some kind of an
emotional indicator as to the truth of a matter. Obviously, truth is
not determined by whether or not the truth makes us feel comfortable
or uncomfortable. So the "Open Letter" co-authors should not even be
using this kind of rhetorical tactic.

What is the truth? What is the relevant information? What are the
relevant implications of this information? What if in our truth-
seeking we discover that the truth is precisely what we have been
taught to hate? Are our personal emotions relevant to deciding
whether or not to acknowledge and accept such truth? I think the
answers to these questions are quite clear, and the "Open Letter"
authors and co-signers would do themselves a favor by recognizing the
correct answers and by keeping their own rhetoric consistent with
these answers.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

   He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
      (Proverbs 12.17)

   How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
   and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1:22)

   The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
   the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)


 * see http://www.gospelanchor.com/articles/dayage/fc_oplet.htm
   and http://www.watchmanmag.com/0306/030613.htm

THE BIBLE REALLY DOES USE ANTHROPOMORPHIC LANGUAGE
IN REFERENCE TO GOD'S ACTIVITY IN NATURAL PROCESSES

The authors of the "Open Letter"[*] frequently assert the fallacious
idea that when the Bible speaks of God's action then this must refer
literalistically to direct, supernatural activity and cannot refer to
the involvement of natural means and natural processes taking place
over time. In other words, they believe that in the context of the
creation story there is absolutely no possibility that
anthropomorphic language is being used in reference to God, and that
anyone who interprets such language non-literalistically, in
correspondence with the concept that God acts upon nature through
nature ("providentially"), *must* be interpreting the Bible
incorrectly and thus should not be accepted or tolerated. (The
authors state that "Those signing this letter have been troubled over
the recent acceptance or tolerance of views denying the literal
interpretation of the Bible account of miraculous creation.")

This is directly contrary to the fact that there are numerous Old
Testament references which prove that their literalistic approach is,
at best, incomplete, and, at worst, in direct contradiction to the
Bible itself. But first, let's look at statements in the "Open
Letter" that express this fallacy:

     ...[T]he attempt to characterize the issues in this
     discussion as an "Age of the Earth" question is misleading.
     The main issue has to do with whether (a) the physical world
     and its living inhabitants were created instantaneously by
     the word of God over six literal, consecutive days as taught
     in Scripture, or (b) the Scripture must be interpreted non-
     literally to suggest that the physical world is the result of
     uniformitarian changes over vast eons of time.

In fact, at one point the authors of the "Open Letter" misinterpret a
biblical text in support of this obviously fallacious view, even
though the passage actually disproves the very idea they are trying
to promote! They write:

     [Hill Roberts] affirms the present order of the universe is a
     product of a relatively slow...process of natural...change,
     albeit guided by divine providence. There is a vast difference
     between that view and the Bible's affirmation of instantaneous
     creation by the command of God.

     Clear Bible Teaching on Creation
     --------------------------------

     The psalmist declared that, "By the word of Jehovah were the
     heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His
     mouth" (Psa. 33:6). Did God speak His will and then let the
     natural forces take over and accomplish it through natural,
     uniformitarian change over billions of years? No! The
     following words of the psalmist preclude such an
     interpretation: "For He spake, and it was done; He commanded,
     and it stood fast" (Psa. 33:9).

Yet, contrary to the view of the "Open Letter" authors and co-
signers, Psalm 33 clearly uses metaphorical language:

     6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
       and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
     7 He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle;
       he put the deeps in storehouses.
     8 Let all the earth fear the LORD,
       let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
     9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
       he commanded, and it stood forth.

    13 The LORD looks down from heaven,
       he sees all the sons of men;
    14 from where he sits enthroned
       he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth,

There is similar metaphorical language in Jeremiah 10:12-13 (and Jer.
51:15-16):

     It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the
     world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out
     the heavens. When he utters his voice there is a tumult of
     waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the
     ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he
     brings forth the wind from his storehouses.

Does the earth literally have ends? Is the sea in a literal storage
tank? Are the deeps kept in literal warehouses? Does God literally
sit on a literal throne? In their misapplication of the text of Psalm
33, the "Open Letter" authors do an excellent job of demonstrating
for us the fallibility of their human "wisdom" based on their
literalistic interpretive approach. We should thank them.

So, if the literalists were to follow their own creed to its logical
conclusion, on the basis of their reasoning they would also have to
decry the meteorologists, and all Christians who would follow 'the
doctrine of uniformitarian meteorological evolution' would need to be
criticized, rebuked, and disfellowshipped for their 'atheistically-
inspired belief' in meteorology as "a denial of the clear affirmation
of the inspired record that the miracle" of weather can "not be
explained by natural law." God speaks and it just happens, and
there's nothing else to think about.

