Stunning victory of Creation

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Oh, and by the way. I contacted Setterfield about your objections to the probe evidence and claim that a solution had been accepted.

He said that the solution had been rejected and that possible missions were being planned to investigate the anomaly in our probes' acceleration measurements."

Citation of where it had been rejected?

From Setterfield's response. Feel free to verify this yourself or if you are not satisfied, I will be glad to follow up myself with Barry:

It is interesting that this proposal about the dust was published in 2003. However, answers were still being sought to the anomaly in late 2004 by several well-respected scientists, including John D. Anderson himself, who was responsible for collecting and analyzing the data for NASA. It was in August and December of 2004 that major scientific articles were written by these specialists pointing out that the anomaly was not yet resolved. So much so that in October 2004 the European Space Agency has itself recommended a mission to determine the cause of the anomaly. So the dust explanation has been largely rejected.

 

[UTEOTW]

In any case, the changing speed of light option is ruled out for reasons outlined before.

I used too old a paper for my initial response. I don't suppose you have the name of Anderson's paper? I could probably find it with Google Scholar. There are a ton of papers on this topic listed there. Scanning a few, it seems that the leading contenders seem to be dealing with some aspect of relativity that had not been previously applied to the problem

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
In any case, the changing speed of light option is ruled out for reasons outlined before.

Ruled out? Why? Because in a working theory all of the questions and objections haven't been answered?

That is very inconsistent of you. You yield great latitude to scientists whose theories congruent to naturalism encounter difficulties.

I used too old a paper for my initial response. I don't suppose you have the name of Anderson's paper? I could probably find it with Google Scholar. There are a ton of papers on this topic listed there. Scanning a few, it seems that the leading contenders seem to be dealing with some aspect of relativity that had not been previously applied to the problem

Which part of relativity? Mass?

 

[Phillip]

UTEOTW, Thank you for the information about your work. It sounds very interesting.

One reason I find it so interesting is that we have a lot of coal in this local area, and our town is honeycombed with old mine shafts that are now full of water. They run for miles. In fact we have a large Italian population living in a town next to us (nationwide known for its Italian dining). The Italians came from Italy at the turn of the century to work the mines.

One power company has just built a coal burning plant that burns about 400 railroad cars of coal per day. (Four turbine plant.) It is a very new plant with practically zero emissions. The coal is shipped in from a nothern state. The coal in this area is supposedly good coal (low sulfur content), but it was becoming more costly to mine. So, the company found it was cheaper just to import it. Most of our power is made from natural gas, since we have such an abundance locally, but this one just happened to go with coal. (We do have a hydropower plant on a large man-made lake just north of us.)

Anyway, thanks for the info.

 

[Phillip]

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, eve His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Profeessing to be wise, they became fools.
Romans 1:20-22

 

[UTEOTW]

"Ruled out? Why? Because in a working theory all of the questions and objections haven't been answered?"

No, because it is incompatible with observations. I posted a long explantion of this earlier.

Let me give a more detailed reasoning for my example earlier of effects that would be predicted by Setterfield but that fail to be seen.

We use of doppler effects to measure the rotation by looking at the different relative speeds of each side of the galaxy.

Now, if you assume that the galaxy is not rotating at relativistic speeds and you only consider the velocity vectors directly towards and away from you, the formula for doppler shift reduces to

(velocity of object)/(speed light) = (change in wavelength) / (wavelength)

(Barry has been very clear that it is frequency that changes with c.)

Now if you solve for the change in wavelength, you will see that it is inversely proportional to the speed of light. So if you take a given situation, plug though the change in wavelength with a higher speed of light to get the change in wavelength, then go back through with today's speed of light, you will see that your speed measured will be off by exactly how much the speed of light has changed. The exact same thing will happen if you use frequency instead of wavelength.

Take M31. It is about 2 million light years away so light would have been necessary to have been traveling at least a few thousand time faster when it left than now to get here in 6000 years. This means that the measured speeds of rotation are off by at least three orders of magnitude. And M31 is the nearest large galaxy. The problems get much worse at greater distances.

The rotational speed of M31, the largest nearby large spiral galaxy, has been measured at 275 km/s. ( http://helios.astro.lsa.umich.edu/Course/Labs/tully_fisher/tf_intro.html ) It is about 2 million light years away so let's take as a conservative (and one that makes the math easy) factor that light would have been traveling at 1000 times the current speed of light when it left Andromeda to get here by now. This means that the 275 km/s must also be multiplied by 1000 giving a speed of 275,000 km/s! This is over 90% of the speed of light! Imposssible for a variety of reasons.

Since there is not a sharp dropoff in measured rotational velocity as you look further into space, more distant galaxies would be in the position of having their stars orbiting at speeds greater than the speed of light! As it is, the measured velocites are higher than the visible matter would allow which is one of the reasons that dark matter is proposed to account for the extra mass that is needed.

 

[Phillip]

According to Fair Copyright Laws, I quote from introduction of "The Battle for the Beginning" by John MacArthur. I have one question, does THIS sound familiar?

