Evidence for God from Science

Himantolophus,

As for mammoth steaks

"Mammoths were, along with mastodons, the largest members of the elephant family. They have become mummified in two manners, both of which suggest cataclysm and suddenness. In Alaska and Siberia mammoths have been mummified, apparently by the millions, both in ice and in sedimentary strata. It is as if they had been deposited in watery graves in some areas, but encased in ice in other areas, ice which has remained un-melted. Their entombment and refrigeration have been so effective that mammoth carcasses have been thawed to feed sled dogs, both in Alaska and Siberia; in fact, mammoth steaks have even been featured on restaurant menus in Fairbanks. "

http://www.creationism.org/patten/Patte ... lood06.htm

"The northern regions of Alaska and Siberia appear to have been the
worst hit by the murderous upheavals between 13,000 and 11,000 years
ago. In a great swathe of death around the edge of the Artic Circle the
remains of uncountable numbers of large animals have been found -
including many carcases with the flesh still intact, and astonishing
quantities of perfectly preserved mammoth tusks. Indeed, in both
regions, mammoth carcases have been thawed to feed to sled dogs and
mammoth steaks have featured on restaurant menus in Fairbanks. One
authority has commented, 'Hundreds of thousands of individuals must have
been frozen immediately after death and remained frozen, otherwise the
meat and the ivory would have spoiled ... Some powerful general force
was certainly at work to bring the catastrophe about.' " [Graham
Hancock, Fingerprints Of The Gods, p. 212-213]

Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

I was blinded for many years until one day while studying physics my world fell apart. I have now rebuilt my understand on rock instead of sand. Rock is faith and sand is of this world.

Yes given enough time and a list of possible historical geologic events one could explain the features I talked about. But, in those long ages the erosion would not have left the flat surfaces. We see erosion making inroads into the flat surfaces now and if we extend them over long ages all of these features go away. You have to look at all of the processes that are taking place. If you do your choices are very limited as to how the features got there.

Yes, but you assume a single starting point and a finishing point we see today. According to modern geology, there were multiple events over the course of Earth's history. Rock was uplifted, eroded flat, covered in water, uplifted, eroded, etc. multiple times. The order of events is preserved in rock.

Old earth geologist ignore the speed that erosion takes place. If they did all of their old earth theories and assumptions get destroyed. When I look at the whole picture with a young earth the anomalies go away.

See above... erosion can happen as fast as it wants. Tectonics will eventually replace land that is eroded. Rates of erosion closely match those of uplift on the continents. If not, we would have no continents to live on.

After you finish your degree in marine biology I suggest you take up an investigation of the anomalies of science. It may lead you to some strange conclusions. Who knows you may end up a YEC like me.

Your next post deals with this. I am fully aware of anomalies in science (the origins of life, the complexity argument, evolution of "mousetrap" features). If science has it's own literature, I ask you where you found these non-biased critiques of science in which you base your opinions. You consider scientific literature as biased and I consider your creationist literature as biased. Therefore we both get nowhere if we debate from two constrasting viewpoints.

The first of these is evolution. Now I have to be careful because I have to separate out Darwinian evolution.....

We come at this argument from two completely opposite ends of the spectrum. You see life evolving by random mutation from a single cell to humans as impossible and unsupported. BUT, I see everything on Earth created at the same time only 7000 years ago as equally impossible. Since neither of us can go back and prove this we are left with the same set of evidence on the table. We see this differently. You see commonality between biology as indication that everyhting was created from the same template. I see this as indicating that we all share a common ancestor. You see a timescale of a few thousand years as making evolution through natural selection impossible. I see the timescales of billions and million years as perfectly acceptable for evolution through mutation and nat. selection. I don't think that science has it right yet, far from it. Will we ever be sure? Probably not.
But looking at patterns of diversity and relationships we see today, it clearly fits the evolutionary timescale. The phylogenetic evidence matches the geologic evidence. Is this a coincidence or deception by God? There is nothing about the creation story or Flood Story that fits what we see today, nor could the events that occurred in the Flood timescale leave us with what we see today. You have to explain how the 15000 "kinds" turned into the species we see today. And since evolution is not possible on a YEC timescale, you cannot use evolution as a mechanism. Using it in any form basically destroys your whole attack on evolution because if you think one "cat" can change into all the cat species in 2000 years, then it's perfectly logical to assume it happened in 20 million!