I'm sorry, but young earth creationists' rhetoric based on their
false idea that biblical interpretation absolutely must be either
literalistic or it must be condemned is so easily subject to
demonstration of fallacy by *argumentum ad absurdum*.

By observation of the biblical text itself we see that the real
questions, and the real answers, are:

   Does the Bible use metaphorical language in reference to divine
   action?

   YES.

   Does the Bible use metaphorical, even anthropomorphic, language
   in reference to divine action in specific reference to God
   acting upon nature through nature?

   YES.

   Does the Bible use such language in specific reference to the
   creation of the heavens and the earth?

   YES.

Thus, the authors of the "Open Letter," and other advocates of the
young earth creationist creed who espouse this same fallacious
concept, actually fail their own biblical hermeneutics test.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

   He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
      (Proverbs 12.17)

   How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
   and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1:22)

   The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
   the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)


 * see http://www.gospelanchor.com/articles/dayage/fc_oplet.htm
   and http://www.watchmanmag.com/0306/030613.htm

Concerning the possibility of cDK:

I have included a brief, relatively non-technical critique of the
Setterfield-Norman hypothesis in my online paper at:
http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm.  After looking through
the online materials indicated by Rod, and doing a search for other
items about Setterfield's work, I don't believe there is any
material
online that I had not previously reviewed.  It therefore appears that
the difficulties I had identified with cDK at the time I originally
wrote the paper (a year ago) are still, well, difficult.

Briefly, my objections to the cDK hypothesis were and are:

1.  Setterfield and Norman report Roemer having obtained a value of
307,600 ± 5,400 kps for "c," but the Encyclopedia Britannica gives
a
value for Roemer's measurement as 298,000 kps, once Roemer's
observations are corrected for errors in his figures for the radius
of the earth.  Since this value is one of the few at the
proposed "higher" velocity, it effectively destroys the
proposed cDK
curve.

2.  Setterfield claims that cDK is consistent with general
relativity; however, cDK requires that "c" changes from one
velocity
to another everywhere in the universe at the same time, a stipulation
which by definition requires an absolute temporal frame of reference,
something which relativity theory does not allow.

3.  If light speed had been much higher in the past, relativistic
effects such as "gravitational lensing" of starlight would be
less
than we calculate them to be today, but in fact the most distant
objects show the most pronounced relativistic effects.

4.  Slowing light speed would create the illusion that events
billions of light-years away were happening "in slow motion
(Setterfield confirms this expectation in his discussion of
SN1987A)," but in fact we observe a rotational rate on some of
the
most distant pulsars which could not be any faster without the
pulsars flying apart.

5.  The crucial part of the Setterfield-Norman curve—the
"old" part
which shows the speed of light at eleven million times what it is
today—is not a product of observation but of hopeful
extrapolation.
A critique of the hypothesis by Frederick Skiff pointed out that
"an
infinite number of curves" would have fit the data-points, and
Setterfield's response to Skiff did not dispute this charge.

6.  cDK is an ad-hoc theory, and Setterfield has effectively made it
non-falsifiable by proposing that any other constant which has been
combined with "c" (e.g., "m" in Einstein's
mass-energy equation) has
also changed at exactly the same time as "c" and in exactly
the right
proportion to make the change in "c" unobservable.

7.  Setterfield's explanation of SN1987A depends on the
additional
proposed effect of the slowing of radiation decay.  Setterfield
proposes the same type of effects for radiation decay as for cDK:
that the number of photons emitted is increased but the energy
carried by each photon is reduced in exactly the same proportion
(isn't it convenient how this works!).  However, he carefully
stipulates that the total amount of energy emitted is constant over
time.  If the rate of radiation decay was, as Setterfield proposes, a
million times greater than today, the amount of energy which had to
be emitted for a given number of decay steps was the same, which
means there would have been a million times as much heat produced in
the crust of the earth by radioactive decay when the first people
were living on the earth.  The crust of the earth would have melted
quickly.

8.  Setterfield's hypothesis doesn't really solve any of the
difficult questions.  For "concordists" like me—people
who attempt to
harmonize the testimony of science with that of scripture—the
first
15 billion years of cosmic history isn't the problem.  That
period
can easily be accommodated by the difference between the creation of
heavens and earth and the introduction of light.  The problem is the
100 million years which (apparently) preceded the entry of the human
race, and how to reconcile the fossil record with the history
(anthropological and Biblical) of people.

9.  Finally, cDK does not address most of the evidences for cosmic
and geological antiquity.  In fact, Setterfield (to his credit) has
made himself unpopular within the YEC camp for pointing out that YECs
need more explanations for geology than just the flood.

