Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[Kbertsche]

No, what I said was in response to rogue, pointing out the inaccuracy of his claim. Again, are you aware of the main YEC view of scientific models? I'm asking that for a reason; please don't ignore it.

Yes, I am familiar with the major YEC views.

And no, again, it is not irrelevant. Let's walk you through this step by step. The point has been made (which is why I mention it) that GPS systems have to account (very slightly) for time dilation. This is done by calculating the effect that multiple reference frames have, with time flowing (in this case slightly) differently in them.

Right so far?

So would you tell a GPS programmer that he's wrong to pay attention to the satellite's reference frame, simply because it isn't ours?

Now that matters because of gravitational time dilation. This means basically time flows slower closer to the center of a gravitational mass.

Right?

All of this is fact that nobody credible disagrees with.

Yes, agreed, though the effect is very, very small for all massive objects except for black holes.

Now.

The OE cosmology (the main one right now anyway) ignores this feature on the cosmological scale because of an assumption that the universe has no center. Perfectly reasonable so far -- unless it does.

IF it does, then time flows more slowly in the center than far away. Right?

No; this is wrong! Whether or not there is a center, and where the center may be, are irrelevant. All that is relevant to the flow of time is the local gravitational potential. And this only depends on the masses of nearby objects and their distances from the observer.

(For now, let's ignore the expansion factor, and just talk about the time dilation right now, which is admittedly insufficient to make the YE view work without expansion or some other factor. I'm talking about why your reasoning here doesn't work, and that is true whether it's a sufficient amount of dilation or not.)

And if Earth is near the center (you can imagine why cosmologists are rightly suspicious about this, but it needs to be considered!), then time flows slower here than at the most distant object we can see. In other words, if we could see a clock out there, from here, we would see it ticking much faster.

No; completely wrong.

This in turn means that without any change to the speed of light through a vacuum, it can seem to travel faster, from our perspective, from a distant star to here. Assuming our centrality in a spherical universe of matter.

No. And this would not hold true even if your above erroneous claims were correct!

When we measure the speed of light, we do it with our clocks on earth. Yes, these clocks run very slightly slower than a clock in space, away from earth's gravity. But everything in our reference frame happens slightly slower, including light travel. When we measure the speed of light, these effects cancel, and we measure light moving at exactly c, the speed of light in vacuum.

Nothing you've said so far changes any of this; this is all fact (with the note that it's only fact that IF it has a center the latter part works; if it doesn't the argument obviously fails).

No, this is not fact; it is a misunderstanding of relativity.

So then, evidence for centrality in such a sphere needs to be considered. And I cited the two main ones that YEs bring up (shelling arrangement of the galaxies around our region, light polarity evidence of a universal axis through our region.) Can you deal with them? If not, that's fine. Doesn't mean you have to agree. You can assume something else will come up later that will deal with them, if you must. (Frankly, the axis one seems simple to speculate against... I really thought I'd see it mentioned right away... But I'm curious to see if you can think of it. And I offered a suggestion already about the quantized redshifts.)

Now the expansion part is much trickier. I read Humphreys' book and went through the papers offered in critique of it a long time ago and Humphreys' reply. I'm not sure there's persuasive evidence for that part of it. But the concept is striking and does seem to explain the distant starlight in a very simple, accessible way. For the record, the critiques mostly attacked a strawman, but they did get Humphreys to admit to doubt cast on what the behavior is inside the event horizon, and he came up with a rescuing device. Later Hartnett published his own model, which I haven't really bothered to read in detail as other subjects have been more interesting, and he presents it confusingly when he sums it up. But even with all that, the basic concept still seems to be useful, even if it's that actually it's just partial time dilation and it's just part of the full explanation, in combination with something like Hartnett's etc.

There's a lot more to it, but this should be enough to give you a chance to clear up at what steps you disagree and show evidence for the disagreement being plausible.

So far as I can tell, Humphreys, Hartnett, Lisle, et al propose different, conflicting theories. They all read more like sci-if than like real science. I've worked through Lisle's the most carefully; it can be easily disproven. I haven't worked thru the others in as much detail, but they seem to be even less solid than Lisle's. It almost seems that they WANT to confuse YECs with a lot of misleading relativistic double-speak.