"theological liberals have long espoused theistic evolution. They have never been reluctant to deny the literal truth of Scripture on any issue. The new trend has also influenced some evangelicals who contend that it is possible to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with the theories of modern naturalism without doing violence to any essential doctrine of Christianity. They affirm evangelical statements of faith. They teach in evangelical institutions. They insist they believe the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. But they are willing to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theory. They express shock and surprise that anyone would question their approach to Scripture. And they sometimes employ the same sort of ridicule and intimidation religious liberals and atheistic skeptics have always leveled against believers: "You don't seriously think the universe is less than a billion years old, do you?""

 

[UTEOTW]

And I will quote Augustine.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

 

[Scott J]

Of course the great scientific minds of Augustine's time argued that the universe was static and eternal. It was the ignorant Christian that insisted that the universe had a beginning because the Bible said so.

Now science has largely validated the contention that the universe had a beginning... which basically necessitates a cause that transcends nature. So the argument becomes not whether the universe began but when. That then "evolves" into an debate over who God is, what He is capable of, and what He said He did.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Now science has largely validated the contention that the universe had a beginning... which basically necessitates a cause that transcends nature."

You forget that you are not dealing with an atheist. We worship the cause.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Except that Humphreys does not follow Relativity accurately.

I'll give two examples.

First, Humphreys says that time is slower here on earth than in the rest of the universe because the earth is in a gravitional well. Light falling into such a well should be blue shifted. Instead the light we observe is redshifted.

Second, if his ideas were true, the effect of the time dilation should be noticable in our observations of the cosmos. Instead, things that change with time, such as supernova light curves and Cepheid variables are observed to change with time just as they should in the absence of time dilation.

Read this article from a Christian website to get a more in depth look at the book.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

It appears that there is a difference of opinion about Humphrey's theory! That doesn't mean he is incorrect.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It appears that there is a difference of opinion about Humphrey's theory! That doesn't mean he is incorrect."

A simple difference of opinion does not mean he is wrong. His idea being incompatible with observations is a strong indication that it is wrong, however. Predictions that follow logically from his idea are not observed.

I have read that not a single expert in relativity has ever backed his ideas. Can you name any that have? For that matter, I do not think that Humphreys has any formal expertice in relativity himself so even referring to his book is a fallacious appeal to authority. He has no standing in relativity to make such claims.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's look to move in a slightly different direction. This time, let's see if we have creationist explanations for certain observations. I'm going for angular uncomformities.

What are angular uncomformities? These are places where layers have been laid down. Then the layers are tilted at an angle. Then the layers are eroded down some. Then additional layers are laid down on top of these. Go here to see some pictures from the Grand Canyon.

http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm

Now the question becomes, just how were these layers created in a young earth? MostYEers like to say that all the layers were laid down in the flood. But that does not leave a way for some layers to de deposited, hardened into rock, tilted, eroded, and then covered with additional deposits. Some have suggested that the tilted layers were original. This cannot be because some of the basal layers are limestone. You cannot have an original layer that has fossils in it.

Any ideas with logic and evidence to support it?

 

[Phillip]

Have you ever thought that God just created them that way?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Read this article from a Christian website to get a more in depth look at the book.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

This may be a "Christian" website, but it is definitely "biased" at eliminating any belief in Young Earth nd from what little I saw, also appears to push the evolution theory that I have more problem with than old Earth theory.

No matter what you say, there is an awfully fine line being drawn here between complete and 100% naturalism and the lack of a God that does not appear to be needed. (as in Carl Sagan's remark of a universe with a beginning that obviously doesn't need a god because he wouldn't have anything to do.)

I guess this is where I am having such a problem with this because of the mixed messages I seem to be getting. One one hand, we allegorize Genesis and say that 21st century scentific evidence doesn't support it, but we support the NT (because, why? I haven't figured out yet.)

 

[UTEOTW]

"Have you ever thought that God just created them that way?"

Could be...but why? Why make a few layers with fossils, then a layer that looks like a asteroid impact complete with a huge hole in the earth, then make some more layers with different fossils this time?

"This may be a "Christian" website, but it is definitely "biased" at eliminating any belief in Young Earth nd from what little I saw, also appears to push the evolution theory that I have more problem with than old Earth theory."

I think they fall more under intelligent design. Look closer, you will find material critical of evolution. Besides, the point was to show flaws in Humphreys reasoning for those that wanted to read a longer article.

"I guess this is where I am having such a problem with this because of the mixed messages I seem to be getting. One one hand, we allegorize Genesis and say that 21st century scentific evidence doesn't support it, but we support the NT (because, why? I haven't figured out yet.)"

It is a search for the truth. God's special revelation in the Bible will not conflict with His general revelation in the Creation. Some of us do not think that the message changes if the creation account is non-literal. Doing the same to the Gospels does change the message.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Doing the same to the Gospels does change the message.

Maybe you answered this question once, but if the "evidence" found tomorrow by scientific methods indicated that for whatever reason the Gospels were in error, which would you believe, the evidence or the Word of God?

 

[UTEOTW]

Remember, I was once young earth. I have faced the problem of coming across something challenging to my faith and survived it with my faith.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Remember, I was once young earth. I have faced the problem of coming across something challenging to my faith and survived it with my faith.

But only by accepting to "reinterpret" the applicable section of the Bible.

Again, will you have to do that with the NT if indeed the evidence challenges your faith?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Pete:
I'm with Phillip & the other 69

I am also with Phillip and the other 69.

Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk