alphaparticle

Is there Precedence, that is to say....Is there any other place in Scripture where there is No "Light" from the Sun..... but there is "LIGHT"?? Sure, light. But my concern is with the very specific terminology, 'morning' and 'evening' which are concepts that are defined by the earth-sun system. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. These are terms introduced well before the description of creating the sun. I do not know that I would be justified in just assuming these are the standard 24 hr days we are used to-- because the 24 hr days are all about the rate of rotation with respect to the sun. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exodus 20:11 puts that issue to bed quite demonstrably. Also...do you question how many days Jonah was in the Great Fish? or How many days the Israelite's marched around Jericho? Now this is JUST MY OPINION .......... I believe those two (Erev and Boker) refer to decreasing Entropy. Why? That's exactly what God was doing for the first 6 "Days" AND They are MISSING IN ACTION on the 7th DAY along with any reductions in Entropy....(HE Rested) Also, if GOD was the Light before the SUN....couldn't HE control that "LIGHT"?? I don't think those verses put this to bed at all. Those references, Jonah for example, were *after* the sun-earth system was already established. We are talking about before the talk about the creation of the sun at all, and use of those terms. I don't think we can assume we can apply them in the same way to a situation which is radically different-- and it is.

Is there Precedence, that is to say....Is there any other place in Scripture where there is No "Light" from the Sun..... but there is "LIGHT"?? Sure, light. But my concern is with the very specific terminology, 'morning' and 'evening' which are concepts that are defined by the earth-sun system. Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. These are terms introduced well before the description of creating the sun. I do not know that I would be justified in just assuming these are the standard 24 hr days we are used to-- because the 24 hr days are all about the rate of rotation with respect to the sun.

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

Based on what they saw, the answer to both questions is, "No." A star in the heavens, a lunar body would not have done what the Bible says was observed. The star led them directionally across the ancient near eastern desert to a specific city and to a specific location just on the outskirts of that city, specifically to Bethlehem Ephratah, a field just outiside Bethlehem. It rested directly over where Jesus was lain. So what you have is a supernatural event. They describe the object as a star. That is how it appeared to them. That is what they called it. Remember, I said that the biblical writers spoke phenomonological language, telling us what they observed. What should be taken literally is that the Magi followed an object they described as a star and it led to the exact, pinpiont location of Jesus birth, based on what is recorded in Scripture. We are not using a different set of rules for this than we are for Genesis. In fact, I am using the exact same rules given that creation was also a supernatural event (which is why six days is not a problem). By taking it literally, I am accounting the supernatural character of the events under discussion. But calling the first four "days" of Genesis 1 as time periods we defined as set by our location on the planet towards the sun before there was a sun to set time by is not phenomonological? This is a good point. I don't understand what evenings are without an earth/sun system. I am not sure it is reasonable or perhaps even possible to take that at the most simple face value.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are. 1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. Well let's test that claim. Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps? The truth of the situation is what it is, regardless of what you or I think about it. Your question doesn't relate to my claim at all. It absolutely relates to your claim, particularly since you claim to be an evolutionist. It's really simple. Do you agree that man was created from the dirt as the Bible says he was, or did man evolve from an ape like ancestor?? I mean, if you are not picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept or reject, the answer should be an easy one. No, it's a strange response to my assertion that, essentially, these truth claims are objective and at least one of us is wrong. How do you go from "these are not subjective truth claims" to "do you accept Genesis as a historical factual account of creation or not?". There is no clear lineage of thought here. I am asking you if you agree with the Bible's claim that man was created from the dirt, apart from the created order. It is a very simple question. Is the Bible right, or did man actually evolve from an ape-like ancestor. You claim to be an evolutionist that believes the Bible AND accepts the Bible as well. So I am asking you, since the Bible doesn't claim man evolved, but was made separate from the other animals, is the Bible right or is evolution right? Its a very simiple question. What is your answer? You and I both know I don't have a good, clear answer to this. If I did I wouldn't be wasting so much time in this subforum lobbing different sorts of questions to the group. I will say this though, I don't see it as 'man' vs God, I see it as discovering what is actually true about the world straight up. Hence my insistence that there is an objective answer here, and I can say that at least one of us is wrong.

By the way, there's been precious little discussion about the actual OP. I want to know if, for example, there are forms of OEC that allow for some evolution along with God's creating of animals over long periods of time. Or, does this position necessarily entail a quick creation of all life at once? From what I have seen of OEC positions there seems to be a lot of diversity in different areas. I want to know what distinguishes, in particular, an ID type from a theistic evolutionist (if there is a distinguishing factor?).

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are. 1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. Well let's test that claim. Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps? The truth of the situation is what it is, regardless of what you or I think about it. Your question doesn't relate to my claim at all. It absolutely relates to your claim, particularly since you claim to be an evolutionist. It's really simple. Do you agree that man was created from the dirt as the Bible says he was, or did man evolve from an ape like ancestor?? I mean, if you are not picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept or reject, the answer should be an easy one. No, it's a strange response to my assertion that, essentially, these truth claims are objective and at least one of us is wrong. How do you go from "these are not subjective truth claims" to "do you accept Genesis as a historical factual account of creation or not?". There is no clear lineage of thought here.

Yes and that is the common mischaraterization that is being put forth by you and others on here. I, for my part, am not saying that we need to bring up these kinds of issues in evagelism, as if we are going to present the Gospel and then say, "oh and by the way," you have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old." That is an unfair charicature of our position. The entire premise that YEC keeps people from accepting Christ is a smokescreen and a false claim. It doesn't and it never has. But in the absence of an intelligent argument that is what it put forth to us in order to intimidate us from saying anything about it. The argument that some would make is that Ken Ham in the debate with Bill Nye basically thwarted evangelism because He brought up the Bible and YEC model. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do you think I am trying to caricaturize *your* position? I am not at all. Further, where is the evidence that the reason I am bringing up these concerns is for the purpose of silencing the YEC crowd? That is also untrue. As you said, it is easy on this forum, which is devoted to these sorts of topics, to misunderstand the focus of others. While I think that has happened for me understanding what you and others want to do with the YEC debate, I suspect the same thing is now true of your misunderstanding of my assertions. In sum, my concern was with packaging YEC along with the saving gospel message. As far as I am concerned you alleviated my concern with that.

That's right, it isn't. I didn't say it was. The point is that it not a hindrance to the Gospel. Perhaps YEC itself isn't, but having it explicitly linked at the outset may be. But that means never talking about anything that might rustle the feathers of some people. What you're suggesting could be applied to just about anything isn't the "central" issue. It means muting the church on any issue that might serve as a "distraction." It would mean that the Church would have to tailor everything to suit what the hearer is willing to listen to, which pretty much excludes all of the Bible except from some benign passages out of Psalms. Alright I don't mean this. For instance, if you are presenting the gospel to someone who is very liberal minded, and at the outset insisted that they see and label homosexuality as sinful, that could get in the way of the actual gospel message and be an unnecessary roadblock. It seems unnecessary and unwise, surely that could be addressed later. However, that being said, there's no reason to hide it, or not answer truthfully if they ask about it. I just wouldn't see the wisdom in insisting that someone 'get it' before considering the central issues of the gospel message. I'd say likewise here. Although I am not YEC I certainly understand others being straightforward about their being YEC and sharing why if others inquire or if it comes up naturally in the course of discussing these things. I question the wisdom of at the outset presenting it hand in hand with the central gospel message to unbelievers though. Okay, that is a fair point about a seeming 'fixation'. This is a subforum that ends up being somewhat dedicated to that issue so it no doubts skews my perception of how people would present things. On the other hand, I am not trying to scare away anyone. What I am sharing is, if you excuse the cliche, straight from the heart. It's a real concern I have born from my own struggles as well as what I know of others, not an artificial attempt to shut down conversation. I don't think any one person is to blame for someone not accepting the gospel, except the person who faces the choice to accept or reject it. That is not my point at all. If the question is effective communication though, I think the message is going to be unnecessary muffled the more stuff that is added, at the outset, in explaining this to an unbeliever. If you burden them at the outset with thinking that homosexuality is a sin, that evolution is completely false and moreover, the universe is only 6k years old, and so on-- along with the stuff that makes the difference to them being saved or not, the conversation could very well end up on side roads that aren't, at that point, necessary. I want to reiterate, if people are straight up asking about this, or it comes up naturally otherwise, that is one thing. I just don't think this should be the packaging. The core gospel is, as you've pointed out, already offense enough.

The logic there assumes that it is the message that is stumbling block. The message isn't what causes people to stumble. Jesus Himself is called the rock of offense. Jesus said things that caused his own disciples to turn from Him and follow Him no longer. Jesus used "the cross" as a filter to find who was really interested in following and who was not. Jesus didn't make Himself look attractional. He was truthful from the outset as to the cost of following Him. He required that people be prepared to give up everything they held dear and that included respect. When Jesus called on people to take up their cross, it meant the loss of all things. It meant being a societal outcast, because that was the cross represented shame. YEC may turn nonbelievers away from the Gospel. But that is not the fault of the YEC model. It is the fault of hardened hearts. People don't reject God on an intellectual level. They reject Him on a spirtual level. The notion that we have to tailor our faith to accomodate what unbelievers will or will not like, when we have to be palatable to the world, it defeats the entire biblical concept of being a peculiar (unique) people. Who said they should be??? It is analgous in terms of the principle in play. The things people think impede the Gospel are not the things that impede the Gospel. Unbelievers can come up with any number of excuses for rejecting God. They point to hypocrites in the church, they point to money-grubbing TV evangelists, they point to somebody they knew who was a Christian but committed some big sin, they point to the music, they point to the fact that we have so many denominations, they point to the fact that they don't like the idea that Jesus is the only way to God. Unbelievers point to anything and YEC and even OEC are both additional excuses they will use. Most who reject YEC reject creationism en toto, not just one version of it. I used to be an OEC'er myself and I took as much heat for that from Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists as I take for YEC now. It was no different. OEC is just as ridiculed and just as denigrated among evolutionists as YEC. But YEC is *not* the gospel that actually saves. Yes, Jesus is an offense. But why make the barrier even higher than it needs to be?? Why provide a convenient route of distraction from the core of the issue, our personal sin, the punishment of sin, and our need of help? And it IS convenient for a lot of people who can simplistically collapse Christianity into YEC, talk about how stupid it is without having to deal with the central issue, and move on. I am not saying that talking about various creationisms might not help relate the gospel message to some, but to many, this just isn't going to be the case. Fixating on talking about radiometric dating (random example) rather than our sinful state could easily distract from God's simply existing, His sovereignty, and demand for justice. Maybe it is a part of it for some, but for others it's just a way they will divert attention off of it, and their own sinful nature. That I find extremely unfortunate. There are a lot of *unnecessary* barriers being erected to the gospel, when, as you point out, the central gospel claims are offense enough.

Not following here. How would you start evangelizing the The Doctrine of Salvation without starting with Genesis 1:1? Genesis is "The central message of the Gospel". If you don't start there, I predict you will get there awful quick....you have No Foundation!! The Gospel and the OT are ONE BOOK....Jesus Christ starts with "In The Beginning" and Ends with the Last WORD in Revelation and.... is in Every single WORD in-between. (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Who's The WORD?......Jesus Christ. I heard someone say that the New Testament is in the Old Testament Concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament Revealed. I'm not a Missionary but IMHO, you better get here awful quick too.....(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." The World says......the Earth and Universe is Billions of Years Old The World says......we evolved from Monkeys The World says......success success success....Ambition, Pride, the Quest for #1 (are Honored and Respected Character Traits) The World says......Scientists are our Priests The World says......Embrace all Religions The World says......"Do what thou Whilt" The World says......It's OK to be Gay, Abortions, Reductions in Population to Save the Trees The World says......(just today) BIBLE IN ERROR., Camel Bones and Radiometric Dating!! The World says..............................................................................................................................There is No GOD!! The Largest Escrow Closing in the History of the Universe is @ the Door. What say you? No, is what I say. I'm not sure what the argument here is. Think of all of the people who come to Christ without considering the intricate details of the manner of God's creation (including myself, my wife, and many many other people I have spoken to, some of whom are now YEC, some OEC etc). It's fairly clear that we can be fuzzy on some details but still know Jesus as Savior. That is why this is my signature: 1 Cr 15:3,4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures Are you saying I should steer clear of the Missionary Field? I don't know man lol. Whatever the Spirit says I suppose. Maybe this is an opening for some people. I can really only speak to my experience and the experiences of those I've heard from.

Depends on the person. It won't for every person. Maybe this helps one person while being a stumbling block to another. I have concerns about the way the message of the gospel ends up being focused though. I'm fairly certain had you forced this dilemma down my throat at the outset my faith would have been shipwrecked before it was ever getting anywhere. That is true for others I have spoken to also. God may have changed that, sure, but if a person can believe he is a sinner in need of help from his Creator, and that help is in the form of Jesus, I cannot imagine why the specifics of the method of creation would be pushed on that person at the beginning. I don't think this is analogous to people liking or disliking old timey music. There may be a point though to saying, look, there is only one way to be a Christian here with style of worship, and if you don't like it, go away. That I could absolutely see becoming an unnecessary stumbling block to people.