[Kbertsche]

There is some evidence that he was part of a culture with good geographic knowledge.

For instance, if the iniquity was only regional, why didn't God tell Noah to go on a Trek instead? Well, obviously anywhere they could have gone on a Trek was either under direct Nodian or Nodian type sway, or known already and corrupted. Say the Neanderthal race (or its ancestors) had made a Trek to Europe ... by Noah's time, some seem to have gone cannibal. Plus, some parts of Europe were not safe for a Trek, there was at least one Dimetrodon around in Germany and a few more things like that.

If you think the Nodian or Sethite cultures were only regional and were only hit by a regional Flood, why would God NOT have told Noah to make a Trek?

Do you think that saving Noah and his family was God's only goal during the flood? Didn't God also have the goal of providing a witness to the surrounding people and an opportunity for them to repent? Didn't God also have the goal of providing through Noah a typological picture of salvation through Christ? Sure, God could have told Noah to take a trek, but then these other goals would not have been fulfilled.

[oxmixmudd]

So far as I can tell, Humphreys, Hartnett, Lisle, et al propose different, conflicting theories. They all read more like sci-if than like real science. I've worked through Lisle's the most carefully; it can be easily disproven. I haven't worked thru the others in as much detail, but they seem to be even less solid than Lisle's. It almost seems that they WANT to confuse YECs with a lot of misleading relativistic double-speak.

Theories being a very loose word here. But it is the conflicting nature of them that speaks strongly of their ad hoc nature. As an example:

Sarfati/Davies have long pushed the idea that the scarcity of Supernova remnants of an apparent age greater than 10,000 years is an indicator the universe is young. And yet, in Humphreys model, this simply has no bearing whatsoever, as the greater universe IS in fact old. And, in fact, to accommodate Sirius B ony 8 light years hence (a white dwarf of some 10 billion+ years age), his 'timeless zone' captivity of the Earth must have been extremely long lived relative to the rest of the universe and the implied shrinking of the white hole event horizon a rapid and very recent event. It's all very much ad hoc, and requires a significant amount of 'special pleading' to even come close to conforming to observational data.

When you add to that

1) the age implied by the cratering of almost all rocky bodies in the solar system,
2) the need to separate the Earth's ancient bombardment from modern times by many orders of magnitude more than 6000 years to allow time for the Earth to recover
3) the need for that same time of separation to almost completely erase the environmental impact and craters of the larger impacts

his 'theory' completely fails. Because while it might be able to account for an old universe 'out there' * , it reaches incredulity trying to account for the old solar system and sun, and fails completely to account for this history of bombardment found in the Earth itself.

Jim

*if you suspend disbelief as regards the idea of a reverse entropy 'white hole' existing in this universe ...

[rogue06]

There is some evidence that he was part of a culture with good geographic knowledge.

For instance, if the iniquity was only regional, why didn't God tell Noah to go on a Trek instead? Well, obviously anywhere they could have gone on a Trek was either under direct Nodian or Nodian type sway, or known already and corrupted. Say the Neanderthal race (or its ancestors) had made a Trek to Europe ... by Noah's time, some seem to have gone cannibal. Plus, some parts of Europe were not safe for a Trek, there was at least one Dimetrodon around in Germany and a few more things like that.

If you think the Nodian or Sethite cultures were only regional and were only hit by a regional Flood, why would God NOT have told Noah to make a Trek?

There are similar questions that could be asked about many events.

• Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down?
• Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness?
• Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness?

One reason that immediately comes to mind is that if Noah had simply been told to leave the region he would not have been able to bear witness to the wrath of God.

[Roy]

One reason that immediately comes to mind is that if Noah had simply been told to leave the region he would not have been able to bear witness to the wrath of God.

...until he returned.

[rogue06]

...until he returned.

Don't you mean "if."

[logician bones]

Kb: I meant that he got a major prediction right, not whether he was celebrated for it. I was talking about credibility so far as a layman can tell in a testable way, rather than relying on assurances from others.

hans: For the record, "Mount" Ararat is a recent volcano. The account refers to a mountain in the region of Ararat. Apparently it can't be that mountain (well, unless its current surface added onto an older, smaller volcano, I guess). If memory serves...