The second is astrophysics. Current thinking in astrophysics is the universe is 15 billion years old and the universe is expanding and accelerating into space

This is obviously your specialty. I can only say that your thoery is as theoretical as the Big Bang. Who's to say that science's "constant time" hypothesis isn't as valid as your "time-stretched" hypothesis. While constant time indicates a very old Universe, you theory makes it very convenient for creationists to use. You can stretch time and space basically as much as you want to fit any Age you want for the Earth. Say the creationists want to believe that the Earth is 50,000 years old in the future. You can modify your Universe to fit that age. As compelling as your idea seems to be, you have to get it published for it to get exposure. If your idea has scientific merit, you should be able to get your idea out there (even if you never mention "creationism" in your paper).
On the Universe thing... you doubt theories on the expansion and age of the Universe but you cannot challenge the fact that we see proof of stellar evolution all over the Universe. How can a star go thorugh it's life cycle in the span of a few thousand years? It goes against what we know on how stars make their energy. They say the Sun has enough Hydrogen to burn for another 4-5 billion years, how could it only be 7000 years old? What about all the other evidence in the Universe?

The third is geology. Using the old earth model and slow processes geology has overlayed a very old timeline on the geologic history of the earth. The assumed processes are slow so long ages are described.

If everything is slow and gradual on Earth, with a few random catastrophes, then why should be think any different in the past? Especially when the past also shows slow processes. I don't know how you go about saying that science does not believe in catastrophe... we have had asteroid impact, volcanic super-eruption, and Ice Ages in that category for decades. Catastrophe and uniformitarianism can occur at the same time. However, I see no evidence of the catastrophes you talk about... And stuff is forming and being destroyed all the time. So, it isn't bad for stuff to be geologically "young" in an old Earth timescale. These elephants are not in the room in my opinion.

Finally, the mammoth thing. The Ice Age explains the presence of these mammoths. I don't see your point. This counters your point you made before that fossils are rare. Why would the fossils of most other land animals by so rare and yet the fossils of mammoths are so common? And if they were hit by the same floods as all the other animals, they would be buried in the same manner as the other animals. Thus we wouldn't find them in ice, we'd find them in rock. If they weren't preserved by a flood, then how is their formation different from the OE explanation?

Off topic: Would you be willing to eat that mammoth meat? yuck

Himantolophus,

I would not eat a mammoth steak. Frozen for way too long.

The earth has gone through major events in the past that we don't see today. The giant basalt flows in Russia and in Washington State we don't see today. We also see very large Calderas as well in the past. We do have one in Yellowstone that may blow (I hope not). But the past is subjective and open to wide interpretation. So if we throw out all of the past and look at what is happening today we can see if our geologic view makes sense. We know that erosion at its current rate will erode away the entire United States in 10 million years. Now we could have a rising continent to compensate for this but this has problems. The surface layers of the United States are anywhere from recent to over 300 million years old. The old layers would soon be gone. We do not see this. The midwest is covered with a layer of sediment from an ancient sea floor. This sea floor is dated from 40 to 200 million years old depending on what State you are in. This sea floor is not too thick and at current erosion rates would have been gone long ago with the current gelogic model. The numbers don't add up.

