Comments on: Sixty to Zero in One Second Flat…Then Back to Eighty! http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/ Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:06:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: I know. http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-702 I know. Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:38:30 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-702 <strong> Over morse code....</strong> Well, Hitler went into the wind and later, reemerged as the mildy successful British Pop star, Atom Ant .. Koanan are you referring to the current trade policies as set and mandated by the WTO?... Over morse code….

Well, Hitler went into the wind and later, reemerged as the mildy successful British Pop star, Atom Ant .. Koanan are you referring to the current trade policies as set and mandated by the WTO?…

]]> By: writinginthewild.com / Continental Ignorance http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-701 writinginthewild.com / Continental Ignorance Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:27 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-701 [...] Dr. Kent Hovind is the probably the best known Creationist to argue that the Earth is not as old as science says, and that the fossils evidence must therefore illustrate that dinosaurs and people co-existed. Just like the Flintstones! Hovind and his wife were recently convicted of various tax fraud charges and he now contributes to the Creation Science Evangelism Blog from his cell. Here is his post from November 20, a few weeks after his conviction. You can’t make this stuff up. What a contrast these two are to Dr. King’s focus on poverty and justice. He must be turning over in his grave. [...] [...] Dr. Kent Hovind is the probably the best known Creationist to argue that the Earth is not as old as science says, and that the fossils evidence must therefore illustrate that dinosaurs and people co-existed. Just like the Flintstones! Hovind and his wife were recently convicted of various tax fraud charges and he now contributes to the Creation Science Evangelism Blog from his cell. Here is his post from November 20, a few weeks after his conviction. You can’t make this stuff up. What a contrast these two are to Dr. King’s focus on poverty and justice. He must be turning over in his grave. [...]

]]> By: TeamLaw http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-699 TeamLaw Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:48:06 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-699 Regarding the last posts from 'mfox', we expect any attempt to understand the space-time relationship regarding the Creation using Newtonian Physics would be problematic at best. We also expect understanding the physics of the Creation is better explained using quantum physics math and that certainly supports your position that it is impossible to explain or disprove the Creation using a closed system premise. Team Law. Regarding the last posts from ‘mfox’, we expect any attempt to understand the space-time relationship regarding the Creation using Newtonian Physics would be problematic at best. We also expect understanding the physics of the Creation is better explained using quantum physics math and that certainly supports your position that it is impossible to explain or disprove the Creation using a closed system premise.
Team Law.

]]> By: TeamLaw http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-700 TeamLaw Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:37:51 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-700 Dear Kent, We were saddened to hear that you and your wife were attacked by the feds and accordingly prosecuted. A message was sent to us via our private message service on our Open Forum that informed us about your situation. You had referred so many people to us in the past, that we were a bit shocked that you never contacted us regarding your situation. We expect you may not have had the results you had if you had kept in touch with us and learned more about the true nature of such taxing relations. We expected you were aware of the information we help people learn but considering your present situation we wonder whether our expectation in that was more than you were aware of. Regardless of that, our prayers are with you and we hope you will fare well. We have not heard from you in a few years so we had no idea that you were experiencing difficulties with IRS. Feel free to contact us but please be aware that we do not process e-mail except through the private message system on our Open Forum ( http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/index.php ). Again our prayers are with you and congratulations on your successes in spreading the Word of our King. We are especially pleased to hear of such successes so similar to our father Joseph’s ordeal. Your blessings await you for your devout service of our King. Team Law. Dear Kent,
We were saddened to hear that you and your wife were attacked by the feds and accordingly prosecuted. A message was sent to us via our private message service on our Open Forum that informed us about your situation. You had referred so many people to us in the past, that we were a bit shocked that you never contacted us regarding your situation. We expect you may not have had the results you had if you had kept in touch with us and learned more about the true nature of such taxing relations. We expected you were aware of the information we help people learn but considering your present situation we wonder whether our expectation in that was more than you were aware of. Regardless of that, our prayers are with you and we hope you will fare well. We have not heard from you in a few years so we had no idea that you were experiencing difficulties with IRS. Feel free to contact us but please be aware that we do not process e-mail except through the private message system on our Open Forum ( http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/index.php ). Again our prayers are with you and congratulations on your successes in spreading the Word of our King. We are especially pleased to hear of such successes so similar to our father Joseph’s ordeal. Your blessings await you for your devout service of our King.
Team Law.

