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

[Kbertsche]

And? How exactly does that make a distant star not old in any sense of the word (in other words, its own reference frame)? (I mean within that model.)

We measure time usually from our reference frame because that's where we are. But a distant star isn't here. Right?

I don't see what you are getting at. Astronomical observations tell us that the stars are billions of years old irrespective of "reference frame". They are old in both our reference frame and in their own. Take our sun, for example. It is essentially in the same reference frame as the earth, and appears to be billions of years old.

[logician bones]

Kb, the issue was that rogue was apparently not aware of YEC models. What you're talking about is irrelevant to that point; that's an issue of what YECs accept, even if it's dead wrong. The fact is that older age from distant reference frames is obviously the entire point of the time dilation models.

And if you want to assert that the model doesn't work, please begin by engaging with the evidence I cited in the post that revived discussion here... In case you're unaware, that is seen as evidence that the universe is of a finite size with us near the center, meaning some (insufficient) gravitational time dilation is automatically the case. Humphreys' model proposed an early period where stars became fully developed in a more compressed state (with universal expansion), thus more (sufficient) dilation, so light had plenty of time to traverse the distance.

Also, what evidence you do have for the sun "appearing" old? Obviously your view says it is (just like your view denies the appearance of youth of the Earth), but the support for the claim is disputed.


Also keep in mind some of the options I mentioned would allow the sun to be old too.

[shunyadragon]

To the first, while I agree on Black Sea Flood NOT exhausting Flood of Noah (and perhaps not being even part of it, perhaps not even existing), I'd like some arguments about how you date how far back it is.

This would be a futile gesture, because you up front reject science. It is a matter of the facts of the earth there is absolutely no evidence of a world or regional flood that remotely fits the Biblical flood. Mountains were never covered by flood waters whether you consider the Middle East or the world.

It still remains that there is no explanation forthcoming to explain the vast salt and gypsum deposits world, and . . . glaciers and Ice Ages, no viable explanation from either the YEC nor OEC perspective.

[logician bones]

Mountains were never covered by flood waters

AHEM. The word for mountains in the text can include hills. Anyway...

As for the rest of your claims, they were already debunked earlier in this topic (or the other one; I forget now which had what). Note that with many of the mountains, they formed in the Flood and obviously some could have formed after (of course some volcanos did, but I mean fault pressure ones). Many of the land of these were definitely underwater, but at which stage of formation is complicated. The mountains/hills in question with the "covered" language doesn't include Everest, for example, which likely didn't exist at the time.

[Kbertsche]

Kb, the issue was that rogue was apparently not aware of YEC models. What you're talking about is irrelevant to that point; that's an issue of what YECs accept, even if it's dead wrong. The fact is that older age from distant reference frames is obviously the entire point of the time dilation models.

And if you want to assert that the model doesn't work, please begin by engaging with the evidence I cited in the post that revived discussion here... In case you're unaware, that is seen as evidence that the universe is of a finite size with us near the center, meaning some (insufficient) gravitational time dilation is automatically the case. Humphreys' model proposed an early period where stars became fully developed in a more compressed state (with universal expansion), thus more (sufficient) dilation, so light had plenty of time to traverse the distance.

1) So far as I am aware, only a subset (and a very small subset at that) of YECs holds to "time dilation models".
2) Your "reference frame" discussion is a red herring, possibly designed to mislead people. Modern astronomical and cosmological observations are done in earth's reference frame, and they conclude that the heavenly bodies are old as viewed from earth's reference frame.

[logician bones]

Again, what started this is rogue claiming without any qualification that a distant object being old ("any part of the universe" being old in any sense) didn't fit "the YEC model". That is patently, embarassingly wrong. And it doesn't stop being wrong by you moving the goalposts.

And if he can be that wrong about such a basic...

It's telling.

And no, KB, "reference frame" is the standard relativistic terminology. Come on, surely you aren't this dense -- light passing through a region of space that isn't here depends on the rate of time flowing where it is. Pretty simple. Whining about the term used is the red herring...

And by the way, this is true in even the atheist's cosmologies. Just not to the same extent and obviously not on a cosmological scale (since most go with the "no center" model). The Earth-frame "speed" of light passing through a region from our perspective will depend on the rate of time passing in the light's own reference frame. It's just that they confine this to local-scale phenomena. (Like the adjustment made in GPS satellites to account for the slight grav. dilation on Earth.) Ignoring the site reference frame and seeing it only from our own is simply not how it's done -- you are in error there as well.