As for the stretching of the fabric of space. I have been following a model proposed by Barry Setterfield for some years. His first model after he did work on the changing constants of nature was good for a first attempt but had problems. His current model is much better. He also post on his site the rebuttal arguments against his model. I try and follow these as well. I think he will get his model published within a couple of years but don't expect that to mean much to current physics professors. Faraday who worked with magnetic and electric fields predicted that the fields traveled at the speed of light. When Faraday was near death Maxwell developed his work on fields and did confirm that indeed the fields work at the speed of light. With all of this history I really don't give a lot of weight to peer reviewed publication. I am way more interested on what is going on in the bleeding edge of science. Most articles printed today are a rehash of accepted ideas. Oh, by the way Barry's model predicts and explains anomalies in long range communication with salelites. The currently accepted theories fail.

What does all this mean? Not much actually. I have many friends that believe in an old earth and they still have faith. There are people who are curious about the young earth models and theories and just do not have the time to do their own research. Believe me there is a lot of junk science out there on both sides of this debate.

I will gather some data together on some changing constants of nature. You and the others reading this post may find it interesting.

I have posted on this board some ideas and statements that many may find hard to believe. I understand this because it is not common knowledge and other things are just models that match data but models none the less. So when I state that constants of physics are changing you may say "who is this guy". Although I believe in some fringe science I am not a fringe kind of guy. I tend to see through myths and what not pretty easy.

The changing speed of light

The first to try and measure the speed of light was Galileo but he used a short one mile stretch as his baseline distance and was unsuccessful in determining the speed. It was the year 1638 and the speed was assumed infinite. Like all assumptions it was tested again in 1676 by the Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer. He used the radius of the Earth's orbit as his baseline and the eclipse of Jupiter's moon Io as his signaling device. Using an accurate clock for its day he determined the time between moon eclipses and then calculated when he should see each eclipse of Jupiter's moon from Earth. As the Earth got farther away from Jupiter it took longer and longer for the light to get to the Earth.

Armed with this wonderful information he told everyone that the speed of light was indeed finite. Of course having accurate data does not mean that everyone agrees. It took many years before it was generally accepted as fact.

The speed of light measurement would require an accurate clock and would require that the radius of the Earth's orbit be known. Neither the clock being accurate or the radius of the Earth's orbit was known to Olaf. Clocks in those days were not designed to be stable in changing temperatures. We do have Roemer's original data and with our knowledge of the radius of the Earth's orbit we can calculate the speed of light. But the clocks inaccuracy does not allow us to have much confidence in the result. As time went on clocks became more accurate and by 1711 the Encyclopedia Britannica reported a time of 8.25 minutes for the suns light to strike the Earth. Using today's radius of the Earth's orbit we can calculate the speed of light to be 302,220 Km/s. The following table shows the results of other measurements and their value of c (the speed of light) using the Roemer method.

Authority Date Value of c Km/s

Delambre 1738 303,320 +/- 310
Martin 1759 303,440
Price 1770 304,060
Encyc Brit 1771 302,220
Bode 1778 306,870
Boscovich 1785 307,810
Glasenapp 1861 300,050 +/- 60
Sampson 1877 300,011
Harvard 1877 299,921 +/- 13

These numbers caused some to speculate that the speed of light was changing over time with a general trend to slow down over time. In time atomic clocks were made that are very accurate and methods that don't use orbital bodies were developed.

Using modern methods the value of c is 299,792.458 Km/s. This is measured using atomic clocks. It is interesting to note that as the speed of light changes so does the atomic clock so the speed as measured by atomic means would show a constant.

Thomas Van Flandern while working at the National Bureau of Standards noticed that the period between 1955 and 1981 the orbit of the Moon changed as measured by atomic clocks. This meant that either orbital times were changing or atomic clocks were changing. This caught the attention of Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield. They and others in physics investigated this "constant" and came to the conclusion that atomic clocks were slowing down.

Using all of the historical data the speed of light was plotted on a timeline and a best fit curve drawn through it. The following graph shows the curve and projects into the past the value of c. This curve is asymptotic. Which means that in the past the speed of light was millions of times faster than today.