I admire the imagination and effort which has gone into this
hypothesis, and I think that if young-earth ideas are going to be
successful in the marketplace of "truth" there is going to have to be
a lot more imagination and work put into other concepts.  But it does
not look like this one is going to work.

tom

some good comments by Tom here.  Tom you said [2.  Setterfield claims that
cDK is consistent with general
relativity; however, cDK requires that "c" changes from one velocity to
another everywhere in the universe at the same time, a stipulation which by
definition requires an absolute temporal frame of reference, something which
relativity theory does not allow.]

I don't know if such an instantaneous action at a distance requires an
absolute temporal frame of reference.  What supports this?

Please see my earlier remarks about the big bang and size of 3D space before
and after.  Looks like evolutionists have an instantaneous action at a
distance force at work too.  Would this fall under your absolute temporal
frame of reference?-----Rod

Hi, Tom.

I have appreciated your comments.

In your point #8 you mention "100 million years which (apparently)
preceded the entry of the human race," and I do not understand what
you are referring to by this. Would you please clarify?

Regards,
Todd


###### Tom Couchman, 8/29/00 2:48 pm ######
8. Setterfield's hypothesis doesn't really solve any of the
difficult questions. For "concordists" like me — people who
attempt to harmonize the testimony of science with that of scripture—the
first 15 billion years of cosmic history isn't the problem. That
period can easily be accommodated by the difference between the
creation of heavens and earth and the introduction of light. The
problem is the 100 million years which (apparently) preceded the
entry of the human race, and how to reconcile the fossil record with
the history (anthropological and Biblical) of people.

Hi, Rod.

I have a quibble about your terminology. It's not "evolutionists," it
is "astrophysicists" we're talking about in this particular
context. ;-)

I thought the very purpose of the theory of an "inflationary period"
(originally proposed by Alan Guth) is, among other things, to try to
deal with problems related to the fact that physics does not allow
for instantaneous action at a distance. So I'm wondering why you are
thinking the opposite. Am I missing something about your comment?

Regards,
Todd


###### Roderick Bernitt 8/29/00 3:08 pm ######
some good comments by Tom here. Tom you said

   [2.  Setterfield claims that cDK is consistent with general
   relativity; however, cDK requires that "c" changes from one
   velocity to another everywhere in the universe at the same
   time, a stipulation which by definition requires an
   absolute temporal frame of reference, something which
   relativity theory does not allow.]

I don't know if such an instantaneous action at a distance requires
an absolute temporal frame of reference. What supports this?

Please see my earlier remarks about the big bang and size of 3D space
before and after. Looks like evolutionists have an instantaneous
action at a distance force at work too. Would this fall under your
absolute temporal frame of reference?

does the inflation theory answer my question?  I am not sure about it.
Demands upon where in the big bang model you insert inflation.  at the
moment of big bang or 10^-43 second after?

If I understand you, inflation theory which looks like instantaneous action
at a distance force, is not like Setterfield c-decay because it has
equations that have been tested (verified to be true to nature)

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 4:23 PM
Subject: [CreationProcessAge] Re: Velocity of Light


Hi, Rod.

I have a quibble about your terminology. It's not "evolutionists," it
is "astrophysicists" we're talking about in this particular
context. ;-)

I thought the very purpose of the theory of an "inflationary period"
(originally proposed by Alan Guth) is, among other things, to try to
deal with problems related to the fact that physics does not allow
for instantaneous action at a distance. So I'm wondering why you are
thinking the opposite. Am I missing something about your comment?

Regards,
Todd


###### Roderick Bernitt 8/29/00 3:08 pm ######
some good comments by Tom here. Tom you said

   [2.  Setterfield claims that cDK is consistent with general
   relativity; however, cDK requires that "c" changes from one
   velocity to another everywhere in the universe at the same
   time, a stipulation which by definition requires an
   absolute temporal frame of reference, something which
   relativity theory does not allow.]

I don't know if such an instantaneous action at a distance requires
an absolute temporal frame of reference. What supports this?

Please see my earlier remarks about the big bang and size of 3D space
before and after. Looks like evolutionists have an instantaneous
action at a distance force at work too. Would this fall under your
absolute temporal frame of reference?

Todd, you said [I thought the very purpose of the theory of an "inflationary
period" (originally proposed by Alan Guth) is, among other things, to try to
deal with problems related to the fact that physics does not allow
for instantaneous action at a distance. So I'm wondering why you are
thinking the opposite. Am I missing something about your comment?]

