Hi, everyone.

Here's something I want you to actually see, because sometimes a
picture is worth more than thousands of words. I have been stating
the fact that the stellar explosion SN1987A shows that the universe
has been around for at least 168,000 years (which is at least 158,000
years too long for the literalistic young earth/young universe
interpretation of the Bible).

See http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html for lots of
Hubble Space Telescope links to information regarding SN1987A,
especially regarding the primary ring. At the following link is a
good image of the SN1987A system that we are talking about:

   Hubble Reveals Structure Of Supernova 1987a Explosion Debris
   http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/03/A.html

The SN1987A explosion is in the center. The brightest ring
surrounding the center is the primary ring. The two fainter rings are
larger and offset from SN1987A, like the top and bottom of an
hourglass shape.

As you can see for yourself, the distance of SN1987A is known by
direct observation. The distance is calculated by a straighforward
trigonometric calculation.

Before I step you through the calculation, I want to help you
understand the meaning of how this is done with a parallel example.
If you walk out of the front door of your house and just step off
your porch, then turn around and look at your house, it looms large
in front of you. However, if you walk down the street a couple of
hundred feet, then turn around and look at your house, it's apparent
size is not nearly so large. Indeed, if you hold up your index finger
about a foot in front of your face, then your house (in the
background behind your finger) will be shorter than your finger.
This "apparent size from a distance" is called angular displacement.
The farther you walk from your hourse, then the angular displacement
of your house will continue to grow smaller. Interestingly, if you
know the actual height of your house, and from your position at a
distance from the house you can measure the angle of displacement,
then using a simple trigonometric equation you can simply calculate
the distance to your house without actually measuring it off with a
tape ruler.

This is exactly the same kind of thing that is done with SN1987A.
After the star exploded, astronomers measured the time it took for
the energy to travel from the star to the primary ring that is around
the star. (The ring is quite large, much larger than the "ring" that
Neptune makes in its orbit around our own sun.) From this,
astronomers determined the actual "height" of the ring from the star.
Second, they already knew the angular displacement of the ring
against the sky (as measured through telescopes, and measured most
precisely with the Hubble Space Telescope).

So now here are the steps in carrying out the calculation:

Think of a right triangle.

   * The line from SN1987A to earth (distance) is the base.
   * A line from SN1987A to the ring (the radius of the ring) is
     the height.
   * The line from the ring to earth is the hypotenuse.
   * The angle between the base and the hypotenuse is half the
     angular size of the ring
   * trig formula: base = radius ÷ tan(angle)

I have made a diagram of this here:

   Trigonometric Diagram of SN1987A and Earth

Now let's plug everything in:

   1. radius = 6.23 x 10^12 km (see note 1 below)
             = 0.658 light-years
   2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds (see note 1 below)
            = 0.000224 degrees
   3. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ tan(0.000224)
   4. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ 0.00000392
   5. distance = 168,000 light-years

Note that taking the measurement error limits into account makes this
value 168,000 light-years +/- 3.5%.

For reference:
   c (lightspeed) = 299,792.5 kilometers per second
   1 arcsecond = 1/3600 degrees
   1 parsec = 3.26 light-years
   1 light-year ~ 9.46 x 10^12 km
   1 light-year ~ 5.88 x 10^12 miles

   note 1:
     New Distance Determination to the LMC

http://singularity.astro.uiuc.edu/projects/mcnews/newsletter18.html
     (look toward the bottom of the page)

(The "height" [radius] of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is
based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion
to hit the ring [travelling at the speed of light], which was 0.658
years [i.e., almost two-thirds of a year]. Indeed, my simple diagram
of the geometry is not completely realistic, because the primary gas
ring is not "flat on" perpendicular to the earth. However, rotate
that ring around any way you please, and there are exactly two
geometric points on the ring which represent a right triangle with
the three vertexes represented by the SN1987A progenitor star, either
point on the ring, and the earth, with the star and the ring point
being the "height" side of the triangle and the star and the earth
being the "base" side of the triangle. In actuality, the ring is
tipped with respect to the earth, which means that with respect to
the earth there is a "leading edge" [the closer half] and a "trailing
edge" [the farther half]. Because of this fact, what astronomers
observed was the point on the ring closest to the earth lighting up
first [from the explosion energy] and then the rest of the gas ring
progressively "light up" from the closest point to the farthest point
travelling around both sides of the ring. This whole situation is
described at http://super.colorado.edu/~astr1020/homework4/hwk4.html.)

