tuppence wrote:twohumble wrote:
Tuppence:
You are certainly incorrect. YEC relies MUCH more on evolution than does OEC. I certainly do NOT hold to evolution to any extent other than its most microevolutionary forms seen in genetic shift through natural selection. YEC must hold to very large population changes in VERY short times.
In addition, even if atomic constants have some slight variation (which is HIGHLY speculative, and theoretical verging on philosophy depending on which ones you are refering too), this won't change the OEC theory except possibly the age ranges plus or minus a few Billion years. They certainly are not variable to the point we could justify 10K years. The polar ice caps and deep ocean reef bands dispell any idea of an earth of a few thousand years.
To postulate variations in the speed of light, or other such constants also is grasping at straws to force fit a YE belief. It is clear to me that as much as evolutionists force fit data to their philosophy, YEC likewise force bad science to agree with a faulty premise. The fault lies in the poor biblical exegesis, and a misconstrued belief that OEC has somehow sold out to modern science. This is patently false, and a distortion of reality.
You say you are a physician. I assume then that you know enough about genetics to know that some very pronounced variations are possible within a generation or two. In fact there is more variation WITHIN the 'races' than between them!
Tuppence
I know that genetic variation of dogs in forced breeding environments would NEVER happen in nature. Leave dogs to the wild and you would see foxes, and wolves, with few exceptions. Most forced bread dogs are not viable in natural environments. This is certainly true the further the species goes from the mean, such as the Great Dane, or the teacup poddle. I am not sure what you mean by "more variation within species than between them", as this sounds like a redherring comment to me.
In regard to "a profound variation within a generation or two"...please site an example of this type of "profound" change. I am not aware of any such thing....although our definition of profound may be the culprit in our disagreement here.
Polar ice cap strata record storm surges. We associate these with annual events now. That may well be an erroneous assumption considering the geological record of catastrophes in the past....
Reefs have also demonstrated an ability to form extremely quickly in a short time in unusual circumstances. The geological record confirms that there have been unusual circumstances in the earth's past.
As far as the speed of light goes, the data is there. So is the data for atomic mass changing and Planck's constant changing. You can ignore it or you can deal with it. The honest thing to do is take a good hard look at it. CIPA is doing just that:
http://www.calphysics.org/
It's not just a "Setterfield thing." There are physicists all around the world who are examining the implications of these changing 'constants'. However if, as Setterfield has shown, the speed of light follows the same curve as the redshift, then the universe is very young indeed.
Not being an astrophysicist I can only comment on those that I have spoken with who are considered top in their field. David Block Ph.D is one such man. His comments directly to me in a conference I attended sponsored by the CS Lewis Institute dealing with Science and the Bible, both Block and Polkinghorne (retired pres of Cambridge and physics PhD. I can tell you they disagree with you. Both hold to an ancient earth (both are strong believers in Christ), and are not at all convince that the speed of light is or has changed. Block is still in active research, and Polkinhorne is not too far out of academics himself. I must take their word, as I am not an expert.
In addition, geologists also would question your iceberg and reef explanations as spurious.
It is probably better to read outside your own field of medicine in order to critique physics, however.
Critiqing physics is best left to physicists. I will read up on it, but only critique it based on experts of which I am not.