]]> By: mfox http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-698 mfox Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:05:05 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-698 Samphire, Unfortunately some of my maths did not come out as written in the last post. The bottom line is this, the average velocity for the first six days of the universe was in the neighborhood of 2.9999999999998 x 10^8 m/s. Interestingly enough I received a book titled “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. (M.I.T) as a Christmas present from a colleague. Schroeder does an able job explaining the model in chapter 2 of this work. -Mel Samphire,

Unfortunately some of my maths did not come out as written in the last post.

The bottom line is this, the average velocity for the first six days of the universe was in the neighborhood of 2.9999999999998 x 10^8 m/s.

Interestingly enough I received a book titled “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. (M.I.T) as a Christmas present from a colleague. Schroeder does an able job explaining the model in chapter 2 of this work.

-Mel

]]> By: mfox http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-697 mfox Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:02:10 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-697 Samphire, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… God saw all that he had made and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning on the sixth day.” I do not pretend to know anything of before the beginning beside the fact that God was there. We are faced with the fact that objects exist in space at a distance from earth too great to allow the light from them to reach us, under existing circumstances, in a period of 6,000 years. If one accepts the Biblical account as historically accurate, then there must be another explanation. In place of the silly Big Bang story I submit the Super Stretch story. About 6,000 years ago, God took the formless, empty darkness of the deep “waters” and stretched it out into the expanse we now know as our universe. The stretch was completed with an average velocity of approximately 2.9999999999 x 10^8 m/s. The cause of this action was not from within but from without. You see, right from the start our universe has been an open system. What do I mean by an open system? A system where objects and energy may leave or enter the system is an open system. It is important to note that forces from outside the system could also affect the system. Since these forces are not part of the physical system in question, then it is reasonable that they may not be detectable within the system. However, their effects would be observable. Consider two observers during the Super Stretch: Observer (1) who is stationary and outside the universe and Observer (2) moving as part of the stretching universe. According to Einstein in “The Electordynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), the elapsed time of the stretch, t(1) for Observer (1) and t(2) for Observer (2), will be different. The two are related in the following way: t(1) = t(2)/(1 – v^2/c^2)^(1/2) It can be shown, using only school boy algebra, that the velocity, ‘v’ of the moving Observer (2), is given as: v = (c^2(1-(t(2)/t(1))^2))^(1/2) If we accept the big bang estimate of t(1) = 14,000,000,000 years and the creation account of t(2) = 6/365 years, then by simple substitution we have: v = (c^2 – 1.24078653510^-7)^(1/2) And thus we have our stretch velocity estimate of: v  2.9999999999  10^8 m/s Note that the speed of light, c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s , has been found experimentally to be independent of the relative speeds of observers. Also, experiments with muons confirm the phenomenon of time dilation. Therefore, given the open system, a stretch velocity of very near the speed of light, and a supernatural (outside the system) force, which is the hand of God, then the formation of the entire universe could have taken as little as six days. This would have been six days as counted by someone who was present in the universe as the stretch took place i.e. Observer (2). Now before you go off and tell me that we have never observed any aspect of the Super Stretch and therefore it is not scientific, let me remind you that we have never observed a closed system, never observed an ideal gas, never observed a circle, and never observed macroevolution, yet all of these concepts are considered scientific. Now to your example, SN1987A, remember Observer (1])? Since earth is supposed to be 168,000 light years from Tarantula Nebula, then I suppose on (1)’s clock it took 168,000 years for the electromagnetic waves to reach earth. On the other arm, so to speak, of the neutrinos on the fringe of the energy wave perhaps the clock might tell us Tarantula to earth in no time at all. We would need another of Einstein’s formulas, relativistic addition of velocities, to tell us the travel time according to an observer on earth. My guess, it would be less than 6,000 years but more than zero. Intuitively we all side with Newton when he says “time is absolute.” However, the experimental data always points to relative time. You wish to count the age of the universe for absolute time – the stationary – Observer (1), even though we have never observed a fixed point in space. Is that scientific? Instead why not take the word of the One who was there (Job 9: 8)? He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The only objective scientific conclusion that can be made here is that the entire universe could have (physically possible)been created by a supernatural force in a way consistent with Biblical account. Any conclusion reached excluding the possibility of the Biblical six day account must be rejected in that it must be based on the closed system premise. It is true that the closed system premise has not been shown to be a false premise. However, it is most unreasonable to use the closed system premise to falsify Biblical account when in fact no closed systems have ever been observed. So, now I have given you a model to ponder. Instead of being sarcastic, “It was 6,000 years old at one point in time,” do you or do you not accept the possibility that the universe could be as young today – that’s right now – as 6,000 years old? -Mel Samphire,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… God saw all that he had made and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning on the sixth day.”