Now I can't state as fact this is what happened in the past but the data we have can lead to this conclusion. Also the only historical document that goes back to the beginning fits this conclusion. One of the beliefs associated with the Bible is the timeline based on lineage. For this view to have a scientific basis a theory which uses the raw data gathered through the centuries had to show that atomic reactions are not constant and have slowed down in recent times. It is my belief that this alternative theory better fits the data.

The currently accepted theory tells us that out of nothing an explosion happened. The universe by accident organized itself into the ordered arrangement of stars and galaxies we see today. This happened in the midst of the explosion. The current theory also tells us that the galaxies on the outside of the universe are accelerating and soon will be traveling at the speed of light away from us. This means that their light will not reach us. Soon the outlaying lights in the sky will go dark. After that all of the other lights in the sky will go dark except the stars in our own galaxy. Does this feel right to you?

The earth has gone through major events in the past that we don't see today. The giant basalt flows in Russia and in Washington State we don't see today. We also see very large Calderas as well in the past. We do have one in Yellowstone that may blow (I hope not). But the past is subjective and open to wide interpretation. So if we throw out all of the past and look at what is happening today we can see if our geologic view makes sense. We know that erosion at its current rate will erode away the entire United States in 10 million years. Now we could have a rising continent to compensate for this but this has problems. The surface layers of the United States are anywhere from recent to over 300 million years old. The old layers would soon be gone. We do not see this. The midwest is covered with a layer of sediment from an ancient sea floor. This sea floor is dated from 40 to 200 million years old depending on what State you are in. This sea floor is not too thick and at current erosion rates would have been gone long ago with the current gelogic model. The numbers don't add up.

Yes, but the rates of erosion vary depending on where you are in the country. Wind and water erosion is more significant in the mountainous regions. There is very little plant life in the desert so it is vulnerable to wind erosion. The northern areas are vulnerable to ice erosion. The MidWEST is so flat and featureless that the rates of erosion are not enough to erode the old seabed, even over millions of years. You DO see plenty of erosion in the East and West, where the rock has eroded to the point where rock 100's of million years old has been exposed. And the seafloor layer is much younger than 300 million years. Scientists believe that the western U.S. was under water much sooner. And the combination of sedimentation and uplift has prevented the U.S. from eroding away.

What does all this mean? Not much actually. I have many friends that believe in an old earth and they still have faith. There are people who are curious about the young earth models and theories and just do not have the time to do their own research. Believe me there is a lot of junk science out there on both sides of this debate.

Agreed

Now I can't state as fact this is what happened in the past but the data we have can lead to this conclusion. Also the only historical document that goes back to the beginning fits this conclusion. One of the beliefs associated with the Bible is the timeline based on lineage. For this view to have a scientific basis a theory which uses the raw data gathered through the centuries had to show that atomic reactions are not constant and have slowed down in recent times. It is my belief that this alternative theory better fits the data.

This assumes that the lineage isn't flawed. you base this age of the Earth on an idea that hasn't even been proven. No one can even prove is Adam and Eve were real, or even where the Garden was. If Adam and Eve were the first of the Jews, or the first Christians, or something else, then they weren't the first humans and the timeline is thrown off.

The currently accepted theory tells us that out of nothing an explosion happened. The universe by accident organized itself into the ordered arrangement of stars and galaxies we see today. This happened in the midst of the explosion. The current theory also tells us that the galaxies on the outside of the universe are accelerating and soon will be traveling at the speed of light away from us. This means that their light will not reach us. Soon the outlaying lights in the sky will go dark. After that all of the other lights in the sky will go dark except the stars in our own galaxy. Does this feel right to you?

