The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

Duh - of course the word firmament is a translation. My understanding of the meaning of firmament is “expanse”.

Using archaeology, history and science together - minimum 12,000 years and up. I really do not know the upper limit, but it seems the lower limit has to be 12,000 or so.

The argument that God would be indicted for being a trickster is so bogus. One could argue that He is tricking us by not allowing us to observe the supernatural world. Why can’t we see angels on a regular basis? He is tricking us? Bogus! Bogus! Bogus!

Firmament is a translation of the Hebrew “rakia” which means hardened bowl, as in beaten bronze. The firmament in ancient Hebrew and ancient semitic cosmology is a solid structure.

I won’t comment on your 12,000 years because there is nothing good or positive I can say about it.

I still think the YEC view of creation (albeit inadvertently) makes God out to be a trickster of sorts. Your response about angels is not relevant to the issue of the radical chronological disconnect in material creation implied by the YEC view. Unless, I come across a solid objection to my characterization of the YEC view, I will maintain it as a valid objection. Even better, I must write an essay and expand on trickster argument.

Meanwhile, how does your literalist interpretation of the OT explain the “rakia”,
or a flat earth,
or an earth that floats on a body of water,
or an earth that does not move,
or that rainwater is stored above the firmament,
or the sluices or apertures in the firmament through which rainwater descends to the earth??

 

[rossum]

I was aware of the phenomenon noted in the link I provided sometime ago like in
www.dinosaurc14ages.com but was unaware of a good explanation provided by an AIG scientist until I performed a search. Since StA continues to claim 4.5 billion years as a fact, I choose to rebut with the following explanation from answersingenesis.org/tj/v…celeration.asp [read full text for details]

Your link is broken. Were you referring to Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory by John Woodmorappe?

A
Now, let us visualize the following situation at the beginning of Creation Week. As God creates the atoms which will subsequently be assembled into all of the matter that will constitute all of the objects in the physical universe, He first creates them all in a completely ionised state (i.e. nuclei alone).

Evidence please, or at least a Bible quote.

However, if there were a simultaneous weakening of the presently-existing nuclear force, as suggested by Humphreys,8 the Re-Os ‘clock’ would be accelerated another few orders of magnitude.

Again, either evidence or a Bible quote please. There is a major problem with Humphreys scenario – heat. Nuclear decay produces heat. If you try to compress 13 billion years worth of nuclear decay into 6,000 years you also have to deal with 13 billion years worth of heat in 6,000 years. Since I have not noticed that all the seas are boiled away and all rock has been melted to lava then Humphreys’ scenario obviously has a big problem. Where did the heat go?

At very high temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to 176Hf bypasses the conventional slow route, and goes into an isomeric state which has a half-life of only 3.68 hours.

Notice how carefully the author at this point fails to specify the exact “very high temperatures” required. Boys and girls, could it be that we are talking about temperatures high enough to boil the seas and melt rocks again? Shall we read on? Yes, lets do that.

Extreme temperatures suffice, and the greater they are, the shorter the effective half life of 176Lu decay to 176Hf. In terms of specifics, at temperatures below about 200 million K, t½ remains unperturbed at about 41 Ga. But, over the interval of 200 to 300 MK, the effective t½ drops precipitously (by nearly 10 orders of magnitude), then begins to level off asymptotically at still higher temperatures. Thus, at 600 MK, the effective t½ of 176Lu is only about 8 days!11 This is short enough that if, as discussed earlier, all of the atoms in the universe had been created in a very hot state—which just means very high kinetic energies—(and maintained that way for several hours on the First Day), all the excess 176Hf in existence would have been generated within that short period.

So, how hot are we talking here? 200 MK is thirteen times the temperature at the centre of the Sun. That is not just hot enough to melt rock, it is hot enough to vapourise rock. 600 MK is 39 times the temperature at the centre of the Sun. Bye-bye any hope of a solid planet Earth – the whole planet is vapourised at those temperatures. This model starts at very high temperatures 6,000 years ago so it would predict a higher temperature for the CMBR than we observe – another hole in YEC theory that is left unexplained. As I have said before, it is heat that kills YEC timescales.