As I have pointed out previously, SN1987A is in the Large Magellanic
Cloud galaxy, which is the second closest galaxy to the earth. There
are millions of other galaxies in the universe. So 168,000 years
simply represents a very small lower limit. In other words, the
universe must be much, much older than 168,000 years, because
astronomers can literally observe events like SN1987A in these other
far more distant galaxies, events that correspondingly have taken
place much farther in the distant past. What makes SN1987A such a
beautiful example is the presence of the primary ring, which allows
a "reverse parallax" kind of direct calculation of the distance, as
shown above.

The universe itself shows us that it has been around far longer than
a miniscule 10,000 years. We know this to be a truth about the
universe because we literally observe these events from the distant
past. Thus, when you hear it said that it is a fact that the universe
is ancient, this is genuinely just as factual as saying that the
earth revolves around the sun. What this means is that Christians who
believe in biblical inerrancy need to sit up and take this truth
about creation seriously, and then proceed to work on their biblical
hermeneutics accordingly. This is what truth-seeking is all about.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

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

   The heavens are telling the glory of God;
   and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
   Day to day pours forth speech,
   and night to night declares knowledge.
   There is no speech, nor are there words;
   their voice is not heard;
   yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.
      (Psalm 19.1-4a)

I am going to post what I think was from Rod, just two
statements he has passed on to us:

First, a "critical question for the evolutionists:
>For example,
> how does a lamination on a lake bottom from a flood remain undisturbed for
> many months until the next flood comes to deposit the next lamination?

Then:

> There is now ample evidence that fine layering and lamination can form
> rapidly in flowing water - in the sorts of conditions that one could
> expect during various phases of the biblical Flood.3

Why is the above critical question not asked of the creationist
theory?

[snip]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Rod said:

> Tracy, you responded to my data on the formation rate of Jupiter with
> 'So?' My point is simple. When you carefully examine the computer models
> and reports, there are numerous variables in the equations which can
> produce widely different formation rates for Jupiter and also the other
> gas giants based upon planetesimal accretion models.

Precisely - you *have* equations in that case.

In sediment deposition you have hydrodynamic equations that
will place limits on what conditions of turbulence and
sediment load can be accomodated.

Simple experiment 1.  Take a varve, and determine the
particle size distribution within the layers.  Take some
of the turbidite layer experiments, and do the same.
See what conditions can give a match *if any*.

This is NOT difficult.  I suspect that the particles are extremely
fine and would only settle in a still environment, ruling
out turbidity.  Wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were
already out there.

> I suspect the same will be shown
> to apply to the Green River varves but cannot confirm at this time, thanks
> for your feedback----Rod

Nothing beats a little experiment.

Tracy P. Hamilton

Hi, everyone.

Certain individuals associated with the "Open Letter" have been the
very "active" as proponents of being divisive on this issue (in
addition to being strong advocates of the YEC position), and in
addition to calling for division have called for discussion. I note
here publicly for the record that this email distribution list
(CreationProcessAge forum, and
http://www.egroups.com/group/CreationProcessAge) was set up for the
specific purpose of discussing issues raised in the "Open Letter,"
and to provide a genuinely open forum in which to do so.

In fact, it seems that Marc Gibson (to his credit) is virtually the
only one who has been willing to follow through on his convictions
*and* the stated sentiment of "Come on, let's discuss this openly."
(Thank you, Marc. I believe your follow-through is appreciated.)

Without further comment I wish to note that the following individuals
associated with the "Open Letter" have chosen to not discuss the
issues *and* have unsubscribed from the list (all within the first
few days of it being set up):

   Daniel King, Sr.
   Harry Osborne
   Dudley Ross Spears
   Stan Cox
   Steven F. Deaton
   Tim Haile

Let the facts be clear.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

Todd and all,

Please excuse my absence from discussion for a few days. Been very busy
lately, and I like to ponder and meditate on these matters. I will be back
with you soon. Thank you for your patience.

Marc Gibson

Green River woes by Rod Bernitt

Tracy P. Hamilton said about Green River varves on Friday, September 08,
2000

[Average 600 meters.  Average thickness 0.2mm per pair
of layers.  Estimates are 5-8 million years for the formation.
For annual layers.]