If you put it that way, yes it's unbelievable. But if you believe that God created the Big Bang (or something like it) and created the laws of physics, thermodynamics, evolution, etc. then it is easy to accept. Everything I see in the Universe could have formed over long periods of time and by non-supernatural processes. The Universe is expanding so obviously it wasn't created en situ. The Universe is not "organized" as far as structure goes. I see no rhyme and reason with the Universe. There is alot of chaos, destruction, organization, and creation occurring at once.
On the galaxy thing... if the galaxy emitted light at a point "A" in the Universe and continued accelerating away from us, the photons would still leave point A and move toward Earth. So, the galaxy would move away but the photons emitted would be continuing toward the Earth. Therefore we would still see the galaxy. The best way to explain it is if a person was driving away from you and shot a gun at you. The way you put it, the bullet would never reach you because the bullet and the gun would be accelerating away from your position. But the instant the gun was discharged, the bullet was sent the opposite direction from the car and gun. So it will still reach you even if the person shooting was somehow going the speed of a bullet too. Same logic makes sense for the galaxies light (if you assume light is a particle).

As for the stretching of the fabric of space. I have been following a model proposed by Barry Setterfield for some years. His first model after he did work on the changing constants of nature was good for a first attempt but had problems. His current model is much better. He also post on his site the rebuttal arguments against his model.

I don't like using questionable sources but this is the best I could find for rebuttals to your physics stuff. I read through alot of it and it seems like they have refutations for your redshift and speed of light theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html

This one is a better source and it a good read
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/

Himantolophus,

Your sources you referenced I have read and they are written for people who don't know any detail. More marketing than an actual attempt to discredit a theory. This is the kind of stuff I place into the junk science bucket.

The volume of dirt going down the Mississippi in one year= 6,315,789,474 cubic feet

Midwest river drainage 1500 mi X 1500 mi =2250000 sq mi
6.27264 X 10 to the 13th sq ft X 1100 ft (avg ht of states) = 6.899904 x 10 to the 16th cubic ft for drainage area

6.899904 X 10 to the 16th div by 6,315,789,474 = 10,924,848 years to get to sea level

This is for just ONE river. Since the sea bed is on top and not too thick the time for it to run out to the sea is much shorter. There is no evidence of any other layers above the seabed. The current geologic model does not show another layer above the sea bed. If you refuse to accept this you will have to show me some data on addition layers (massive) above the seabed in some geologic model. You will also have to show the source of this material.

Your sources you referenced I have read and they are written for people who don't know any detail. More marketing than an actual attempt to discredit a theory. This is the kind of stuff I place into the junk science bucket.

yes, maybe Wikipedia and talkorigins are "dumbed down" for the masses, and so are creationist sites, but that third site does not seem to be dumbed down as all. It seems like this guy knows his stuff. Or else you accuse him of junk science because it goes contrary to your beliefs?

This is for just ONE river. Since the sea bed is on top and not too thick the time for it to run out to the sea is much shorter. There is no evidence of any other layers above the seabed. The current geologic model does not show another layer above the sea bed. If you refuse to accept this you will have to show me some data on addition layers (massive) above the seabed in some geologic model. You will also have to show the source of this material.

I don't get what you want me to do here. The Midwest is not a depositional environment so I don't believe we'd see a layer of rock above the old seabed layer. So, in that case there would be no massive layer above the ancient seabed layer. And since the Mississippi dates back only several thousand years, your erosion rates and sediment loads could indeed be slowly wearing down the central U.S. The central U.S. is already worn flat by erosion and the Mississippi basin consists of slow, wide, meandering rivers. In conclusion, I see nothing about the Mississippi River that I need to explain away. And the Mississippi Delta has migrated over thousands of years. It was once as far north as Tennessee and has "migrated" south as sediment deposits piled up over long periods of time.

Himantolophus,

So you want me to believe that the Mississippi started a few thousands years ago but the seafloor rose up 200 million years ago according to current geology. Don't you see how that sounds. I can't believe you believe this. If this is the best you have let someone else post on this thread.

Himantolophus,

"See above... erosion can happen as fast as it wants. Tectonics will eventually replace land that is eroded. Rates of erosion closely match those of uplift on the continents. If not, we would have no continents to live on."