[logician bones]

Look, I don't want to be too harsh here... Let's back up for some perspective. I realized while walking the dog just now some of these things need to be understood and some of you may have been skipping anything not directed just at you so you aren't getting the big picture here, etc. It's very late but I think this needs to be said before the rest of you put in a bunch of other posts after the above.

ox provided a surprisingly good argument. (As I said several times but it bears repeating.)

When I decided to join in here it was with misgivings, because in my past experience such discussions often get way too time consuming (happened a bit here, but not as much as I feared), and the OE side typically ignores all the most important evidence against their view and offers nothing "good" (like ox's argument) in return, while confidently declaring their view fact anyway. And maybe it is. I don't know. I'm not God. I'm just a layman, curious about these things. But I really thought I'd see a lot more good arguments, and when ox did that, it encouraged me that others might have some good arguments to the seemingly conclusive evidences against the OE view. Instead I'm seeing you guys mostly digging your hole deeper and deeper (admittedly with a few somewhat good arguments, though).

Right now, the YE evidence this topic started about is still hanging over the entire topic, with only denial of the evidence being offered!

I can't unsee that evidence. Your denials are useless. I need you to explain the evidence that's there.

Likewise, at least one other appears about as good a candidate of OE disproof as we're ever likely to see; the remnant helium in low layers. How in the world could that be explained with an OE?

I get it. You OEs think you have similar "knockout" arguments against the YE side. But the problem is, the discussion goes exactly as I've seen on countless other sites. Good argument after good argument is raised for the YE view, and OE goes silent on that issue. Or goes silent for a while, and then later resorts to vague statements of confidence.

Well man, you want to talk about "possibly misleading" tactics... Can't you see how that looks?

And most of the supposed knockout OE arguments I've seen addressed already.


And then, as if to top it all off, I'm told that "YE sites don't tell you about tilted layers and have no mechanism" -- and even though they do this and I've seen it, the only reason this is dismissed is because... there happen to be footprints in some of the layers. Guys. Wake up. The layers they DO talk about being tilted are sedimentary. They believe in gaps in the onset. I told you so. They expect prints in layers. Prints change nothing about the mechanism of tilt. Yet it's all brushed aside "because they don't talk about tilted prints."

Can you see why... your approaches look, to put it mildly, very suspect?


And then, after a long delay, I find out something else topping it all off with the ignorance of even basics about YE views. I get it, just one of you (maybe two?). Maybe most of you don't accept the tilts argument anymore too, I don't know. It's just... the overall picture here is clear -- you do know a few better arguments than those typically used elsewhere, but none conclusive, and you can't deal (apparently) with the conclusive ones. Heck, I could deal with some of them myself for you, better than I've seen here. Come up with some model of recurring global leveling catastrophes with life surviving. Very weak, but stronger than blind faith in the OE despite the (relative) lack of surface erosion features throughout the layer. Helium... I don't know. A... bubble of helium from the mantle... makes its way... into the rock and... uh...

Help me out here.

Or at least, could I see some honest recognition that some of you can see why those look like they could be good anti-OE arguments? Just like I'm doing about ox's argument, the fatal quakes argument, etc.? This is another thing that bothers me about the OE side from past experience and I'm seeing the same trend here.

And to make matters even worse, when this one member is called on his gross inaccuracy about something not even dependent on nature but simply a matter of record of Ken Ham, etc. being accepting of models like Humphreys', another apparently tries to move the goalpost but by repeatedly ignoring the evidence already cited for that model. Apparently you want me to rely on credibility of the scientists on your side, but ironically, Humphreys is the very scientist who correctly predicted planetary magnetic fields while all of your guys got it wrong. Even just based on the credibility argument alone, it now looks like YE is doing very well, and OE is... in serious trouble to say the least.

It's all adding up.

Rant long enough and it's late. But to sum up -- the low helium and the wide flat areas throughout the layers -- just deal with those two, and I'll accept that OE climbs up from where it's hanging on the tablecloth and gets back on the table... The constant changing subjects away from these is... telling...

[Kbertsche]

Again, what started this is rogue claiming without any qualification that a distant object being old ("any part of the universe" being old in any sense) didn't fit "the YEC model". That is patently, embarassingly wrong. And it doesn't stop being wrong by you moving the goalposts.