For a more in-depth demolition of the Woodmorappe article see Woodmorappe’s Billion-fold Distortion …

COMMENT: I would add that now perhaps we can see why the most reliable of dating methods give concordant C-14 ages in the Geologic Column by direct C-14 dating of the fossils such as for dinosaur bone collagen, calcium carbonate fraction of dinosaur bone bioapatite and total organics. The concordant long ages of 65 M years reported by Dalrymple are too old by many orders of magnetude. Couple C-14 dating with the ongoing paleohydraulic lab and field sedimentology studies and you have good scientific reasons to believe Christ and the church fathers and iln particular the fourth Lataran Council (creation “at once” (simul).

You have already been told that C-14 dating is useless on old samples, all you are measuring is the sensitivity of the equipment rather than the age of the sample. Your sedimentology studies are fine in certain circumstances but YEC authors apply them far to widely.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Firmament is a translation of the Hebrew “rakia” which means hardened bowl, as in beaten bronze. The firmament in ancient Hebrew and ancient semitic cosmology is a solid structure.

I won’t comment on your 12,000 years because there is nothing good or positive I can say about it.

I still think the YEC view of creation (albeit inadvertently) makes God out to be a trickster of sorts. Your response about angels is not relevant to the issue of the radical chronological disconnect in material creation implied by the YEC view. Unless, I come across a solid objection to my characterization of the YEC view, I will maintain it as a valid objection. Even better, I must write an essay and expand on trickster argument.

Meanwhile, how does your literalist interpretation of the OT explain the “rakia”,
or a flat earth,
or an earth that floats on a body of water,
or an earth that does not move,
or that rainwater is stored above the firmament,
or the sluices or apertures in the firmament through which rainwater descends to the earth??

Well given this:

**Water in Space More Abundant than Expected **

and
Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

…Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html#
outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
“If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn’t be accelerating,” said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. “It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.”
Scientists first detected the acceleration by noting that distant supernovae seemed to be moving away from us faster than they should be.
One type of supernova (called Type Ia) is a useful distance indicator, because the explosions always have the same intrinsic brightness.

Since light gets dimmer the farther it travels, that means that when the supernovae appear faint to us, they are far away, and when they appear bright, they are closer in.
But if we happened to be in a portion of the universe with less matter in it than normal, then the space-time around us would be different than it is outside, because matter warps space-time.

                                   Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would  appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect  once it got inside our void.
                                   **One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a  principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely,  that our place in the universe isn't special.**

Will anyone say IDvolution?

 

[itinerant1]

Well given this:

**Water in Space More Abundant than Expected **

and
Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

Get real. Who would seriously assert that the earth’s rainwater comes from outer space?

Have you never studied meteorology; the rain cycle involving evaporation, condensation, and so on?

…Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430943,00.html#
outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
“If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn’t be accelerating,” said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. “It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.”
Scientists first detected the acceleration by noting that distant supernovae seemed to be moving away from us faster than they should be.
One type of supernova (called Type Ia) is a useful distance indicator, because the explosions always have the same intrinsic brightness.

Since light gets dimmer the farther it travels, that means that when the supernovae appear faint to us, they are far away, and when they appear bright, they are closer in.
But if we happened to be in a portion of the universe with less matter in it than normal, then the space-time around us would be different than it is outside, because matter warps space-time.

Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer, because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside our void.
One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special.

Will anyone say IDvolution?

None of this, without doubt, has anything at all to do with the ancient Hebrew conception of the world as depicted in the Old Testament.

Hence, your response is indisputable evidence that your biblical literalism remains fatally flawed.

 

[ricmat]

Get real. Who would seriously assert that the earth’s rainwater comes from outer space?

Cosmologists the world over say that Earth’s water originally came from comets.

 

[itinerant1]

Cosmologists the world over say that Earth’s water originally came from comets.

The irrelevancy of ancient comets (billions of years old) to primitive Hebrew cosmology is almost beyond description.