I have a 1984 Scientific American report by Alan Guth.  The real reason for
inflation is that the CMB is too smooth for standard big bang cosmology to
explain.  Applying the Special Theory of Relativity, standard big bang
breaks down here.  The CMB should be very lumpy with larger temperature
variation throughout.  Can you show me the references that indicate
inflation was developed or addresses the size of 3D space immediately after
the big bang?  I know there is a brief period about 10^-35 second after big
bang but this does not answer how large 3D space was before big bang and
after.  Also how does inflation explain the origin of the constants of
nature like c or G?  Where did these come from?  I believe to accept
inflation theory you must first accept the assumption that h or Planck
constant was constant before the big bang, during the big bang and after the
big bang.----Rod

Rod and Todd:

First Rod:

I don't think the "issue" with Setterfield's hypothesis and special
relativity is "action at a distance."  After all, AAAD was a notion
decisively rejected by Einstein.  If I understand the concept of the
initial expansion after the BB, the universe would have expanded out
to a radius of +10BLY within a few, what?, seconds ...  I don't know
how anybody postulates such a concept.  It sounds like
Hawking's "imaginary time" to me.  But whether we are at the limit of
spacetime, I can assure you we are past the limit of my ability to
deal with technical issues when we reach this point.  Anything else I
would say on the subject would be guessing, and probably not very
good guessing at that.

The "problem" which I do understand is that Setterfield claims that
one of the reasons we cannot detect changes in "c" is that "c"
changes at every point in the universe at the same time.  This
convenient mechanism prevents our seeing apparently different light-
speeds in objects at different distances, which would otherwise be
obvious.  But, as my other post said--and I don't know how else to
say this--this part of the hypothesis requires an "absolute time"
frame-of-reference, which is forbidden by special relativity.

Todd:

Sorry about the muddy presentation.  Here goes another try.

The "problem" for people like the sixty-seven is the apparent
existence of 13-15 BY of cosmic history.  But that's not a problem
for concordists.  We can easily resolve that problem.  All we have to
do is claim that in the creation account the first statement about
God's creative act preceded the introduction of "light" by some
indeterminate temporal gap.  Indeed, before Whitcomb and Morris hit
the bookstores in 1961 this explanation was pretty much orthodoxy.
You can't have "day one" without both light and darkness.  So that
first 15 BY is no problem at all.

But the geological and fossil records speak to about 100 MY before
the appearance of man.  That's the time that gives us a problem.  To
put it another way, suppose there were ample evidence from astronomy
and geology (radio-chronology) that the universe were 15 BY old, but
the first appearance of life was about 10,000 years ago, and all
living things seemed to have come into existence within, say, six
days.  Do you think we'd be having this imbroglio?  No, the literal-
scientific explanation of Genesis would just say that the "gap
theory" regarding time before the introduction of light is correct,
and we'd go on and have an "open letter" about the practice of the
holy kiss or the baptism of the dead.

Does this clarify?

tom

Dear Brother Osborne,

I would like to make the following comments addressed to you:

1. I am not concerned about your position on Genesis 1-2, the Age of
the Earth or any corollary controversy, nor will I evaluate you in
either a friendly or harsh member based upon your positions on these
matters.

2. Given that you are a Christian I am determined to view you as
nothing more or less than as a fellow Christian.

3. I am certain that you have virtues, talents and knowledge that is
both useful and beneficial to the faith and I will not overlook any
of these.

4. I am also certain that you have faults, weaknesses and sins, all
of which are harmful and a challenge to yourself.  I will overlook
all of these because I possess the same.

5. I am not obligated to accept the Christians that you accept, nor
am I obligated to reject the Christians that you reject.  However, to
simplify matters and avoid dissention, I will accept all of the
Christians that you accept and reject none of the Christians that you
reject.

6. If you are guilty of any harm either commited or intended against
me, I am prepared, willing and able to forgive you of all of these
even if you are not prepared to do the same relative to myself.

7. If you or anyone else considers me a heretic, be assured that I am
comfortable with that designation and accept it without fear or
sorrow.  My religion is not your religion -- this is not accidental
as I am familiar with your religion and have rejected it.

8. As to the identity of my religion: I am a Christian.  As to the
identity of your religion: You are a Christian.  Our differences are
substantial and inconsequential. Our similarities are also
substantial and inconsequential.

9. My rejection of your religion does not constitute rejection of
yourself.  I am pleased to hear you teach, listening attentively and
evaluating your teachings against my own knowledge and
understanding.

10. If I reject some part of your message, that rejection does not
constitute an absolute refutation of that teaching.  If I accept some
part of your message, that acceptance does not constitute absolute
validation of that teaching.

11. I do not seek followers nor do I have a need for followers.  I
only state what I believe and I have no desire to speak on anyone
else's behalf.

12. The future of Christianity as we know it is dependent upon the
unity of fellow believers.  For that reason I cannot endure any
contention among Christians.  That is why I will accept all
Christians, including those that disagree with me.

If you have any comment about the above twelve points, you are
invited to comment.

Thanks,

David Mathews