I do not pretend to know anything of before the beginning beside the fact that God was there. We are faced with the fact that objects exist in space at a distance from earth too great to allow the light from them to reach us, under existing circumstances, in a period of 6,000 years. If one accepts the Biblical account as historically accurate, then there must be another explanation.

In place of the silly Big Bang story I submit the Super Stretch story.

About 6,000 years ago, God took the formless, empty darkness of the deep “waters” and stretched it out into the expanse we now know as our universe. The stretch was completed with an average velocity of approximately 2.9999999999 x 10^8 m/s. The cause of this action was not from within but from without. You see, right from the start our universe has been an open system.

What do I mean by an open system? A system where objects and energy may leave or enter the system is an open system. It is important to note that forces from outside the system could also affect the system. Since these forces are not part of the physical system in question, then it is reasonable that they may not be detectable within the system. However, their effects would be observable.

Consider two observers during the Super Stretch: Observer (1) who is stationary and outside the universe and Observer (2) moving as part of the stretching universe. According to Einstein in “The Electordynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), the elapsed time of the stretch, t(1) for Observer (1) and t(2) for Observer (2), will be different. The two are related in the following way:

t(1) = t(2)/(1 – v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

It can be shown, using only school boy algebra, that the velocity, ‘v’ of the moving Observer (2), is given as:

v = (c^2(1-(t(2)/t(1))^2))^(1/2)

If we accept the big bang estimate of t(1) = 14,000,000,000 years and the creation account of t(2) = 6/365 years, then by simple substitution we have:

v = (c^2 – 1.24078653510^-7)^(1/2)

And thus we have our stretch velocity estimate of:

v  2.9999999999  10^8 m/s

Note that the speed of light, c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s , has been found experimentally to be independent of the relative speeds of observers. Also, experiments with muons confirm the phenomenon of time dilation.

Therefore, given the open system, a stretch velocity of very near the speed of light, and a supernatural (outside the system) force, which is the hand of God, then the formation of the entire universe could have taken as little as six days. This would have been six days as counted by someone who was present in the universe as the stretch took place i.e. Observer (2).

Now before you go off and tell me that we have never observed any aspect of the Super Stretch and therefore it is not scientific, let me remind you that we have never observed a closed system, never observed an ideal gas, never observed a circle, and never observed macroevolution, yet all of these concepts are considered scientific.

Now to your example, SN1987A, remember Observer (1])? Since earth is supposed to be 168,000 light years from Tarantula Nebula, then I suppose on (1)’s clock it took 168,000 years for the electromagnetic waves to reach earth. On the other arm, so to speak, of the neutrinos on the fringe of the energy wave perhaps the clock might tell us Tarantula to earth in no time at all. We would need another of Einstein’s formulas, relativistic addition of velocities, to tell us the travel time according to an observer on earth. My guess, it would be less than 6,000 years but more than zero.