A good example of the poetry I'm talking about is in Job when people are called worms and maggots. (Job is a poetic book, different from the historical reports like Genesis.)

Re: Mark 10:6, I covered that earlier, but I'll elaborate in case it was unclear. Mark doesn't specify what is meant by "creation" there, and since humans are the immediate context, it's obvious the focus is on them. He could mean "the world of humans". Or life, or Earth's surface as we know it. If the "stars revealed" theory is right, the third option would be what Genesis is describing, and this NT statement would simply be referring to it.

For the record about perspective, I looked through the whole Flood section today, and here's what I found:

Words to the effect of "every"/"all" are used from God's perspective confirming deaths of land animals, under the heavens.

The passages confirming mountains covering are not quoted as from God; they're narrative, and lead directly into the narrative that clearly shows the Ark passengers perspective by the need to release birds to figure out if the waters had receded. Note too that I subscribe to a somewhat complex view of the signatures to the accounts in the Genesis compilation; basically before the Abraham section they are ending signatures. Both of these narration details are within the account attributed (in my interpretation) to "sons of Noah". So the same narrative perspective would be natural to it.

And for the sake of anybody reading who didn't follow the earlier discussion, "all/every" language can be non-absolute, even in historical narrative, akin to the modern saying "everybody knows that". However, the extra clarification of "under the heavens" probably is meant to imply an extremely close to absolute, or absolute.

So putting it together, it looks like the Flood was "global", or at least the rains were and the event was fatal across the land to all but perhaps a few minor exceptions. However, it still stands that some mountains/hills could have poked above the waters the whole time.

I also noted earlier that if they couldn't just look out the vents and see that the waters had receded, they probably couldn't see whether there were distant mountains on the horizon either, and 15 cubits could easily simply be the depth that the Ark rested in the water (its height was 30 cubits). So this could simply mean they didn't notice it hitting anything, and "under the whole heavens" in that case would have to be just a way to say "everywhere we went".

If the Flood was regional, Noah would have known higher mountains around were not flooded.

I don't think it's "regional", but this doesn't follow. Even if he COULD see all around, if he doesn't see land, he doesn't necessarily know how deep the water here is.

Yeah..... sorry, you're trying the "cylinder of water" argument on the wrong guy. I'm well aware of that argument and use it myself against certain nutty skeptics. My view is the water seeks a level. But that doesn't prove the level is above ALL mountains. Right?

Re: figures of speech must be obvious -- to whom? Many modern ones could be very confusing to somebody who doesn't know it's a figure of speech and doesn't know the meaning. I've seen cases where people who use thinking a lot like yours take something in the Bible to be "obviously literal" when later research shows it was a well-known idiom to Jews of the time. A lot can be lost not only in translation but over time.

Re: No offered alternative for geocentrism -- I was trying not to let you derail the topic at hand with it. Can we not? But if you must -- the sun should be larger (and is observably so) to have enough fuel to shine long, and gravity is obvious, and that would require us to orbit it. Pretty simple really. I'm sure you have a whole host of rescuing devices to wriggle out of it... Yeah... can we just stay on topic and if you want that debate direct it to another? That I probably won't take part in because of time constraints LOL?

What exactly is physically impossible about a flood that goes up just a little lower than you thought it did?? If the water can reach 100% of what you thought, it can reach 99%, etc.

Roy: Well, I see that article is very long, so I'll have to go through it later (sigh). But from a first glance, upper Cretaceous is probably not a good place for your test, due to the evidence that this is the end of the main inrush period. Rain and rising new ocean plates would keep that underwater for a long time. Hence the ash deposits also at that point, as already discussed earlier. Also, I said early on that the ideal is to have advanced-enough modeling to account for all the physics for as full global and local behavior as possible. You give the impression of being purposefully obtuse about that...

Kb: "Yes, I am familiar with the major YEC views." -- Then why are you confused about the models thing? Remember rogue said the distant object did not fit "the YEC model". Everything I said was referring to that. Yet you seem to have somehow taken it as their definitely believing a particular model is 100% certain. It's puzzling if you know they don't do that with models...

