Thanks for the interesting feedback. I just read Newtons/Lisle's article again and I guess I really don't fully grasp what he is saying but my interest was less so the validity of his science (I do understand enough having just finished Greene's books The Elegant Universe and the Fabric of the Cosmos to see the problems that would arise from Newton's logic - an ironic pen name given his interest in Einsteinian relativity) than the implications of Lisle's approach to Genesis 1 might be on the creation science movement.
Maybe its just me but the more I see them probe some of these difficult questions the more I see them stretched into considering alternative interpretations of Genesis. It seems to me that at some point they will manipulated the text to the point that it should built dscontent within the movement. I agree with George that I not sure yet if this is some sort of weird variation of apparent age but what Lisle seems to be doing to me is bringing the quesiton of point of view to the text. He might not have intended his aricle to read this way, but what I read into what he is saying is that from the perspective of man the actions of the 6 days "appear to occur in 6 days" when from God's perspective they may have been put into motion across long periods of time (of course he is trying to dialate time through relatively but his caculated time is yet another truth in the data, I think, and not just an appearnce). But does man's perspective matter?? If man wans't created until the the 6th day why is God concerned about communicating to us what man would have seen had he been around on the fouth day?
Here is the quote that intrigues me most:
"But how can a star be created before the beginning? We must remember that the Bible’s statement ‘In the beginning’ (Genesis 1:1) is a measure of time, and therefore must be the ‘beginning’ as measured according to observed time. So although the beginning of the universe occurs simultaneously everywhere on Day 1 according to observed time, the beginning of the universe (just as with the stars) occurs at different calculated times depending on the distance from Earth. Day 1 occurs much earlier for places in the universe that are more distant from Earth than nearby places."
This is such a twisted version of a straightforward reading of Genesis that creation scientist claim to take. So the beginning is really stretched out over billions of years and yet contained in an ordinary day? I'm surprised he didn't start quoting verses about how for God a day is as a 1000 years at this point.
I like the point about his apparent geocentric assumption but I don't think that would really matter. If the earth were really off to one side of the universe then he could claim that God simply started his creative work on the other side of the universe first because the light from that side would have had to been in transit the longest.
If we follow his logic why couldn't have God evolve some animals on the other side of th planet and had them migrate to a place where man would see them appear on the horizon (as if from the ground) on the 6th day.
It boggles the mind that creation scientist can call their interpretations the simple straightforward reading of the Scriptures and claim that academics and seminary professors are having to manipulate the text to get it to say what they want it to say.
Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: jack syme [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Thu 7/6/2006 12:18 AM
To: Don Nield; George Murphy
Cc: Rich Blinne; Duff,Robert Joel; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
LOL
I saw that Robert Newton was a pseudonym, that always raises red flags.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Rich Blinne"
<rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
> Robert:
> "Robert Newton" now works for Answers in Genesis under the name Jason
> Lisle, PhD
> I agree with George. The idea is nutty. Lisle's formulation is ad hoc.
> Like other YEC attempts at science it explains a small part of the
> empirical data while neglecting a vast amount of other data.
> Don
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
>> The Michelson interferometer has a beam splitter & 2 arms of equal length
>> at right angles along which light travels & is reflected back to the
>> observer. When the apparatus is at rest, the light takes the same time
>> along both 2-way paths. Relativity says that will also be the case when
>> it's in motion.
>>
>> I think the idea is nutty too because it requires that we define the
>> speed of light of a particular light beam with respect to whoever is
>> observing it. As I noted before, this means that a person who turns on a
>> flashlight assigns a velue c/2 to the speed of the receding light while
>> the person at whom the light is shined assigns it an infinite speed.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
>> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Rich Blinne"
>> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:39 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>>
>>
>>> OK but explain to me how M-M does not disprove this guys theory. If the
>>> path heading toward the observer is traveling at infinite speed, and the
>>> path perpendicular to it is traveling at c, and the distances of each
>>> path is the same, how can they possibly arrive together?