Rain, hail, and snow, in Hebrew belief, is let down through sluices in the firmament every time it rains, hails, or snows.

 

[StAnastasia]

Cosmologists the world over say that Earth’s water originally came from comets.

Some of it, yes. But a large part came from the out-gassing of water vapour from volcanoes.

 

[itinerant1]

Cosmologists the world over say that Earth’s water originally came from comets.

Did comets crash through the firmament and damage it? What about meteorites? Do they bounce off the firmament?

 

[StAnastasia]

Did comets crash through the firmament and damage it? What about meteorites? Do they bounce off the firmament?

Tycho Brahe listened very carefully for the breaking of the crystal spheres when the comets of 1572 and 1577 came whizzing through the spheres of mars and Venus. He heard no tinkling, so he concluded that Ptolemy’s firmamental spheres did not exist.

 

[buffalo]

Get real. Who would seriously assert that the earth’s rainwater comes from outer space?

Have you never studied meteorology; the rain cycle involving evaporation, condensation, and so on?

None of this, without doubt, has anything at all to do with the ancient Hebrew conception of the world as depicted in the Old Testament.

Hence, your response is indisputable evidence that your biblical literalism remains fatally flawed.

Hello - where did I say it rains from space. But we do know know we are constantly bombarded by ice and this finds it way into the water cycle.

 

[buffalo]

Did comets crash through the firmament and damage it? What about meteorites? Do they bounce off the firmament?

Well now you to raise an interesting question indeed?

The current idea is that an aether could exist and is very dense, but things can still pass through it.

Secrets of the Aether

…As such, the Aether was considered to be incredibly solid (it fills all space), but also incredibly fluid. These are the ideal conditions to support waves.
The theory of Aether presented in this book will show a quantum Aether that is simultaneously solid-fluid-gaseous, which looks like tubes, called “spin positions.” These spin positions are cardioidal structures curved by spherical distributed frequency. The Aether unit acts like a vessel for containing onta, which are the basis of all matter.
Physical matter views like dust particles suspended in an aqueous solution. The Aether unit provides
http://www.secrets-of-the-aether.com/joomla/images/stories/Aether fabric FINAL.pngAether Fabric Illustration

the space-resonance environment for the onta. Thus when onta appear to move, it is actually Aether moving and carrying the onta with it. Matter never really travels at all. Matter always occupies the same space and time. In actuality, space-time moves relative only to space-time. As for whether electromagnetism transmits in transverse or longitudinal form, Tesla was correct in that Aether units could oscillate as longitudinal waves. However, this does not preclude Aether from also carrying the electromagnetic effect of the photon as it passes through the Aether units. The Aether could then have a mechanical effect (longitudinal wave) as well as an electromagnetic effect (Hertzian wave).
In the case of the longitudinal wave, the Aether unit itself moves back and forth like a gas molecule. In the case of Hertzian (transverse) waves, photons physically pass through the Aether units. Since longitudinal waves in the Aether are actual Aether displacements, longitudinal waves also have the potential to create unusual effects such as those manifested by John Hutchison in cold-melting aluminum, and by John Keely in molecular dissociation of water.

 

[itinerant1]

Hello - where did I say it rains from space. But we do know know we are constantly bombarded by ice and this finds it way into the water cycle.

Don’t know why you mentioned water in space in the first place. None of that has anything to do with the Hebrew conception of the world.

 

[itinerant1]

Well now you to raise an interesting question indeed?

The current idea is that an aether could exist and is very dense, but things can still pass through it.