You made my point for me. We do not see uplift matching erosion. The continents would be all uplifted material. The sediments we see would not be there. That is the point. We should see no fossils in the uplifted material.

"This assumes that the lineage isn't flawed. you base this age of the Earth on an idea that hasn't even been proven. No one can even prove is Adam and Eve were real, or even where the Garden was. If Adam and Eve were the first of the Jews, or the first Christians, or something else, then they weren't the first humans and the timeline is thrown off. "

Just read out loud what you wrote. Are you sure that is what you believe? What is the reason behind your post? I was just stating that I overlayed the Bible timeline on a model.

"If you put it that way, yes it's unbelievable. But if you believe that God created the Big Bang (or something like it) and created the laws of physics, thermodynamics, evolution, etc. then it is easy to accept. Everything I see in the Universe could have formed over long periods of time and by non-supernatural processes. The Universe is expanding so obviously it wasn't created en situ. The Universe is not "organized" as far as structure goes. I see no rhyme and reason with the Universe. There is alot of chaos, destruction, organization, and creation occurring at once.
On the galaxy thing... if the galaxy emitted light at a point "A" in the Universe and continued accelerating away from us, the photons would still leave point A and move toward Earth. So, the galaxy would move away but the photons emitted would be continuing toward the Earth. Therefore we would still see the galaxy. The best way to explain it is if a person was driving away from you and shot a gun at you. The way you put it, the bullet would never reach you because the bullet and the gun would be accelerating away from your position. But the instant the gun was discharged, the bullet was sent the opposite direction from the car and gun. So it will still reach you even if the person shooting was somehow going the speed of a bullet too. Same logic makes sense for the galaxies light (if you assume light is a particle)."

Things don't act like bullets at speed near the speed of light. As stars move faster away from us in the current model their light is shifted to red as they move. If they move fast enough the light is shifted past the red and is no longer visible light (thus dark).

You have said that if you passed around the model I have presented to your friends that they would laugh at it. I have been laughed at for years and consider it an honor. I am nothing, but great men have been laughed at.

Luk 8:53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.

Isa 37:22 This is the word which the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.

Job 12:4 I am as one mocked of his neighbor, who calleth upon God, and he answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn.

Neh 2:19 But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?

I've been away for a while and not tracking things and am trying to catch up and hit on this thread.

First good to see new faces and posters and glad to see interaction on these important issues.

I hope you'll forgive me for not going in great detail on the many points being made. To a large extent, it's not necessary as many of the resources on our main board deal with a lot of the claims, like for instance the sediment - erosion type argument. In general, many Young Earth type arguments to my observation fail to take into account the fact that elements like this are not static but are part of a cycle. It's like arguing evaporation can't be true because if it were all the water in the world would have a long time ago gone into the atmosphere and the oceans, lakes and rivers would be dry. In some case the counterparts of a cycle are known. In the idea of sediment, there are several processes that push earth up, like plate tektonics to name one. In some cases the cycle isn't entirely known yet and in the absence of that informations some will bring forth a God of the Gaps kind of argument that too often in the end will result later when more is learned about something in skeptics using it to "prove" God wasn't in that Gap so God doesn't exist. That's a poor argument but when we use arguments like that we have to accept that others will pick up on them and use them against us.

Creation theories in this regard are not salvation issues and I've learned to not get as worked up about things as I have in the past. In fact, I've lost a lot of my drive to really post a lot on this subject because I've come to peace with my Old Earth views, the scriptures that I believe support them and the science that changes and grows but to my observation pretty much comes in line as well although not always perfectly.

The idea of time being relative and thus a means to reconcile old and young is a plausible theory but it raises more questions than it answers and in the end leaves a lot of mystery which is fine. Mystery is OK by me.

I hope those participating on this thread will take some time on the main board to look at the article there on common YEC scientific claims and look to see what answers there are there. Many have been addressed definitively and some are still open to debate.