No; this is wrong! Whether or not there is a center, and where the center may be, are irrelevant. All that is relevant to the flow of time is the local gravitational potential. And this only depends on the masses of nearby objects and their distances from the observer.

Huh? How is this different? You just rephrased what I said. Do you deny that the distance from multiple objects applies? A clock outside the galaxy would run faster than one near its center, right? If the WHOLE universe has a center like this, why would the physics suddenly change for it? It can't be for the reason you stated, since this still depends on distance from all those objects. You would have to add something you didn't say -- like a distance limit beyond which gravity disappears for example.

Keep in mind this is all in the context of insufficient time dilation as the universe is right now. And it doesn't mean the model ends up working (the parts trying to change the sufficiency should be seen as highly suspect). It's just establishing that centrality matters for dilation.

Yes, these clocks run very slightly slower than a clock in space, away from earth's gravity. But everything in our reference frame happens slightly slower, including light travel.

That's exactly the point. How is this not agreeing with me?

I've worked through Lisle's the most carefully; it can be easily disproven.

Okay? I'm interested, if you've got time. Been a while since I've read it but I remember the basic concept, so hopefully I can understand it. If not I can review eventually so yeah.

ox: That's been a point I've been concerned about too, but not sure your logic works. Remember that in the model, the light has to take real time (in the reference frame of all the space it passes through) to reach us.

Us seeing it as 10000 now doesn't change that it would actually be older in the present. (But maybe the spread of the cases doesn't fit this, I don't know.) Since time out there is now flowing normally, and light took millions of years in the intervening space to reach us, obviously the distant object is now millions of years old (for a case that is millions of light years away). From its own reference frame.

I agree your points are strong as far as our solar system itself goes, though. But then, remember this is during creation week, when miraculous intervention IS on the table (the second era of history had not yet started confining it to credentialing biblical authors). And the YEC view obviously is that miracles were used on Earth.

It's very possible this involved large-scale shaping of the planets, rapid cooling, etc. I think Earth's land would require that anyway to fit within one day without leaving similarly devastating aftermath (and 1-day creation of a human would also take miraculous intervention, and the account clearly states the Lord did that in Gen 2, defining the phrasing in Gen 1 for man that way, and the same phrasing is used for the other creative events). The cratering could have been rapid, due to not only being the result of natural gravitational attraction over time. (At least one argument has been offered for that; the problem of collection from a previously diffused state, though that's more for stars than planets/moons/etc.)

That said, I do think a good case can be made that God simply hid sunlight from Earth's surface for a long time, and "day 1" is just when he begins to take that concealment away (and it's gone by Day 4). It seems like it would explain a lot, and I'm hard pressed to think of scriptural evidence against it.

rogue:

There are similar questions that could be asked about many events.

Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down?
Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness?
Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness?

One reason that immediately comes to mind is that if Noah had simply been told to leave the region he would not have been able to bear witness to the wrath of God.

I agree with your last sentence here. For the record, though, given that the archealogical reports of Jericho say the wall was atop a mound and the bricks of the wall were found at the base, the practical purpose of the first example is actually easy to guess -- maybe it was on the verge of falling anyway due to bad design and all that vibration shook it loose over the course of the seven days.

(And the second is probably foreshadowing Christ via a clear miracle. Not interested in the third at this time.)

Also, the "why not leave" argument fails anyway if it's near global (even if it's more than just mountaintops), due to the effects of the rain. A shelter against constant rain would still be needed, and massive erosion on the exposed land could make it also unlivable.

It is a fair point against a very local flood, though. But yeah, a boat is still possible in that scenario.

[Roy]

Don't you mean "if."

Would you settle for "unless"?

[Kbertsche]

Kb: I meant that he got a major prediction right, not whether he was celebrated for it. I was talking about credibility so far as a layman can tell in a testable way, rather than relying on assurances from others.

You have not explained anything. WHAT major prediction did he get right? When? Where is it published?

No; this is wrong! Whether or not there is a center, and where the center may be, are irrelevant. All that is relevant to the flow of time is the local gravitational potential. And this only depends on the masses of nearby objects and their distances from the observer.