[Let me give you something then.  Whitcomb and Morris postulated
that the layers could be  formed by a separate turbidity current
for each layer.  One year is 31.6 million seconds.  Ten million
layers, means that there is a separate turbidity current every
3 seconds.  The currents have to traverse the formation, which
is big.  Strahler estimates the required speed of the current
is 225,000 miles per hour.]

Rod's notes here -

1 cm = 10 mm
100 cm = 1 m
(100 cm * 600 m) = 6 x 10^4 cm (1.0)

Equation (1.0) indicates the average thickness of the Green River varves in
cm.

(10mm/0.2mm) = 50	(1.1)

Equation (1.1) indicates the average number of varves per 1 cm at Green
River where average varve thickness is 0.2mm, thus 1 cm = 50 varves on
average.  Based upon the annual deposit or formation interpretation, it
takes on average about 50 years to form 1 cm thick strata at Green River.
This figure could easily be > 50 years especially if each varve on average
was about 0.1mm to 0.15mm in thickness.  See Whitcomb and Morris, The
Genesis Flood, p. 424, 1961, 'The varves average less than 1/2000 of a foot
in thickness...'.  This indicates about 0.15mm.  The data presented by
Whitcomb and Morris in 1961 showed Green River varves formed over about a 6
million-year time span.

(6 x 10^4/365) = 164.38 (2.0)

Equation (2.0) indicates a rate of 164.38 cm/day to form the Green River
varves in 1 year or 365 days.

(6 x 10^4/40) = 1500 (3.0)

Equation (3.0) indicates a rate of 1500 cm/day to form the Green River
varves in 40 days.

(6 x 10^4/2.92x10^9) = 2.054 x 10^-5       (3.1)
(2.054 x 10^-5 * 2.92 x 10^9) = 6 x 10^4  (3.2)

Equation (3.1), 2.92 x 10^9 = number of days in 8 x 10^6 years.  2.054 x
10^-5 cm/day is rate of formation thus it takes 48666.667 days to form 1 cm
at Green River.  This is 1cm/133.333 years according to the old earth time
scale.  I certainly hope that no fossil fish or other animal or plant
fossils are found penetrating through several centimeters of strata.  Also
the fossils, it is going to take a very long time for these organisms to be
buried and undergo fossilization considering the rate of 2.054 x 10^-5
cm/day sediment accumulation.

dN/dt = G(r)  (4.0)

Equation (4.0), N = number of cm formed, t = time, and G(r) = Green River
formation rate.  Equation (4.0) could be developed into a non-linear
formation rate, perhaps supporting a very rapid formation process rather
than slow and gradual.   Depending upon volume of water, particles and
matter contained in the water, specific gravity along with current velocity,
and in the Biblical Flood model - continental flooding, the lower time limit
to form the Green River varves << 5 x 10^6 years.  Something else has not
been discussed in my analysis, specifically the rate of erosion in the past
when the Green River varves formed (consider on average 1 cm layer may form
over 50-133 years) and also the present rate of erosion.  For an interesting
discussion on erosion rates at Grand Canyon see Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon
Monument To Catastrophe, p. 88-89, 1994.  Just what are evolutionists
attempting to sell at Green River?  Let the buyer beware.

Based upon equations (1.0) through (4.0), the 5 to 8 million years formation
time looks suspect.  I believe the Green River varves represent a cherished
belief about an old earth for evolutionists.  This cherished belief will go
the way of gas giant planet formation in my opinion.  Evolutionists'
cherished belief was a slow, gradual growth process involving perhaps 1
billion years for the origin of gas giant planets like Jupiter.  My how
times are a changing-----Rod

"Astronomers once thought that gas-giant planets formed slowly and
peacefully.  Gravity slowly pulled together debris from the pancake-shaped
nebula surrounding a newborn star to form rocky cores several times the mass
of Earth.  The largest planetary cores swept up vast amounts of the nearby
gas, eventually becoming colorful giants.  Astronomers thought roughly 1
billion years was needed to make a Jupiter-sized planet by this incremental,
core-accretion process.  That view is changing." [1]

Presently there are two conflicting models to explain the origin of Jupiter
size planets around stars.  The much slower core accretion process and disk
instability model, which Alan Boss of Carnegie Institution of Washington
favors.  In fact his computer models start with a proto-planetary disk
containing about 0.1 M-solar and form gas giant planets in time scales
3000-3500 years. [2]  However they form at distances 7-10 AU.  The brief
report did not make it clear what their sizes were after 3000-3500 years.
Were they completely Jupiter size, larger than Jupiter size or just
proto-Jupiters that required a still longer growth period?

The Astronomy report did disclose that some recent observations in astronomy
have exploded the slow growth models invoked by evolutionists to explain the
origin of gas giant planet formation.  Young stars with their T Tauri
stellar wind phase blow away their gas disks in 1-10 million years so a 1
billion-year growth rate must be thrown out.  Also the presence of
hot-Jupiters challenges the computer simulations of Alan Boss using disk
instability, namely gas giant planets must form far out from their host star
yet migrate inward, much closer to the host star.

"The model that seemed to fit our solar system couldn't explain the hot,
extrasolar planets one-half to ten times the mass of Jupiter that orbit
tightly around their parent stars.  Most theorists now believe these planets
form in the cold realms of solar nebulae, migrate inward, and get hot.  In
fact, new models of solar system dynamics suggest that migration is common
in newly formed planetary systems.  Any other planets, debris, and gas in
the disk gravitationally push new planets into new orbits.  In some cases,
these effects could be dramatic.  'The gravitational kicks could cause it to
spiral into the star in a million years', says Carnegie Institute
astrophysicist George Wetherill.  'This raises a question', says Princeton
University astrophysicist Scott Tremaine.  'Why didn't Jupiter spiral into
the sun and take Earth with it?'  If Jupiter formed by the slow accretion of
gas, the tiny gravitational tugs of other objects could have slowly dragged
Jupiter into progressively smaller and, therefore, faster orbits.  Although
ample evidence exists that Neptune drifted outward significantly over its
lifetime, most astronomers agree that Jupiter stayed put." [3]

The recent data from the Galileo orbiter disclosing that Jupiter contains
higher than expected concentrations of argon, krypton and xenon, argues that
Jupiter may have formed at a distance > 30 AU, where the temperature is
expected to have been very cold in the solar nebula.  So far I have not seen
evolutionists pushing this explanation.  An alternative answer may be that
these gases formed in Jupiter from an abrupt and very rapid formation
process operating when the solar system formed.  The Astronomy report closes
with "For now, Tremaine is happy to wallow in the uncertainty surrounding
planet formation.  He says, 'All this confusion is a very positive sign that
we are learning.'" [4]

My observation > I am glad evolutionists are learning.  Creationists should
also be learning.  The lesson that I see, current evolution models featuring
slow, gradual formation processes for the origin of our solar system may be
completely wrong.  Hot Jupiters if real, may have formed in situ thus
another evidence for an abrupt and rapid formation process.  Genesis 1:14-19
place time constraints in the creation model for the formation of our solar
system.  1 day for the formation of the solar system contradicts the model
of Alan Boss that features 3000-3500 years (disk instability model for
origin of gas giant planets) and also the 1 billion years (incremental,
core-accretion model) as astronomers commonly thought for the origin of
Jupiter type planets.

The location and stability of Jupiter and Earth's orbit fits nicely with the
concept of Biblical creation.  Jupiter's semimajor axis is 5.2028 AU and the
Earth's is 1 AU.  Jupiter's orbital eccentricity is 0.0483 and the Earth's
is 0.0167.  No close encounters between the gas giant planets and Earth in
this solar system.  We can all thank the Lord for this and not random
particle collisions in a proto-planetary disk (which is a cherished belief
of evolutionists.)

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed
the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he
formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and none else."  Isaiah 45:18 KJV

References
1.	Sincell, M., Switched at Birth, Astronomy 28(3):48, 2000
2.	Sincell, M., Ref. 1, p. 50.
3.	Sincell, M., Ref. 1, pp. 50-51.
4.	Sincell, M., Ref. 1, p. 51.