Secrets of the Aether

…As such, the Aether was considered to be incredibly solid (it fills all space), but also incredibly fluid. These are the ideal conditions to support waves.
The theory of Aether presented in this book will show a quantum Aether that is simultaneously solid-fluid-gaseous, which looks like tubes, called “spin positions.” These spin positions are cardioidal structures curved by spherical distributed frequency. The Aether unit acts like a vessel for containing onta, which are the basis of all matter.
Physical matter views like dust particles suspended in an aqueous solution. The Aether unit provides
http://www.secrets-of-the-aether.com/joomla/images/stories/Aether fabric FINAL.pngAether Fabric Illustration

the space-resonance environment for the onta. Thus when onta appear to move, it is actually Aether moving and carrying the onta with it. Matter never really travels at all. Matter always occupies the same space and time. In actuality, space-time moves relative only to space-time. As for whether electromagnetism transmits in transverse or longitudinal form, Tesla was correct in that Aether units could oscillate as longitudinal waves. However, this does not preclude Aether from also carrying the electromagnetic effect of the photon as it passes through the Aether units. The Aether could then have a mechanical effect (longitudinal wave) as well as an electromagnetic effect (Hertzian wave).
In the case of the longitudinal wave, the Aether unit itself moves back and forth like a gas molecule. In the case of Hertzian (transverse) waves, photons physically pass through the Aether units. Since longitudinal waves in the Aether are actual Aether displacements, longitudinal waves also have the potential to create unusual effects such as those manifested by John Hutchison in cold-melting aluminum, and by John Keely in molecular dissociation of water.

And what does all of this have to do with the ancient pre-scientific cosmology found in the O.T.? Nothing whatsoever.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t know why you mentioned water in space in the first place. None of that has anything to do with the Hebrew conception of the world.

Please share with us the Hebrew conception of the world. I only care about the line of Seth and what his descendants believed. Don’t give me any obscure references, because I do not care what any other people of the time thought. Speculation ran rampant.

 

[itinerant1]

Please share with us the Hebrew conception of the world. I only care about the line of Seth and what his descendants believed. Don’t give me any obscure references, because I do not care what any other people of the time thought. Speculation ran rampant.

I aleady posted, several times, a graphic representation of the Hebrew world with numerous biblical texts as supporting references for the illustration. Perhaps you can locate one of the posts in question.

 

[buffalo]

I aleady posted, several times, a graphic representation of the Hebrew world with numerous biblical texts as supporting references for the illustration. Perhaps you can locate one of the posts in question.

I saw it - that is one version only.

 

[itinerant1]

I saw it - that is one version only.

Uh…does that mean there is a “special” version for YECs only in which the earth is not a flat disc floating on a body of water with a firmament (rakia) overhead?

 

[gentle_atheist]

Uh…does that mean there is a “special” version for YECs only in which the earth is not a flat disc floating on a body of water with a firmament (rakia) overhead?

I don’t get it. You agree that the Bible reflects the erroneous cosmology held by the Hebrews in ancient times, correct? So how can you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired? Do you agree with the Church’s position that the Bible – all of it – is the inerrant word of God?

 

[Philipp]

(1) Your link is broken. Were you referring to Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory by John Woodmorappe?

(2) Evidence please, or at least a Bible quote.

(3) Again, either evidence or a Bible quote please. There is a major problem with Humphreys scenario – heat. Nuclear decay produces heat. If you try to compress 13 billion years worth of nuclear decay into 6,000 years you also have to deal with 13 billion years worth of heat in 6,000 years. Since I have not noticed that all the seas are boiled away and all rock has been melted to lava then Humphreys’ scenario obviously has a big problem. Where did the heat go?

(4) Notice how carefully the author at this point fails to specify the exact “very high temperatures” required. Boys and girls, could it be that we are talking about temperatures high enough to boil the seas and melt rocks again? Shall we read on? Yes, lets do that.

(5) So, how hot are we talking here? 200 MK is thirteen times the temperature at the centre of the Sun. That is not just hot enough to melt rock, it is hot enough to vapourise rock. 600 MK is 39 times the temperature at the centre of the Sun. Bye-bye any hope of a solid planet Earth – the whole planet is vapourised at those temperatures. This model starts at very high temperatures 6,000 years ago so it would predict a higher temperature for the CMBR than we observe – another hole in YEC theory that is left unexplained. As I have said before, it is heat that kills YEC timescales.