Not following here. How would you start evangelizing the The Doctrine of Salvation without starting with Genesis 1:1? Genesis is "The central message of the Gospel". If you don't start there, I predict you will get there awful quick....you have No Foundation!! The Gospel and the OT are ONE BOOK....Jesus Christ starts with "In The Beginning" and Ends with the Last WORD in Revelation and.... is in Every single WORD in-between. (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Who's The WORD?......Jesus Christ. I heard someone say that the New Testament is in the Old Testament Concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament Revealed. I'm not a Missionary but IMHO, you better get here awful quick too.....(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." The World says......the Earth and Universe is Billions of Years Old The World says......we evolved from Monkeys The World says......success success success....Ambition, Pride, the Quest for #1 (are Honored and Respected Character Traits) The World says......Scientists are our Priests The World says......Embrace all Religions The World says......"Do what thou Whilt" The World says......It's OK to be Gay, Abortions, Reductions in Population to Save the Trees The World says......(just today) BIBLE IN ERROR., Camel Bones and Radiometric Dating!! The World says..............................................................................................................................There is No GOD!! The Largest Escrow Closing in the History of the Universe is @ the Door. What say you? No, is what I say. I'm not sure what the argument here is. Think of all of the people who come to Christ without considering the intricate details of the manner of God's creation (including myself, my wife, and many many other people I have spoken to, some of whom are now YEC, some OEC etc). It's fairly clear that we can be fuzzy on some details but still know Jesus as Savior. That is why this is my signature: 1 Cr 15:3,4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

The OP shows that this is not necessarily the case. Okay but it sounded like the 'creationism evangelism' was a secondary effort. I suppose I understand people wanting to talk about this and spread this among believers insofar as they think it is true and the best way to understand Genesis, but I'd be concerned if this was balled up as part of a general approach to presenting the bare gospel to unbelievers. When I hear the term evangelism I naively think about spreading the saving message of the gospel.

I took seminary classes. They did not leave me drier than the Sahara. What they did do was to give me ammunition against false doctrines and heresies. Most of the seminary classes are geared towards teachers and pastors who work with people who say they are Christians. Since the first century, all kinds people have tried to bring in false doctrines and heresies, and so it is important for pastors and teachers to be armed to deal with these. One of the greatest weaknesses of most Christians, and evangelists, is the assumption of some knowledge about God and Jesus. When speaking to people who have no knowledge of Jesus or no knowledge of God, the starting place is quite different. If a person knows nothing about Jesus, telling them that Jesus died for sin doesn't mean much. What offered proof is there that Jesus comes from God? If a person was raised in an environment where they know nothing about the God of the bible? How to prove that the bible is truth and Who the God of the bible is? This is not typically what Christians learn as evangelism usually starts from an assumption of more knowledge concerning God, the bible, and Jesus. More people live today who know nothing about any of this so the starting point of evangelism goes back to a more basic knowledge. The best example I know of in scripture was Paul, using the un-named god, to point out the God of the bible, and from there Jesus. Seminary provides valuable knowledge, but in missions, a knowledge of the people and culture is needed and seminary does not have classes on the various people groups, what they know, or where to start to help them understand. Generally speaking, there is something in the bible which will assist each and every culture, to an understanding of God, Jesus, salvation etc. If the idea of God the creator is the starting point, then the bible provides that information which will assist that culture to an understanding. I agree with a lot of this here. I think it's easy to lose sight of how difficult it can be to really understand the very basic notions behind the gospel. If someone doesn't think the concept of God makes sense, doesn't get it, how much stranger to think about God and sin (and what IS sin really), let alone that Jesus sacrificed Himself for it. Saying to someone who truly does not believe in God, who may have only vague notions of what Christians think, if any in this situation, "Jesus died for you" isn't going to register or really communicate anything at all. It may make more sense when they gather more information, but not at that moment. At least for me, I had to work through a lot of the caricatured notions I had of Christian theology before any of this vocabulary that Christians take for granted made sense enough to grasp what the gospel was.

Pining evangelizing the gospel of Jesus on the technical details of creation is an enormous mistake. The central message of the gospel is loss.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are. 1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. Well let's test that claim. Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps? The truth of the situation is what it is, regardless of what you or I think about it. Your question doesn't relate to my claim at all.

Well, let's say that we increase the rate of radioactive decay by 1%. Let's just imagine we have a sample we understand the halflife to be a billion years. The associated decay rate to put into the exponential decay formula becomes 6.93e-10, a 1% increase, rounded up to 6.97e-10. Now I will put this new rate in and see how much time it takes to get 50% of the original population, 994,472,282 years. Hopefully you can see my problem here. A 1% increase in rate is pretty big and yielded a halflife relatively close to a billion years-, so how much of a change in decay rate do we need to bridge the gap between 1 billion years and 10k years? The decay rate for an isotope to have a 10k half life is 6.93e-05. This a five orders of magnitude larger decay rate. Do you have *anything* which suggests such an enormous change in decay rate? Now about your illustration- this is an enormous change in decay rate that we'd surely notice by altering the environment! and which experimentalists have done. But to address your example, suppose we start with 6e23 nuclei, the billion year half life, after a year, leaves us with 5.9999984e+23 parent nuclei, with the 10k rate 5.99958e+23 a difference of 4e19 nuclei-- certainly a distinguishable circumstance! http://phys.org/news202456660.html check this out, gives a tenth of a percent variation. Very interesting but isn't going to give the sort of effect you'd need. What sort of environment do you think there would have to be, for the last 6k years to, in principle, make up for a 5 order of magnitude difference in rates, consistently across the board? I have to emphasize this last part also, since different nuclei have different physical ways they decay so I would not expect the same thing to affect them all in precisely the same manner. I'm confused as to *why* we should think the very recent past was radically different from this moment in time. The only reason I can think you'd propose that is because you are already convinced of some sort of young earth (or young biology here) case. You say that experimentalists have tested for this effect. Please post a link. When the constancy of decay rates was tested, they did not account for solar/cosmic particles like muons that penetrate their neutron shield creating a neutron/radiation background from within the sample. Fact: The earth's magnetic field over the last 6000 years fluctuated up and down, but it was predominately significantly stronger than today Fact: The earth's magnetic field has a strong shielding effect on solar/cosmic radiation Fact: Solar and cosmic radiation cause the earth's surface background radiation Fact: Even the slightest decreases in just solar radiation (33 day cycle, 26 day cycle, January) have a slight accelerating effect on decay. So I will repeat my point, it is fact that slight decreases in just solar radiation cause slight accelerations to decay. When the earths magnetic field was a lot stronger during the last 6000 years, there would have been a dramatic decrease in both solar and cosmic radiation and we can therefore expect a dramatic acceleration of decay rates. This is the reason I believe the recent past (~200AD and earlier) was radically different from this moment in time. Are you unaware that decay rates have been tested under a variety of extreme conditions? Pressures, temperatures, and yes, radiation... Are you aware that radioactive decay involves different types of physical processes, some of which will be affected in different ways by the conditions you mention? That would put a serious wrench in your supposition that decay rates of different isotopes would be affected in identical ways. If you look again at the numbers, you will see that the amount of change that would be needed to account for the shortfall you need are *enormous* and would have shown up in the experimental work. On the other hand, some of the variations that have been found, as in the link I provided you, are much too small to help your case. Variations in the earth's magnetic field, and accompanying fluctuations in cosmic ray radiation, I submit, will not suffice. I will say this much. What I am arguing now depends on the physical rules of the universe to always have been precisely what they are now. Maybe that is what you should not give up at the get-go? I will bow out now though, from this particular exchange with you. I will read whatever you have to say in response but leave it at that.

Beloved, I'm Confused Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. Isaiah 53:6 (KJV) As To Why You Don't And Jesus Christ our Lord was shown to be the Son of God when God powerfully raised him from the dead by means of the Holy Spirit. Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name. Romans 1:4-5 (NLT) That is an interesting challenge Joe.

When you wrote this, I assumed you were responding to Enoch and so I didn't reply. There's no co-incidence, I believe radiometric dating is an accurate reflection of relative dates. When there is a variance in radiation (eg solar flares/July/midnight, 33 day cycle) there is an observed and scientifically tested decay variance across all unstable isotopes, both alpha and beta decay. That is what the studies indicate. So of course there is consilience because decay rates vary in sync with eachother due to the radiation effect having a universal effect among all unstable isotopes. Okay, and you think that will make up for the 4 billion year shortfall just exactly so? Have you tried looking at the number of events, the intensity of events, you need in 6000 yrs to make it seem that way given the rather small variance? I'm not a YEC, I think that this effect could very well make up for the 600 million year shortfall since life was detected. The focus of studies has been short-life isotopes, the detected effect would be logically higher for long-life isotopes. The idea is that for slow decaying isotopes, the slight energising effect of background radiation could maintain nearly every atom of the parent isotope in an energised/unstable state. The loss of energy nearly equals the gain of energy and this equilibrium makes decay very slow. Remove the energising effect of background radiation, and the parent isotope will suddenly decay at much higher rates. A factor of 100 000 is not impossible, we will have to start counting atoms in a sample to get to the bottom of the possibilities. Okay, so you aren't YEC, but you think that life was created 6k years ago? I just want to be sure I understand your position correctly. As to the rest, have you looked at the rates of variation that have been published? It wouldn't be hard to look at them, and calculate a maximum. Also you'd need to be sure all rates are affected the same way. While you are saving yourself an order of magnitude, between 4.5 billion years and 600 million years, you are still looking at 5 zeros of difference between 6,000 yrs and 600,000,000 years. From what I have seen of the rates that radioactive decay is altered by non destructive radiation there is no way you are going to come close to this. Yes that is correct, I'm a YBC, young biology creationist. You cannot be sure of your guesswork unless you produce figures. Until then the assumption that small cause =small effect therefore large cause=large effect is more logical than the assumption that small cause=small effect therefore large cause =small effect. Let me illustrate by an approximate analogy: Imagine we have two bottles each containing a billion marbles and a small hole at the bottom draining the marbles. The first bottle is draining at 100 million marbles a day, the second bottle is draining at 1 million marbles a day. The drain time is therefore 10 days and ~1 000 days respectively. In the analogy this represents the natural rate of parent isotope decay without radiation. Then imagine that we replace 999 999 marbles every day into both bottles. This has the effect of producing a 1% change to the short life bottle of marbles. It will drain in ten days and a bit, hardly any change at all. But in the long life bottle of marbles this causes a change from 1 million marbles a day, to 1 marble a day. The drain rate appears to be extremely slow, just like modern decay appears extremely slow in long-life isotopes. Remove the daily added marbles and suddenly the drain rate changes by a factor of a million. This is what is happening to isotopes at the moment, the radiation is energising the parent isotopes, keeping them in an unstable state. They are unable to decay because the loss of energy over time is approximately equal to the gain of radiation every day, and we have very few actual atoms that experience decay. Block out that radiation and we could have a 100 000 fold increase in decay rates. This is the possibility/likelihood I'm referring to. Well, let's say that we increase the rate of radioactive decay by 1%. Let's just imagine we have a sample we understand the halflife to be a billion years. The associated decay rate to put into the exponential decay formula becomes 6.93e-10, a 1% increase, rounded up to 6.97e-10. Now I will put this new rate in and see how much time it takes to get 50% of the original population, 994,472,282 years. Hopefully you can see my problem here. A 1% increase in rate is pretty big and yielded a halflife relatively close to a billion years-, so how much of a change in decay rate do we need to bridge the gap between 1 billion years and 10k years? The decay rate for an isotope to have a 10k half life is 6.93e-05. This a five orders of magnitude larger decay rate. Do you have *anything* which suggests such an enormous change in decay rate? Now about your illustration- this is an enormous change in decay rate that we'd surely notice by altering the environment! and which experimentalists have done. But to address your example, suppose we start with 6e23 nuclei, the billion year half life, after a year, leaves us with 5.9999984e+23 parent nuclei, with the 10k rate 5.99958e+23 a difference of 4e19 nuclei-- certainly a distinguishable circumstance! http://phys.org/news202456660.html check this out, gives a tenth of a percent variation. Very interesting but isn't going to give the sort of effect you'd need. What sort of environment do you think there would have to be, for the last 6k years to, in principle, make up for a 5 order of magnitude difference in rates, consistently across the board? I have to emphasize this last part also, since different nuclei have different physical ways they decay so I would not expect the same thing to affect them all in precisely the same manner. I'm confused as to *why* we should think the very recent past was radically different from this moment in time. The only reason I can think you'd propose that is because you are already convinced of some sort of young earth (or young biology here) case.

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments. The quotes from the article I have enclosed in quotation marks. Ahhh, I see. My mistake/oversight No worries. It's too bad all issues aren't so easy to clear up.

Yes I know; however, it was difficult to distinguish your comments from the article's comments. The quotes from the article I have enclosed in quotation marks.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are. 1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

shiloh- you've stated this before and at this point is kind of meaningless rhetoric to me. You can accuse me of smorgasbord reasoning all day but you have yet to convince me that I am in error that way. Looking- I should check out the Collins book.

Yeah, Enoch, I was addressing the OP and the linked article.