Does Creation Support EITHER old/young dating?

The biblical text isn't a science book. That said everything I stated can be gotten from the text.

We can't know that.

I would posit it is ontologically separate.

 

Couple of books that you might want to get on the subject. Scientific creationism by Dr. Henry Morris and The Beginnings Under Attack by Bill Sheffield. Very good books showing the young earth.
I have the Ice age by M.R. Dehaan and Earths Earliest Ages also by Dehaan in my library where he teaches an older earth.

 

I am on a phone, so I can't post links, but Google;

Living Mammoths Omniology

Many interesting articles at Omniology, the man who started this site was once a firm evolutionist, but his own studies convinced him of a young earth and creation, you can find his testimony on his site.

 

I'm actually pretty well read on all of this so yes, I do know Morris. He has been thoroughly refuted and replied to.

Again notice I said the creation appears to be billions of years old. If God creates with age, and then sets humanity within the creation, there is no way for humanity to know (with epistemically certitude) much about creation outside of observation.

 

I think it "intellectually curious" to hold that mankind (homo sapien) lived side by side with the dinos of the cretaceous, jurassic and triassic period.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Actually, I was watching PBS just a few nights ago and they were showing evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed in just several weeks by a massive flood. You might can go to their site and find this show, I know it was less than a week ago I watched it.

And trust me, PBS does not support creation or a young earth. They were simply showing what many geologists today are beginning to believe about the formation of the Grand Canyon.

 

I've read Morris and Sheffield. They are okay books but fail to present an adequate case imho.

The other two I'm not familiar with, though I have previously read Earth's Earliest Ages by GH Pember. Maybe something different.

I'm not a fan of the first two books. Too many empty claims that fall apart upon closer investigation.

 

For what's worth there is something to be said about the hydraulic pressures on surface level during the global floor. I think does account for some things in terms of observable data, but only some matters.

 

There are two types of dating, solar years and radiometric years.

In solar years (Earth travelling around Sun) the Universe is about 6000 years old.

But radiometric years are based on the speed of light. In radiometric years, the universe can be billions of years old.

In the late 70s Austrailian physicist Barry Setterfield submitted evidence that the speed of light has slowed in the past few thousand years. In the recent past it was billions (yes billions!) of times faster than today. This accounts for the great dates given by radiometric testing.

At first many scoffed, and some secular physicists set out to prove Setterfield wrong. But to their amazement, their research confirmed Setterfield's findings. Since that time several other secular physicists have released similar reports. It is still a big controversy, but research continues.

Advocates of this theory say it solves many of the problems presented by the Big Bang. It also explains how we can see starlight from galaxies billions of light years distant. At creation, the speed of light was almost infinite.

Gen 1:3 And God said, let there be light, and there was light.

 

You've used Barry Setterfield before and I've strongly, strongly objected. He is neither a physicist nor a scientist. He is a statistician and not a good one.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, buys Setterfield's claims. Even with recent theories about the speed of light there isn't the variance that Setterfield claimed. You've got to stop using this guy he isn't credible and it is a terrible claim.

Listen, I'm a creationist. I believe God created it all. When I read the text of Scriptures about this issue I see it being overly concerned with the "Who" than the "How." That's my position.

 

IIRC, setterfield is not a physicist, but a layman. His speculation on the speed of light slowing down is just that. Science observes, tests, deduces, and goes wherever the facts lead. Setterfield has a predetermined conclusion, and looks for ways to shoe horn observable phenomena to fit. Huge difference.

 

That is baloney, Setterfield is a well known and respected physicist even by his peers who might disagree with him.
In science, there are always fellows like Setterfield who come along and upset things, and there are always many critics. Sometimes the person is proven wrong, and sometimes they are proven right. Just because there are critics who disagree proves nothing, this has happened hundreds of times in science.

Fact is, since Setterfield presented his first findings, several other physicists have also submitted evidence that light is slowing down. Research is still going on.

Do a little research and see for yourself, this is a serious theory taken very seriously by many scientists. Didn't we just hear a few weeks ago that the speed of light had been broken? There are critics for that too, but others have verified this.

 

AND

So has Setterfield observed light traveling billions of times faster than today? Were measurements made a few thousand years ago?

 

Google Moffat's Theory to find articles about a secular physicist that says light is slowing down. You will not see one word about Setterfield.

This fellow claims light was much faster than Setterfield's theory!

 

No, he used all known measurements for the speed of light in the past 200 years or so. Allowances were made for error and primitive equipment and still with everything factored there was evidence that light had slowed.

If you look up John Moffat you will see he came out with a similar theory in 1992. Five years later physicist Joao Magueijo came out with a similar theory. What is comical is that these men fought over who was the first to theorize this, Moffat threatened to sue Magueijo, when Setterfield had published his work in 1979. Setterfield was first, but has been ignored by the secular press.

 

He isn't a physicist. Saying he's physicist is like saying I'm a psychologist because I counsel people in my ministry.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/bio.html

I'm not disagreeing with him because he's shaking things up. I'm okay with shaking up the scientific community. They aren't all knowing and they are, imho, operating with a bad model. There are some things we can't know.

Though not to the levels and not because of the research he did. Seriously go and look up the recent report Certain Investigations Regarding Variable Physical Constants by Amritbir Singh, R. K. Mishra, and Sukhjit Singh. They handle Setterfield's concepts and show why it isn't a useable model.

I have done my own research and don't find Setterfield helpful. If the creationist camp is going to propose a better model they need better research and better researchers. Guys like Setterfield aren't helpful in this regard. His model is wrong. The recent discussions going on aren't using his theories but are not conclusive. I don't buy that the speed of light is variable. Lots of people don't buy it.

No one has "verified" your conclusion either. It is still being considered and weighed. Like I said I'm all for shaking things up, but let's get people who have the credibility and usable research to do it. Not statisticians who aren't fully informed on the subject.

 

OK, I did look up these two fellows and it led to some fascinating reading regarding the Horizon Problem and Inflation as the solution to the Horizon Problem. As near as I can tell these scientists are theorizing that light traveled 60 orders of magnitude faster than the current speed of light (or 10^60) BUT for only 1 minute or so. If so, this would not solve the distant starlight problem, in fact, it makes it even more intractable, since the light that traveled 60 orders of magnitude faster than it currently travels was made before stars had been formed, and has long since passed the earth. Not only would this light have already blown past the earth but it was light from the Big Bang and not from light from mature stars. So you still have the problem explaining how we can see stars that are thousands of light years away.

 

Even Setterfield admits there are problems with his theory as do the secular physicists that argue this. There is not one thing unusual about this, this happens with all new theories.

But the fact is, there is real scientific evidence observed by many now that suggests light was much faster in the recent past.