Blessings,

Bart

frankbaginski wrote:Himantolophus,

"See above... erosion can happen as fast as it wants. Tectonics will eventually replace land that is eroded. Rates of erosion closely match those of uplift on the continents. If not, we would have no continents to live on."

You made my point for me. We do not see uplift matching erosion. The continents would be all uplifted material. The sediments we see would not be there. That is the point. We should see no fossils in the uplifted material.

What you're describing is a perfect conveyor belt. Even a quick observation shows that mountains erode at a faster rate than valleys, shore lines erode faster than deserts etc. If you don't believe me, try this experiment.
setup
3 bags of aquarium gravel of different colors.
An aquarium or pan.
A bowl.
A source of water.

Open the first bag of gravel. Measure out two bowls of it and place it into the pan/aquarium. Next cover your eyes and remove one bowl of gravel from the aquarium/pan.
Next open a second bag of gravel and measure out a bowlfull of gravel.
Place it into the aquarium/pan.
Stir it a little. Again covering your eyes remove a bowlfull of material.
Next open the final bag of gravel. And place it into the aquarium/pan. Once again stir it a little and without looking remove the final bowlfull of material.
Look into the pan/aquarium. Do you still se any gravel from the first bag? You probably will.

The process of sedimentation, mountain formation, and erosion is not a neat constant process. So in short, one should not assume what you assume above.

frankbaginski wrote:Things don't act like bullets at speed near the speed of light. As stars move faster away from us in the current model their light is shifted to red as they move. If they move fast enough the light is shifted past the red and is no longer visible light (thus dark).

To clarify redshift.
We have the ability to "see" even when the light is no longer in the visible range. Also to expect something to fly away at such speeds to become completely invisible defies the red-shift theory. But in any case we can detect *infrared signalsquite fine with todays technology.

*By infrared I am refering to all electromagnetic signals beyond the red end of the visual spectrum.

Canuckster1127,

Nice to see you back again. I have to say I agree with what you say. The models provided by the old earth group and the young earth group both have problems. The reason for this post is to show that the current young earth models are getting better and in some ways are better than the old earth models that are currently taught in college. There have been some major advances in astophysics and geology. I think we should lay all of the data out for all to see. What is supposed to happen is that good ideas rise to the surface and either are supported by new data or those ideas give way to others. What I see out there is that one set of ideas are shared in school and all others are forbidden. This is a shame since it shortchanges the students. I would like to see all views taught as theories. Let the students sort out beliefs for themselves. But I don't see this. I see a coordinated push of worldviews that leads to atheism. This is no acident.

I may seem like I want everyone in the planet to hold my young earth views. That I assure you is not the case. I do respond to post about the old earth view and show other explainations for some events. I see this as healthy. I will admit that my set of theories and data have changed drastically over the years. I think this is a good thing.

So you want me to believe that the Mississippi started a few thousands years ago but the seafloor rose up 200 million years ago according to current geology. Don't you see how that sounds. I can't believe you believe this. If this is the best you have let someone else post on this thread.

uhhhh yes... That is what modern science and geology shows, that the Mississippi is a geologically young river. It formed after the retreat of the continental glaciers at the end of the Ice Age. Even on an Old Earth timescale, it turns out that it is 6-10K years old. It sound perfectly logical to me. I said this before, but the formation and evolution of the American continent happened OVER the last 200 millions years. There have been chronological events in that period of erosion and uplift. The current continent has looked the way it looks presently for only the last 10 thousand years. I still don't see why you think this goes against modern geology. Please enlighten me.

You made my point for me. We do not see uplift matching erosion. The continents would be all uplifted material. The sediments we see would not be there. That is the point. We should see no fossils in the uplifted material.

If you look at systems as a whole, they equal out. They HAVE TO or else we'd have no land on the planet. So yes, there are very slow rates of erosion in one region but rapid erosion in other places. The same goes for uplift, obviously. The other poster explains this already. And if the old seafloor is uplifted, it will be towards the top of the mountain and will be the most likely to contain fossils. The uplifted seafloor IS sediment, although geologically old sediment.

Just read out loud what you wrote. Are you sure that is what you believe? What is the reason behind your post? I was just stating that I overlayed the Bible timeline on a model.

I'll keep it less wordy... the Biblical lineage cannot be proven as correct as you don't know that Adam and Eve were really the first humans.

Things don't act like bullets at speed near the speed of light. As stars move faster away from us in the current model their light is shifted to red as they move. If they move fast enough the light is shifted past the red and is no longer visible light (thus dark).

I was not trying to directly compare a bullet with starlight... all I was doing is simplifying how a galaxies light would reach us even if it was accellerating away from us. Not a good comparison.

You have said that if you passed around the model I have presented to your friends that they would laugh at it. I have been laughed at for years and consider it an honor. I am nothing, but great men have been laughed at.

yeah, but you are getting nowhere with it. If YEC was a new idea (as in it was a brand new idea), maybe you could get along saying that YEC's were "underground revolutionaries". But YEC had its time, from 0-1700 AD. People believed in it because there was nothing better. Science emerged and replaced it. I don't see it reversing anytime soon...
Everybody gets laughed at or mocked for something aty some point in their lives. Every American can use those Scripture verses to describe themselves. None of them refers to believing in creationism.
My point: Why would YEC decline so far and become this small minority in the last 200 years if the science behind YEC was so obvious? Why has evolutionary science and geology completely taken over if you say the evidence all points toward YEC? I see a major flaw in your argument. Looking at it from my perspective, it seems like YEC's are a minority in their own religion. Why should science take you seriously?

Don't you see how that sounds. I can't believe you believe this. If this is the best you have let someone else post on this thread.

Why do you come across as the person with the "I am holier than thou" attitude? I have addressed every single one of your posts and answered all your questions. The thing I didn't understand (physics and redshift theory) I admitted and posted outside sources (which you just mocked and didn't address). Meanwhile, you skipped over a good half of my posts and didn't answer many of my big questions. Basically, you try your best to disprove what science tells us but you don't try and back up your own story. I hope we get more people in on this debate, because frankly, this is getting pretty redundant (redshift theory and Mississippi River over and over again).

Let the students sort out beliefs for themselves. But I don't see this. I see a coordinated push of worldviews that leads to atheism. This is no acident.

I agree with your first sentence but I don't think teaching science the way we do leads to atheism. To be honest, if we taught the "Old Earth story" and your "Young Earth story", I think students would not take the young earth thing seriously since it is completely fanciful (as told on page 1). The Universe thing would be too far over the average student's head to even get them to understand, forget make an opinion on! I don't see how you CAN'T believe in science and GOD at the same time. I do, and I don't think it's going to influence if I go to Heaven. Yes, there are alot of atheists out there with an agenda but I'm sure they only are a small percentage of scientists.

BGoodForGoodSake ,

I liked your aquarium picture, nice. But I have another that I think is closer to reality. Imagine you have a forklift, on that forklift you place an aquarium with volcanic rock. Then place another and then another on top of it with the same stuff inside until you have ten aquariums like this. Then add an aquarium with half volcanic and half soil with few fossils. Then add another with more soil and more fossils. Keep this up until you have twenty aquariums. Now wait 10 million years. The forklift and all of the aquariums are located somewhere in the continental shelf.

My point is that the entire continent is gone unless uplift replaces the whole thing. And if it does it does not leave fossils around of the old continent. Fossils are just rocks and rocks turn to sand and flow to the sea. So why do we see fossils in their orginal beds like seafloors? I have a fossilized seafloor by me in Tucson. I see shells and also the fossilized remains of coral in large sections. These are untouched by erosion until recent times (those on the surface).

As for seeing the star light I was refering to using ones own eye. For your other point, are you saying the universe is not accelerating in it's expansion?