> Green River woes by Rod Bernitt
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton said about Green River varves on Friday, September 08,
> 2000
>
> [Average 600 meters.  Average thickness 0.2mm per pair
> of layers.  Estimates are 5-8 million years for the formation.
> For annual layers.]
>
> [Let me give you something then.  Whitcomb and Morris postulated
> that the layers could be  formed by a separate turbidity current
> for each layer.  One year is 31.6 million seconds.  Ten million
> layers, means that there is a separate turbidity current every
> 3 seconds.  The currents have to traverse the formation, which
> is big.  Strahler estimates the required speed of the current
> is 225,000 miles per hour.]
>
> Rod's notes here -
[snip calculations]

> This is 1cm/133.333 years according to the old earth time
> scale.  I certainly hope that no fossil fish or other animal or plant
> fossils are found penetrating through several centimeters of strata.

WHY NOT?

>Also
> the fossils, it is going to take a very long time for these organisms to
> be buried and undergo fossilization considering the rate of 2.054 x 10^-5
> cm/day sediment accumulation.


You seem to be assuming something needed about fossil formation here that is
not so - rapid burial.  Rapid burial is *needed* only where the animal would
otherwise be eaten or decayed (eaten by microorganisms).  This is not the case
at the deep relatively undisturbed bottom of a glacial lake.

> dN/dt = G(r)  (4.0)
>
> Equation (4.0), N = number of cm formed, t = time, and G(r) = Green River
> formation rate.  Equation (4.0) could be developed into a non-linear
> formation rate, perhaps supporting a very rapid formation process rather
> than slow and gradual.

There has to be a justification for the form of N(t).

> Depending upon volume of water, particles and
> matter contained in the water, specific gravity along with current
> velocity, and in the Biblical Flood model - continental flooding, the
> lower time limit to form the Green River varves << 5 x 10^6 years.

This number just appears.  Also, particle size has not been
taken into account in determining what the current velocity
is limited to.  It is a simple experiment - take some dirt, dissolve
in water.  How long does it take to clear?  Would it stay clear if
there were the currents going crossways every 3 seconds?  IT
may be so for the larger particles, but for the very small ones?

>  Something else has not
> been discussed in my analysis, specifically the rate of erosion in the
> past when the Green River varves formed (consider on average 1 cm layer
> may form over 50-133 years) and also the present rate of erosion.

Things on the bottom of a lake do not get eroded.  They get piled
onto.  Only after lithification and uplifting will it start to be eroded,
and that rate will be highly dependent on elevation and slope.

[snip article about new ideas in planet formation - why is that
mentioned?  All it shows is that some things are not as
well known as others.]

Tracy P. Hamilton

Tracy said [Things on the bottom of a lake do not get eroded.  They get
piled onto.  Only after lithification and uplifting will it start to be
eroded, and that rate will be highly dependent on elevation and slope.]

What your are advocating is that this lake bottom existed for 5-8 million
years where the erosion rate generally did not exceed the deposition rate of
2 x 10^-5 cm/day.

Just how well known and tested is this past erosion rate(s) picture?

-----Rod

2-model outline contrasting evolution vs. creation model (tentative).
 09/10/00 update.  Author - Rod Bernitt
major points of the evolution model:
1.	big bang - expanding universe (red shifts in remote
galaxies/quasars) with no center and matter is unbounded.  3D space and
matter are created 'everywhere'.
2.	Natural laws or the laws of physics evolve out of a singularity
(cosmological) by random processes.  Before the big bang according to
Einstein GR, only a singularity could exist in nature.  But this singularity
(cosmological) is not the same as a singularity in a black hole.  There
would be no event horizon and outside (3D space) surrounding the
singularity.  There would be nothing.
3.	Inflation epoch, magnetic monopoles essentially removed from our
view so we cannot see them today otherwise they would be as abundant as
hydrogen and much heavier than hydrogen.
4.	Primordial neutrinos from the big bang fill the universe and if they
have mass, could have a dramatic influence upon the evolution of the
universe.
5.	Origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) about
300,000 years after the big bang in the infrared, Planckian spectrum.
Expansion of the universe red shifts this relic light from the infrared part
of the EM spectrum, into the microwave region with Planckian spectrum today.
6.	Tiny temperature variations in the CMB were the seeds that grew into
large-scale structure in the universe today like galaxies and galaxy
clusters.  Total time to evolve into the large-scale structures observed
today could be 6 days? 1 million years? 1 billion years?
7.	Origin of primordial star forming clouds.
8.	Origin of Population III stars after the formation of the CMBR -
spectra contain only H, He, and perhaps some Li.  These are the first stars
in the universe.  No C/H or Fe/H ratios or other metals.
9.	The first supernovae in the universe- progenitors are Population III
stars.
10.	The r-process and s-process in stellar evolution theory has created
all the elements heavier than He with exception of some primordial Li from
the big bang.
11.	Dark matter holds together galaxy clusters with high recession
velocities, spiral galaxy rotation, and high velocity dispersion stars in
dwarf galaxies.  Multiple revolutions of stars, dust, and gas about the
center of spiral galaxies is required since the big bang.  Evidence for dark
matter may be found in large M/L ratios of spiral galaxies and Local Group
dwarfs.  The LMC in the Local Group may have completed some 10-15
revolutions about the Milk Way's galactic center since its origin.
12.	Thousands of generations of Population I stars on the H-R star
diagram have occurred in nature, since the big bang and origin of the Milky
Way galaxy.  A typical spectral class O star has a lifetime of about 10
million years, spectral class B about 100 million years.
13.	Multiple generations of Population II stars, e.g. red giants with
the element Tc-99 observed in their spectra since the big bang and origin of
the Milky Way.  The radioactive half-life of Tc-99 is about 213,000 years.
14.	Solar System forms from a single collapsing gas cloud, the Solar
Nebula.  The earth's landmasses and seas gradually form later over about
500-600 million years.  The oldest Precambrian rocks do not predate the
origin of the solar system.
15.	Long period (e.g. Sun grazers) and short period comets originate in
the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt.  They are frequently replenished in the
solar system over billions of years.  These comets are cited as evidence for
the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt by evolutionists.
16.	Atomic time and dynamical time (celestial motion) in the solar
system are similar or close in measurement over the age of the solar system,
about 4.56 billion years old based upon the meteorite dating paradigm.
17.	Radioisotope dating provides reliable measurements for the age of
the earth and fossil record.
18.	Solar energy output has had significant changes based upon the Faint
Young Sun Paradox.  The Sun's luminosity was about 35-40% less at start of
the Precambrian than today.
19.	Tidal dissipation of earth's angular momentum has resulted in
significant increase to earth's length of day (LOD).  The Moon's orbital
distance has changed dramatically over the life of the solar system due to
tidal dissipation rate varying and changing rate of lunar recession.  This
has resulted in significant changes to the SAROS or eclipse cycle.
20.	Based upon the giant impact model for the origin of the Moon, its
initial orbital distance was between 3 and 5 earth radii.  Today its mean is
a little over 60 earth radii.
21.	Lunar impact craters.  Most of these formed during the early
Precambrian, about 4.5 to 3.5 billion years ago during the heavy bombardment
period.
22.	Life arose from nonliving matter by spontaneous generation.  All
life today is descended from "life's last common ancestor", a single, simple
progenitor bacteria.  This took place > 3.5 billion years ago.
23.	6 mass extinction's in the Phanerozoic eon (Cambrian through the
Cretaceous ages).
24.	Uniformitarianism and plate tectonics dominate earth history.
25.	Hebrew (Biblical) Flood account has been borrowed from
Sumero-Babylonian tradition.
26.	Before the origin of man on earth, there was an immense time span of
animal suffering, death, and flesh eating and there never was a Garden of
Eden as described in Genesis 2:8.  Death predates man by an immense time
span and is part of the biological evolution process.

Archaeology - Flood legends:
Scientific American, February 1999, p.105-107.  Commentary by Philip and
Phylis Morrison about geologic time, Mediterranean Sea flooding (Black Sea)
and Noah's Flood and Mesopotamian flood legends.  Is the Mediterranean
flooding now dated to c. 5650 BC, the source for such flood stories?
p. 107 "As for human witness, several records of deluge myth go back 1,000
years before the Aramaic cuneiform manuscript of 900 BC from which the
Genesis text itself comes."
Key assumptions/concepts of the evolution model:
a.	Naturalistic origin of all things.  Time, chance, random mutation,
and natural selection dominate earth history.  Universe evolves out of a
singularity (cosmological) by random, undirected processes.
b.	Net basic increase in complexity over time.  Unlimited vertical
change (macroevolution in the gene pool, biology).
c.	Earth history dominated by uniform events.  Neo-catastrophism.
d.	Assumption of inerrancy of radiometric dating.
e.	Assumption of inerrancy of uniformitarianism - natural laws have
remain unchanged since the
origin of the universe (possible exception, cause of big bang and interval
10^-43 second to 1 second after the big bang).
Key predictions of the evolution model:
a.	Origin and existence of Population III stars.  New stars forming and
evolving.  Repeated recycling of the interstellar medium (dust and gas
clouds recycled to make new generations of stars, planets, and perhaps space
aliens).
b.	Atomic time and dynamical time in the solar system are close in
agreement.
c.	Transitional forms found throughout the fossil record.
d.	Natural selection and beneficial mutations expand the gene pool over
time (macro evolution).
e.	New information is added to the genome over time.
f.	New species evolving (either gradual or burst mode, i.e. sudden
appearance of a new species).

major points of the creation model:
1.	Expanding universe with a center and matter is bounded.  The earth
is at or near the center of the universe observed in astronomy.  This is an
area of contention among creationists, an expanding universe.
2.	Natural laws or the laws of physics were created and are evidence of
intelligent design in the origin of the universe - Job 28:26-27, Isaiah
45:18, and Jeremiah 31:35-36.  No need for evolution by natural, random
processes out of a singularity (cosmological) to make physical law.
3.	No need for an inflation epoch so magnetic monopoles would clearly
be visible if they were real.
4.	No need for primordial neutrinos from the big bang.  Such
calculations in the evolution model reflect ignorance of initial conditions
in the primordial universe - the creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3.
5.	Origin of the CMBR - largely unexplained in the creation model.  My
guess - red shifted light from the optical part of the EM spectrum, perhaps
relic light from creation day 1 in Genesis chapter 1:3.
6.	Tiny temperature variations in the CMB were not the seeds that grew
into large-scale structure in the universe today like galaxies and galaxy
clusters.  Total time to 'evolve' into the large-scale structures observed
today could be 6 days - see Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Exodus 20:11.
7.	No need for primordial star forming clouds like the big bang
cosmology.
8.	No need for Population III stars in the universe.
9.	The first supernovae in the universe- progenitors can be normal
Population I or II stars.
10.	The r-process and s-process in stellar evolution theory has created
some elements heavier than He but only in small quantities.  The majority of
the elements heavier than He are primordial dating back to the creation
week.  Example, quasars with large red shifts that contain CO or Fe in their
spectra.
11.	Dark matter may not exist and is not needed in the creation model.
Galaxy clusters with high recession velocities may be separating.  Dwarf
galaxies with high velocity dispersion stars may be losing them.  Spiral
galaxies with high rotation velocities or large M/L ratios may have stars,
gas, and dust in parabolic/hyperbolic orbits that are escaping and flying
apart.  Local Group dwarfs that have large M/L ratios may have similar
problem.  In a young universe model, multiple revolutions of stars, dust,
and gas in spiral galaxies is not required.  The LMC in the Local Group in a
young universe model does not need to complete multiple revolutions about
the Milky Way's galactic center and possibly may not be gravitationally
bound to the Milky Way at all.  Thus the LMC may never have completed even
one revolution.
12.	No multiple generations of Population I stars on the H-R star
diagram have occurred in nature.  We observe 1st generation, Population I
stars.  A typical spectral class O star has a lifetime of about 10 million
years, spectral class B about 100 million years.
13.	No multiple generations of Population II stars, e.g. red giants with
the element Tc-99 observed in their spectra.  The generation observed is 1st
generation. The radioactive half-life of Tc-99 is about 213,000 years.
14.	Solar System does not need to form from a single collapsing gas
cloud, the Solar Nebula.  It can form as separate and independent masses.
According to Genesis 1:9-13 and 1:14-19, the earth's landmasses and seas
predate the origin of the Sun and Moon.
15.	Long period (e.g. Sun grazers) and short period comets do not
originate in the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt.  Neither may exist in nature.
Creationists interpret these comets as evidence for a recent origin of the
solar system.  Solar system comets may indicate that dynamical time in the
solar system is much younger than atomic time.  Solar system comets may also
be evidence for catastrophism in the ecliptic during Noah's Flood.
16.	Atomic time and dynamical time (celestial motion) in the solar
system may be separate and independent measurements over the age of the
solar system.  Atomic time could be immensely older than dynamical time in
the solar system.  The lower limit for dynamical time in the solar system
may correlate to the Josephus/Ussher Biblical chronology.
17.	Radioisotope dating does not provide reliable measurements for the
age of the earth and fossil record.
18.	Solar energy output has had little change based upon the Faint Young
Sun Paradox.
19.	Tidal dissipation of earth's angular momentum has not resulted in
significant increase to earth's LOD.  The SAROS (eclipse cycle) in astronomy
has not had significant changes.
20.	In young earth creation model, the Moon's orbital distance has not
changed dramatically over the life of the solar system neither has the tidal
dissipation rate changed significantly or the rate of lunar recession.  The
initial mean orbital distance may have been > 55 earth radii and probably
close to the present value (60.27 earth radii).
21.	Lunar impact craters.  Some creationists feel that many formed
during the events of Genesis 1:14-19 while others believe many craters
formed during Noah's Flood and early post-Flood history as matter was
traveling through the solar system, near the ecliptic.  Perhaps many craters
formed during the 40 days/40 nights described in Genesis 7:12.  The Moon
orbits the earth in just a little over 27 days so in 40 days, much of its
surface could become heavily bombarded given the right amount of matter
passing through the ecliptic during this period.  This matter may have been
a combination of rock and water ice.
22.	Life arose by creation with the abrupt appearance of a large gene
pool in the beginning.  Many distinct "kinds" created.
23.	No Phanerozoic eon - only 1 mass extinction in the fossil record for
these strata dating back to Noah's Flood.
24.	Catastrophism during Noah's Flood and post-Flood sedimentary cycle
dominate earth history.
25.	Hebrew (Biblical) Flood account is the original source from which
all others (includes Sumero-Babylonian) are corruption.
26.	Before the origin of Adam and Eve on earth, there never was any
animal suffering, death, and flesh eating and there was a Garden of Eden as
described in Genesis 2:8.  Genesis 1:29-30 indicates that the original food
chain (at least for land animals and man) was plants.  Death does not
predate Adam and Eve.  The events of Genesis 2:17-3:21 describes when death
entered the world and animal kingdom.  See also Romans 8:21-22 and
Revelation 21:1-4.  Revelation 21:1-4 describes when the curse of death and
suffering will be removed.