Huh? How is this different? You just rephrased what I said. Do you deny that the distance from multiple objects applies? A clock outside the galaxy would run faster than one near its center, right? If the WHOLE universe has a center like this, why would the physics suddenly change for it? It can't be for the reason you stated, since this still depends on distance from all those objects. You would have to add something you didn't say -- like a distance limit beyond which gravity disappears for example.

No, I am NOT simply rephrasing what you said. You don't seem to understand the basic idea of gravity.

We experience a gravitational force of 1G, due to the earth's gravitational potential. Our moon causes a very, very slight modulation to this, which is very difficult to measure. Our own sun is too far away to create any appreciable gravitational force or potential. The stars are even less relevant.

Thus, our gravitational potential is due to the earth alone. This is all that determines gravitational time dilation. Distant stars don't matter. Whether or not we are in the "center" doesn't matter. A clock inside our galaxy but far from any stars will run at essentially the same speed as a clock outside our galaxy.

[Roy]

Yes, there are many detailed scenarios described. If you haven't read them, that doesn't make them not exist.

Then link to an example. I've never seen a YEC attempt at explaining a full geological sequence, as is done for example here. If there are many detailed scenarios described, it should be easy to find.

Roy: Well, I see that article is very long, so I'll have to go through it later (sigh). But from a first glance, upper Cretaceous is probably not a good place for your test, due to the evidence that this is the end of the main inrush period. Rain and rising new ocean plates would keep that underwater for a long time. Hence the ash deposits also at that point, as already discussed earlier. Also, I said early on that the ideal is to have advanced-enough modeling to account for all the physics for as full global and local behavior as possible. You give the impression of being purposefully obtuse about that...

Still no example of a YEC attempt at analysing a geological event sequence.

Instead, just more oversimplified 'modelling': what Cretaceous ash deposits? Where in the world are they? What about the many ash deposits that aren't in the Cretaceous? How can low-density ash be deposited in Cretaceous sediments if they are "underwater for a long time"?

Also, I did not propose a "test". I asked for confirmation that my understanding of your scenario is correct - which confirmation you have not given.

[shunyadragon]

Starting at random at last page, will go back then to where I was:



False, I reject Evolutionist and other Old Earth interpretations of science, and I reject scientism. I try to salvage as much scientific data as I can.

Otherwise I would for instance not bother to make tables about rising C14 levels so as to show how uncalibrated C14 dates can be calibrated to fit the Biblical timeline.

So, I repeat : how exactly was the Black Sea Flood either shown to have happened or dated? In case the datings are based on C14, I have of course already flaunted my ace on that one.

Actually the Black Sea flood is dated by many methods and you reject all dating methods, but not C14 dating. You reject science as indicated, and responses from others concerning dating methods has been shown to be nothing more that bizzare and dishonest, and not remotely based on actual science, as reflected in the following nonsense.

Fossil beds of Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Miocene ... if you consider them as coming from different epochs, no, at none of these epochs can you trace a global flood, but if you consider them as even possibly coming from same epoch, that WOULD be precisely a global flood. Especially if you add carboniferous coal beds and Silurian and Ordovician fish to the bid.

Impossible based on the objective physical evidence in these formations. For example; The carboniferous formations contain patterns of vast meandering river systems, varved strata, strata containing, mud cracks, soil formation, eroded land surfaces with weathered regolith like we see today, stand of forests with stumps with extensive root systems and soil formation, numerous fine fossil tracks of worms, and other small animals in layer after layer for thousands of feet.

Salt deposits ... as I consider salt levels have risen in sea since Flood (all or most aquatic species survived ... or perhaps the real aquatic species back then were the ones we find in Cretaceous finds and only sharks survived sweeter flood waters), salt would come from saltier water supply from the "fountains of the earth".

What you consider has no basis in science.
This proposal is impossible simply by basic high school knowledge of the nature and chemistry of Salt.

Gypsum? Pass right now, I have close to a headache after last discussion on calcium.

Basic high school chemistry is all you need to know that your bizzaro proposals concerning formation of vast regions of limestones hundreds of feet thick containing vast coral reefs is impossible. Gypsum in the vast deposits must also take into consideration basic chemistry, which will not work in any such flood considerations.