And if he can be that wrong about such a basic...

It's telling.

I am not Rogue, and I am not responding to his claims or comments. I am responding to what you stated, which was that "major YECs" believe that the heavenly bodies are billions of years old while the earth is only thousands of years old.

And no, KB, "reference frame" is the standard relativistic terminology. Come on, surely you aren't this dense -- light passing through a region of space that isn't here depends on the rate of time flowing where it is. Pretty simple. Whining about the term used is the red herring...

I understand reference frames. I understand relativistic terminology. (I have spent my entire career working with relativistic particles.)

And by the way, this is true in even the atheist's cosmologies. Just not to the same extent and obviously not on a cosmological scale (since most go with the "no center" model). The Earth-frame "speed" of light passing through a region from our perspective will depend on the rate of time passing in the light's own reference frame. It's just that they confine this to local-scale phenomena. (Like the adjustment made in GPS satellites to account for the slight grav. dilation on Earth.) Ignoring the site reference frame and seeing it only from our own is simply not how it's done -- you are in error there as well.

But all of this is irrelevant to our observations. We make all of our astronomical and cosmological observations from earth's reference frame. Our calculations and measurements are done in earth's reference frame. Earth's reference frame is the only reference frame that is relevant.

[Kbertsche]

Apparently you want me to rely on credibility of the scientists on your side, but ironically, Humphreys is the very scientist who correctly predicted planetary magnetic fields while all of your guys got it wrong.

What in the world are you referring to here? (References please?). I've never heard of Humphreys being celebrated for this.

[logician bones]

I am not Rogue, and I am not responding to his claims or comments. I am responding to what you stated, which was that "major YECs" believe that the heavenly bodies are billions of years old while the earth is only thousands of years old.

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.

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.

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? (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.

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.

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).

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.

[hansgeorg]

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

This would be a futile gesture, because you up front reject science.

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.

It is a matter of the facts of the earth there is absolutely no evidence of a world or regional flood that remotely fits the Biblical flood.

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.

Mountains were never covered by flood waters whether you consider the Middle East or the world.

Depends on what height you mean. Mount Everest, no.

It still remains that there is no explanation forthcoming to explain the vast salt and gypsum deposits world, and . . . glaciers and Ice Ages, no viable explanation from either the YEC nor OEC perspective.

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".

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

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.

AHEM. The word for mountains in the text can include hills. Anyway...

I am even pretty sure that spiky montain peaks were absent from the pre-Flood world. I wonder if the highest mountain back then was Calvary or Mount of Olives, and think Ark was on the highest mountain, otherwise measuring the 15 cubits doesn't make sense.

Note that with many of the mountains, they formed in the Flood and obviously some could have formed after (of course some volcanos did, but I mean fault pressure ones).

I think Ararat formed during Flood and so did some other volcanic ones, but folding mountains generally were a huge thing (both senses of the phrase) after the Flood and explain why the mud dried so quickly.

Many of the land of these were definitely underwater, but at which stage of formation is complicated. The mountains/hills in question with the "covered" language doesn't include Everest, for example, which likely didn't exist at the time.

Good point. The peak of Mt Everest is really to narrow to build an Ark on - at least now.

[hansgeorg]

The view that the heavenly bodies were created earlier and only revealed on Day 4 is held by Hugh Ross and a number of other OECs, and the YECs strongly attack them for it.

Actually, Edgar Andrews gave this attackable explanation (and it is rightly attacked), while a YEC - maybe he is OEC now? I mainly know him from his From Nothing to Nature.

However, he gave it as only one possibility.

[hansgeorg]

Why would Noah be familiar with these distant mountains and regions? There is no evidence that he was a world traveler.

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?

[hansgeorg]

By the way, are you aware that these creationists don't like the term "literalist"? What do you mean by it? I don't advise it, as it implies they read poetry literally for example, which they all reject.

What exactly do you mean by poetry and why exactly should it not be read literally?

[hansgeorg]

As for me, for the record, I've heard an argument made that the grammar of the "and the stars" part might not be tied necessarily to the creation at that time. I don't know if this is right or testable, but it's on the table for me. I read the stars as being the backdrop against which the moon and sun allow telling months and years and those purposes are the focus in Gen 1.

It should not be on the table, since Mark 10:6.