>>>
>>> The beauty of the M-M experiment is that it does not require any clocks
>>> to be synchronized. And since the device was placed on a turntable, and
>>> they could test from all directions, and the results were always the
>>> same, this proves that the speed of light is isotropic. I am sure there
>>> are more subtlelties to this than are beyond my understanding, but I
>>> dont see how any theory that claims that light moves instantaneously
>>> when moving toward the observer, has any validity.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
>>> To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "Rich Blinne"
>>> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's trickier than that. What the M-M experiment does is compare the
>>>> travel times for 2 back & forth light paths which are perpendicular to
>>>> one another. Only the speeds for "there & back" are needed. If you
>>>> assume that clocks can be synchronized by slow transport then it can be
>>>> shown that the forward & backward speeds of light are equal. Or more
>>>> precisely, either assumption leads to the other. This is discussed in
>>>> section 6 of Eddington's _The Mathematical Theory of Relativity_.
>>>>
>>>> Shalom
>>>> George
>>>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
>>>> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Rich Blinne"
>>>> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
>>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:11 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Didnt the Michelson-Morley interferometer of the late 19th century
>>>>> disprove this?
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
>>>>> To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>; "Duff,Robert Joel"
>>>>> <rjduff@uakron.edu>
>>>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:40 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, this won't work. How do you "measure the [one way] speed"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he's certainly got problems. Hs highly observer-dependent
>>>>>> (indeed, almost solipsistic) definition of the speed of light
>>>>>> violates one of the basic postulates of special relativity, that the
>>>>>> speed of light in vacuum is the same for all inertial observers. If
>>>>>> A sents a light beam to B then A says that it travels at speed c/2
>>>>>> and B says it moves at infinite speed. (& of course other observers
>>>>>> will see intermediate speeds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also assumes a geocentric universe: Observers in other planetary
>>>>>> systems would see things very differently. But of course he'll
>>>>>> assume that there are no such observers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, light isn't just an abstract signalling device but a
>>>>>> physical phenomenon. I think you'd play hell with Maxwell's
>>>>>> equations trying to get his ideas to fit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His argument about synchonization by clock transport is slightly off.
>>>>>> You can do that if you transport the clock infinitely slowly (i.e.,
>>>>>> make the error as little as need be by moving it slowly enough) -
>>>>>> _if_ there are no dxdt type terms in the metric. But this is minor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need to reflect on this further but it seems to me that this
>>>>>> amounts to a new version of apparent age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shalom
>>>>>> George
>>>>>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Blinne"
>>>>>> <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
>>>>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:05 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] New interp of distant starlight
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, using the observational definition of time, the speed of
>>>>>>> light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the
>>>>>>> observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also
>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>> at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the
>>>>>>> canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially
>>>>>>> relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when
>>>>>>> moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast
>>>>>>> when travelling directly toward the observer-travelling
>>>>>>> instantaneously from point A to point B.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> This can be tested. Point light directly at you (pretty easy to do).
>>>>>>> Measure the speed. If we measure the speed coming right at us and if
>>>>>>> it is not infinity then this is falsified. If you think that
>>>>>>> spacetime
>>>>>>> distorts this measurement do it in zero-G just to be extra, extra
>>>>>>> sure. How did he graduate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/5/06, Duff,Robert Joel <rjduff@uakron.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> Could someone look at the article of the day from Answers in
>>>>>>>> Genesis and
>>>>>>>> tell me if it is as radical as it sounds. By radical I mean that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> proposed explanation for distant starlight brings a very different
>>>>>>>> perspective to Genesis 1 than is typical of creation scientists.