Your proposals violate virtually all fundamental laws of physics, and basic principles of chemistry, and the actual geologic evidence as well. Your proposals concerning the formation of limestone and salt cannot be replicated in simple lab experiments, and the sedimentation experiments you presented were terribly misleading and only apply to sand deposits.

Ice age and glaciers? There are two alternative views, or both could be true in combination : Oard makes it a byproduct of the Flood, I of the higher cosmic radiation level (also needed for my rising C14 levels), both could be true in combination.

Carbon 14 testing is not related here. Glaciation and the Ice Ages are based on actual physical evidence of the action of ice, and cannot be explained by floods.

[logician bones]

Kb:

A clock inside our galaxy but far from any stars will run at essentially the same speed as a clock outside our galaxy.

Keyword bolded! You acknowledge that there will be a slight difference in this case? Yes or no?

Roy:

Well, you're still being so vague I don't know what you want, except like I said you seem to want every detail. Let me ask you a question for an example, not sure if this is what you're going for or not, though. Would you agree that in a global Flood scenario, the behavior at one site could be strongly affected by the details of surrounding sites, for events at the same time? For example, the shape of the land affecting currents flowing over it. (Obviously, the definition of "site" gets tricky here, though.) If yes, do you think the water could make local site analysis trickier than in a typical OE scenario of ordinary weather in general, etc.?

Take the scenario of underwater canyon erosion, from earlier discussion, due to sediment-laden currents (one of the causes of underwater channels). If there's an obstruction in the way of where the current would otherwise go, this will affect the channel from that point on. Yes?

Obviously the OE scenario isn't free of such things, of course. And there's much more time involved, so I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm curious what you think.

I'm also curious if you could give an example of what you say OEs have done satisfactorily. And not argument by link or vague statements; clearly give the details in your own wording. And be sure to include the weaknesses. This would go a long way toward clearing up what it is you want (maybe it feels clear in your mind, but I can't read minds; I can only go by what little you have said).


Edit:

Roy, another thing. You're the one who is so curious about this, so here's a suggestion to avoid the problem of too much time being wasted (or possibly wasted, but given how past OE arguments reliably fail on close examination, I'm not exactly holding my breath that yours will happen to be the exception!). Since this matters so much to you, how about you invest the time to save me the trouble?

Quote key passages from the AIG link you cited, showing what their suggested solution is, and then explain (notice you didn't) why it allegedly doesn't work. Also quote precisely what the problem is (just citing a law is not enough; we need particle size, time available, thickness of water to fall through, and what the end results are). So instead of wasting my time, spend yours. Should be reasonable, no?



Shun:

The multiple ice ages argument has also been countered (though unsure if really disproved) by pointing out that the argument depends on the assumption that global water currents were not available to explain the channels to OEs. So OEs attribute them to glacial causes. Also, there would have been ice caps previously, and with the complexity of the onset period, it's possible contact with ice from these did occur due to all the tectonic activity. So that is... well, it could end up being a good argument if all the details work, but in any case it is not as simple as you make it sound (like your other arguments, as already discussed earlier).

[oxmixmudd]

ox: That's been a point I've been concerned about too, but not sure your logic works. Remember that in the model, the light has to take real time (in the reference frame of all the space it passes through) to reach us.

Us seeing it as 10000 now doesn't change that it would actually be older in the present. (But maybe the spread of the cases doesn't fit this, I don't know.) Since time out there is now flowing normally, and light took millions of years in the intervening space to reach us, obviously the distant object is now millions of years old (for a case that is millions of light years away). From its own reference frame.

I agree your points are strong as far as our solar system itself goes, though. But then, remember this is during creation week, when miraculous intervention IS on the table (the second era of history had not yet started confining it to credentialing biblical authors). And the YEC view obviously is that miracles were used on Earth.

It's very possible this involved large-scale shaping of the planets, rapid cooling, etc. I think Earth's land would require that anyway to fit within one day without leaving similarly devastating aftermath (and 1-day creation of a human would also take miraculous intervention, and the account clearly states the Lord did that in Gen 2, defining the phrasing in Gen 1 for man that way, and the same phrasing is used for the other creative events). The cratering could have been rapid, due to not only being the result of natural gravitational attraction over time. (At least one argument has been offered for that; the problem of collection from a previously diffused state, though that's more for stars than planets/moons/etc.)