Intuitively we all side with Newton when he says “time is absolute.” However, the experimental data always points to relative time. You wish to count the age of the universe for absolute time – the stationary – Observer (1), even though we have never observed a fixed point in space. Is that scientific? Instead why not take the word of the One who was there (Job 9: 8)?

He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

The only objective scientific conclusion that can be made here is that the entire universe could have (physically possible)been created by a supernatural force in a way consistent with Biblical account. Any conclusion reached excluding the possibility of the Biblical six day account must be rejected in that it must be based on the closed system premise. It is true that the closed system premise has not been shown to be a false premise. However, it is most unreasonable to use the closed system premise to falsify Biblical account when in fact no closed systems have ever been observed.

So, now I have given you a model to ponder. Instead of being sarcastic, “It was 6,000 years old at one point in time,” do you or do you not accept the possibility that the universe could be as young today – that’s right now – as 6,000 years old?

-Mel

]]> By: mfox http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-5/#comment-696 mfox Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:25:05 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-696 Jimmy, This is the Areopagus today. Due to the circumstances surrounding this ministry here is where they are gathering. Kent sounds encouraged by the bold defense of God’s word that is offered here. Do you speak for him? If so, I would be happy to oblige you. -Mel Jimmy,

This is the Areopagus today. Due to the circumstances surrounding this ministry here is where they are gathering. Kent sounds encouraged by the bold defense of God’s word that is offered here. Do you speak for him? If so, I would be happy to oblige you.

-Mel

]]> By: jimmy http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-4/#comment-695 jimmy Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:10:04 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-695 hey guys, lets leave this site to encouraging Dr. Hovind and his supporters. I really aprecciate his ministry, and pray for him and his family, and I think the purpose of this blog is to encourage the ministry down there. If any of you want to debate some of the crazy issues above, you're welcome to visit my blog at hovindtrials.blogspot.com and I'll take you on at any issue you want to adress. But let's leave this to its original pupose. hey guys, lets leave this site to encouraging Dr. Hovind and his supporters. I really aprecciate his ministry, and pray for him and his family, and I think the purpose of this blog is to encourage the ministry down there. If any of you want to debate some of the crazy issues above, you’re welcome to visit my blog at hovindtrials.blogspot.com and I’ll take you on at any issue you want to adress. But let’s leave this to its original pupose.

]]> By: Samphire http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-4/#comment-694 Samphire Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:07:24 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-694 mfox said this at 8:43am: "Samphire, You wrote “I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute." Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world." With respect, mel, you miss the point. This has nothing to do with the beginnings of the Universe but with the fact that through simple observation, angular measurement and the application of schoolboy geometry it can be shown that the supernova occurred 168,000 years ago thus ruling out YEC. "When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute." It was 6,000 years old a one point in time. "Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its “fit” could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality." I agree to a great extent but, in the case of cosmology, the maths has to reflect the observations. "So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my “crutch” but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life." Why do you accuse me of laughing; you mentioned "crutch", not me? To a large proportion of humanity, their particular god is there life. That is their particular reality - it is not mine. "You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely." You haven't given me one yet. 'But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in." Well, apparently you are wrong on that last one. Unless, of course, we don't actually exist. "I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option." I don't that I have been sarcastic in this conversation. I have asked you what you mean by an open system but you have not yet filled me in on it so I cannot comment on the idea. "I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week." A merry Christmas to you, mel, Samphire  P.S. Can you actually sensibly celebrate something which hasn't happened yet? mfox said this at 8:43am: “Samphire, You wrote “I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.” Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world.”

With respect, mel, you miss the point. This has nothing to do with the beginnings of the Universe but with the fact that through simple observation, angular measurement and the application of schoolboy geometry it can be shown that the supernova occurred 168,000 years ago thus ruling out YEC.