>>>>>>>> They way I
>>>>>>>> read this article it would make a literal reading of Genesis 1 as 6
>>>>>>>> days of
>>>>>>>> creation into an "apparent" six days of creation when in reality
>>>>>>>> God had
>>>>>>>> been at work much longer (billions of years). Yet, to us it would
>>>>>>>> appear as
>>>>>>>> 6 days of work. It seems to me if the logic of this article were
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> actually be taken seriously by other creaton scientists it would
>>>>>>>> undermine
>>>>>>>> the typical form of literalness that they have so long held fast
>>>>>>>> to. This
>>>>>>>> was 2001 article but I never saw it discussed here. Does anyone
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> discussion this particular nuance on the old starlight question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've quoted the most relevant section of the article below:
>>>>>>>> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
>>>>>>>> Distant Starlight and Genesis)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>>> Akron OH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Selected quote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Since the Bible indicates that the stars were visible on Day 4, we
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> compute the (calculated) time at which they were created. Alpha
>>>>>>>> Centauri (a
>>>>>>>> star 4.3 light years away) must have been created about 4.3 years
>>>>>>>> 'before
>>>>>>>> the beginning' (before Day 1) in order for its light to have
>>>>>>>> reached Earth
>>>>>>>> on Day 4 of the Creation Week. Likewise, a star 10 light years away
>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>> have been created about 10 years before Day 1. A star one billion
>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>> years away must have been created about one billion years 'before
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> beginning' and so on. So, we see that more distant stars were
>>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>>> earlier than nearby stars. The time of creation depends on the
>>>>>>>> distance from
>>>>>>>> Earth. So what appears to be simultaneous according to observed
>>>>>>>> time, now
>>>>>>>> appears to be spread out over a long period of time. Which view is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 'correct' picture? They both are—each according to the chosen
>>>>>>>> convention of
>>>>>>>> time measurement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But how can a star be created before the beginning? We must
>>>>>>>> remember that
>>>>>>>> the Bible's statement 'In the beginning' (Genesis 1:1) is a measure
>>>>>>>> of time,
>>>>>>>> and therefore must be the 'beginning' as measured according to
>>>>>>>> observed
>>>>>>>> time. So although the beginning of the universe occurs
>>>>>>>> simultaneously
>>>>>>>> everywhere on Day 1 according to observed time, the beginning of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> universe (just as with the stars) occurs at different calculated
>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>> depending on the distance from Earth. Day 1 occurs much earlier for
>>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>> in the universe that are more distant from Earth than nearby
>>>>>>>> places.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, we present the following picture of Creation as described in
>>>>>>>> Genesis,
>>>>>>>> but converted from observed time to calculated time—first, God
>>>>>>>> creates the
>>>>>>>> most distant sections of 'space'. This occurs billions of years
>>>>>>>> ago. About14
>>>>>>>> four days later, stars are created in those areas of space. As time
>>>>>>>> passes,
>>>>>>>> this creation process moves inward; space is created nearer to
>>>>>>>> Earth, and
>>>>>>>> stars are created four days later. About 4.3 years before Earth is
>>>>>>>> created,
>>>>>>>> 'the beginning' occurs for the space near Alpha Centauri. Four days
>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>> Alpha Centauri is created. Finally the Earth is created, but the
>>>>>>>> starlight
>>>>>>>> has not yet reached Earth; God provides a temporary light source.
>>>>>>>> Four days
>>>>>>>> later, God creates the Sun, the planets and the moon. At this
>>>>>>>> point, (thanks
>>>>>>>> to God's innovative method of creation) all the light from all the
>>>>>>>> stars
>>>>>>>> reaches Earth at exactly the same time. This may seem an unusual
>>>>>>>> method by
>>>>>>>> which to create a universe, but then is there a 'usual' method by
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> universes are created? This method is compatible with the Word of
>>>>>>>> God; and
>>>>>>>> it is compatible with all astronomical observations of which I am
>>>>>>>> aware. The
>>>>>>>> God who created space and time should have no difficulty creating
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> placing the stars where and when He desires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Donald A. Nield
> Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
> University of Auckland
> Private Bag 92019
> Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
> ph +64 9 3737599 x87908 fax +64 9 3737468
> Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
> d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 6 13:50:26 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 06 2006 - 13:50:26 EDT