(6) For a more in-depth demolition of the Woodmorappe article see Woodmorappe’s Billion-fold Distortion …

(7) You have already been told that C-14 dating is useless on old samples, all you are measuring is the sensitivity of the equipment rather than the age of the sample. Your sedimentology studies are fine in certain circumstances but YEC authors apply them far to widely.

rossum

(1) Yes, I spent considerable time trying to find it again. Here it is: answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

(2) Since I don’t know any humans who were present at the time I, like you, or the Big Bang theorists can only hypothesize or go to an historical document as you suggested: So as the historical document says regarding light and stars summarized----God said: Be light made (on the first day] and the sun, moon and stars [on the fourth day].

I offer these further comments: Many of the same Catholics who have no trouble believing that the “new Adam,” Jesus Christ, became man in the womb of a Virgin refuse to believe that God created the “first Adam” from the “virgin earth” in the first-created world. Many of the same Catholics who are not scandalized by a Y chromosome in the Blood on the Shroud, and who believe that God could create Our Lord’s human seed by His divine power, refuse to believe that the body of the first Adam was created from the “virgin earth” by God’s divine power. What is worse, many of the same Catholics who would consider it blasphemous to seek a “natural explanation” for the Incarnation of Jesus, think nothing of demanding a natural explanation for the origins of the bodies of Adam and Eve.

What makes this logical inconsistency even more disturbing is the fact that the Church Fathers and Doctors always held that the order of nature did not begin to operate autonomously until the creation was completed with the creation of Adam and Eve. As St. Augustine wrote in his treatise on the literal interpretation of Genesis, “Woman’s nature was created; and although it was created from that of man which already existed, it was not created by some movement of natures already existing” (9,15,26). And as St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, “the completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh” (ST Q 22, Article 1 – Objection 2). Especially in the light of this teaching, why should so many Catholics believe unquestioningly in the special creation of the “New Adam” while denying the special creation of the first?

The answer to this question can be found in the Second Epistle of St. Peter, Chapter Three. Writing in the first century, St. Peter foretold the rise of a uniformitarian way of thinking within the Church. He warned that:

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:3-7).

 

[Philipp]

CONTINUED:

It is precisely the acceptance of the idea that “all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” that has led so many Catholics to believe that it is “scientific” to deny that there ever was a time when God spoke all of the different kinds of creatures into existence, as all of the Fathers and Doctors believed and taught. But this “uniformitarian” assumption—for that is what it is—originated outside of the sheepfold of Christ and was popularized by men like Lyell, Darwin, and Huxley who openly despised the Catholic religion. Thus, it is bitterly ironic that so many Catholics today devoutly celebrate the creation of the Sacred Humanity of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin while denying the creation of all things in the beginning through the Eternal Word.

(3 (4) (5) and (6) have something to do with excessive amount of heat. I’m not sure that requires a scientific or naturalistic response since we are talking about zillions of miracles, either performed by an intelligent designer or the zillions of miracles required to make evolution operate from a chaotic Big Bang to a well organized universe with zillions of exotic life forms on earth and the well organized planets, stars, and galaxies elsewhere.

Perhaps you should review the photos of the 911 incident in 2001 to see what happens when you have a Big Bang. Sorry but I just can’t conceive of zillions of beautiful life forms coming out of an explosion.

(7) Oh, so the mighty Wizard of OZ, Rossum, has spoken; all genuflect to his Lordship
BUT >>>
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner
scraping a dinosaur bone.
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, “Just what I feared!
Evolution’s long ages are gone!”

C-14 dating of saber tooth tigers: 12,000-28,000 C-14 age range
C-14 dating of a giant bison: 31,000 C-14 years
360 Mammoths in Eurasia: 3,500 to 45,000 C-14 years
Dinosaur bones from TX to AK: 23,000 to 33,000 C-14 years
Darn, there are significant amounts of C-14 in all rocks including diamonds - we just can’t find any carbon containing material on the earth that can give us 0 PMC’s C-14 so we can calilbrate our instruments.

IDevolution, C-14 dating of the fossils and paleohydraulics are in the wave of the future.

Moses sizzles while Darwin fizzles