That said, I do think a good case can be made that God simply hid sunlight from Earth's surface for a long time, and "day 1" is just when he begins to take that concealment away (and it's gone by Day 4). It seems like it would explain a lot, and I'm hard pressed to think of scriptural evidence against it.

The point I was making about the SN remnants is that in Humphrey's model, 'out there' is far older that 10,000 years relative to itself. And so a scarcity of SNR's that are preceptably older than 10,000 years is NOT an artifact of the age of the Universe 'out there', it is likely for the same reason one would find such a scarcity in an old universe - dispersal and difficulty of detection. So they conflict in that in Humbphrey's model, such an artifact can't be seen as an indication of the age of the universe. In fact, virtually nothing found in the universe 'out there' can be seen as an indication of the age of the universe in humphrey's model.

My point about the close in old objects is that in Humphrey's model, the apparent age of things 'out there' is because they are really old. Because they've been around long enough to have evolved through all those stages of existence. Humphrey's model solves all the major problems with YE implicated by astronomy by reserving only a very local portion of the universe as corresponding to the YE interpreted <10,000 years of real age. And so His theory conflicts with Sarfati's evidence, and Setterfields changing speed of light and so on and so on.

But the latter portion of my post dealt not so much with the internal conflicts of different YE attempts to explain what we see in Astronomy, but also it's own failure to be self consistent, in that there is a great deal within the close vicinity of the Earth that is also quite old, and for that to be explained by his theory the parameters for the theory in terms of the speed of the retraction of the event horizon and the relative nearness of very old objects obliterates any legitimacy that might have existed - assuming we discount the need for an object that has no observational or even a plausible theoretical basis for being able to exist in this universe.

Jim

[Kbertsche]

Kb:

A clock inside our galaxy but far from any stars will run at essentially the same speed as a clock outside our galaxy.

Keyword bolded! You acknowledge that there will be a slight difference in this case? Yes or no?

It all depends on the local gravitational environment. A clock which is in a gravitational potential well will run slightly slower than one which is not. Thus a clock inside our galaxy and far from any massive object will actually run slightly faster than a clock outside our galaxy but near a massive object.

[shunyadragon]

Shun:

The multiple ice ages argument has also been countered (though unsure if really disproved) by pointing out that the argument depends on the assumption that global water currents were not available to explain the channels to OEs. So OEs attribute them to glacial causes. Also, there would have been ice caps previously, and with the complexity of the onset period, it's possible contact with ice from these did occur due to all the tectonic activity. So that is... well, it could end up being a good argument if all the details work, but in any case it is not as simple as you make it sound (like your other arguments, as already discussed earlier).

It may not be very simple, but is not complicated, and nothing remotely countered. Your 'if all the details work?.' is problematic. I have enough geology in both undergraduate and graduate to know that 'the details do not work.' from neither the YEC or OEC perspective.

Glacial features such as the rounded valleys [channels(?)] in glacial terrain cannot be formed by water currents. In the mountains the classic rounded U-channels of glaciers with later water worn V-shape and hanging water fall escarpments, can only be explained including different ages of glaciation and water worn erosion. compacted glacial till over older compacted till revealing older glaciation with no flood deposits are just a few features showing multiple ice ages I personally seen. The feature of multi-glacial ages cannot be explained by water currents. Features such glacial striations, glacial compaction, and the type of abrasion and wear of glacial erratics in different layers of glaciation do not occur in water worn sediments. Water worn sediments begin in the out-wash plains south of glacial till and moraine deposits. I have been to geology tours in Canada to show the different Ice Ages, and no flood scenarios cannot explain the Ice Ages.

I have been to the glacial terrain of western China and collected jade with characteristic wear that can only occur when transported in glaciers.

To add, I keep my explanations as simple as this site will tolerate but I can provide more complicated scientific references if needed. The problem remains there is no evidence for a world flood, nor a significant regional flood to explain any version of the Biblical flood. I am willing to back up all the geologic and scientific dating information with references if you or anyone else wishes.

If you have any good references that can show this evidence fits any flood scenario I am willing to consider them. At present I have not seen any good academic references to back up any version of a flood scenario.