“When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute.”

It was 6,000 years old a one point in time.

“Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its “fit” could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality.”

I agree to a great extent but, in the case of cosmology, the maths has to reflect the observations.

“So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my “crutch” but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life.”

Why do you accuse me of laughing; you mentioned “crutch”, not me? To a large proportion of humanity, their particular god is there life. That is their particular reality – it is not mine.

“You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely.”

You haven’t given me one yet.

‘But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in.”

Well, apparently you are wrong on that last one. Unless, of course, we don’t actually exist.

“I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option.”

I don’t that I have been sarcastic in this conversation. I have asked you what you mean by an open system but you have not yet filled me in on it so I cannot comment on the idea.

“I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week.”

A merry Christmas to you, mel,

Samphire

 P.S. Can you actually sensibly celebrate something which hasn’t happened yet?

]]> By: mfox http://www.cseblogs.com/2006/11/20/sixty-to-zero-in-one-second-flatthen-back-to-eighty/comment-page-4/#comment-693 mfox Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:43:33 +0000 http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=52#comment-693 Samphire, You wrote: “I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.” Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world. You wrote: “So you would allow an ancient Universe?” What I allow is insignificant. From the perspective of science alone, one must allow for an ancient Universe because models can be constructed for it given present data. It is my opinion these models are not consistent with the real course of history. This opinion is based on premise. My premise is that God spoke literal truth when he said the universe was created in six days. Producing a mathematical model for an ancient universe is not enough to show my premise to be false. Therefore, I continue forth from the a priori six day model. If God Himself tells me otherwise I will scrap the six day model in favor of what ever He tells me. When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute. You wrote: [my insert] “Absolutely. Even he [Hawking] has been known to evolve his understanding.” Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its "fit" could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality. If the maths only give us a tangent of reality then all of science amounts to chasing shadows of reality. We are back in Plato’s cave. It was in graduate school I first came to the realization that math is a dim view of reality. I for one want more than a dim view. This desire coupled with the supernova of my own self righteousness during the same period and the revelation by the Holy Spirit of God of His power and love made known to all men in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, broke my hardened heart. I went to my knees before almighty God, confessed my sins and asked Him to forgive and rescue me. He did! The person described in the Bible, Jesus Christ, is the living God. He is real and He is reality. I have put all of my eggs, cracked as they were, in His basket. He literally saved me from death. So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my "crutch" but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life. You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely. But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in. I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option. I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week. -Mel Samphire,

You wrote:
“I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.”

Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world.

You wrote:
“So you would allow an ancient Universe?”

What I allow is insignificant. From the perspective of science alone, one must allow for an ancient Universe because models can be constructed for it given present data. It is my opinion these models are not consistent with the real course of history. This opinion is based on premise. My premise is that God spoke literal truth when he said the universe was created in six days. Producing a mathematical model for an ancient universe is not enough to show my premise to be false. Therefore, I continue forth from the a priori six day model. If God Himself tells me otherwise I will scrap the six day model in favor of what ever He tells me.

When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute.

You wrote: [my insert]
“Absolutely. Even he [Hawking] has been known to evolve his understanding.”

Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its “fit” could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality.

If the maths only give us a tangent of reality then all of science amounts to chasing shadows of reality. We are back in Plato’s cave. It was in graduate school I first came to the realization that math is a dim view of reality. I for one want more than a dim view. This desire coupled with the supernova of my own self righteousness during the same period and the revelation by the Holy Spirit of God of His power and love made known to all men in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, broke my hardened heart. I went to my knees before almighty God, confessed my sins and asked Him to forgive and rescue me. He did! The person described in the Bible, Jesus Christ, is the living God. He is real and He is reality. I have put all of my eggs, cracked as they were, in His basket. He literally saved me from death. So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my “crutch” but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life.

You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely. But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in.

I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option.

I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week.
-Mel

]]>