Archaeology - Flood legends:
The Biblical Flood account may be pre-Abraham in origin and transported into
Canaan by Abraham (see Genesis 8:4, 10:32, 11:31, 12:4-5).  When Abraham
entered Canaan, he built an altar to the Lord, Genesis 12:7.  Noah after the
Flood also built an altar to the Lord, Genesis 8:20.  It is possible that in
the post-Flood world, altar building and animal sacrifice had their origin
on the mountains of Ararat.  The tradition diffused from there and spread
abroad in the ancient world.  The account of Noah may have been handed down
in Shem's lineage to Abraham (Genesis 11:10-26).  This could explain the
various flood legends of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Ebla tablets.
Key assumptions/concepts of the creation model:
a.	Creation of all life and matter.  Design, purpose, interdependence,
information.  Natural selection plays a conservation role in nature,
allowing a species to keep pace with the changing environment and reduce the
potential for genetic burden or load in the gene pool (biology).
b.	Net basic decrease in complexity over time (2nd law of
thermodynamics, increasing entropy).  Limited horizontal change
(microevolution in the gene pool).
c.	Earth history dominated by catastrophic events during Noah's Flood.
d.	Creator can and may have suspended natural laws in the origin of the
universe during the creation week.
Key predictions of the creation model:
a.	No Population III stars in the universe.  Stars aging and dying.
Little or no recycling of the interstellar medium.  Evidence for rapid
stellar evolution.
b.	Evidence for abrupt and rapid formation process in the origin of
stars.
c.	Atomic time and dynamical time in the solar system may not be in
close agreement.  Dynamical time in the solar system may be much younger in
measurement than atomic time.
d.	Evidence for abrupt and rapid formation process in origin of many of
earth's geologic features.
e.	Evidence for catastrophism in the solar system and on earth (e.g.
fossil record, global in extent).
f.	Separate, distinct kinds found in the fossil record.  Large gaps
found throughout the fossil record.
g.	Evidence for intelligent design in nature.
h.	Tendencies for decay (increasing entropy).  Mutations are damaging
the gene pool resulting in build up of genetic load or burden (defects).
i.	Extinction of species.