Archived - Ask the Expert: Danny Faulkner

For over 25 years Dr. Faulkner was on the faculty of the University of South Carolina Lancaster, where he taught physics and astronomy. He was Chair of its Division of Math, Science, Nursing, and Public Health (2009–2012). Dr. Faulkner retired as a full-time professor and now holds the title of Distinguished Professor Emeritus. In January 2013 he joined Answers in Genesis and its Creation Museum full-time. He has published more than a hundred papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. Dr. Faulkner has published two books, Universe by Design and most recently The New Astronomy Book. He has co-authored many books including the New Answers Book 4 with Ken Ham.

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Danny Faulkner was the featured expert on CreationConversations.com

Comment by Mary White on September 30, 2014 at 9:43am

Over the decades I have seen ICR and Creation Ministries International move more toward a tight biblical chronology. (AIG started that way.) Some creationists (I think this includes AIG) have a lot of geologic activity after the flood, if they have a lower flood/post  flood boundary.  I could see that keeping records would be difficult in such trying circumstances, and your list might get shortened.  Why have organizations moved toward the tight chronology (if they have) ?   How important do you see the tight chronology?  (Perhaps this should be a question for a theologian.). 

Comment by Lou Hamby on September 30, 2014 at 9:31pm

Mary White asks a very observant question.  What I don't understand post flood inferences by YE authors using Psalms 104 as a flood Psalm?  

References to post flood mega fauna "showing up". Mega fauna post-flood and they all died out within 250 to 500 years? 

Was Noah H*** erectus at the Ark bottleneck and Neanderthals, Denovians, and other H*** sapiens showing up post-flood.  Modern man about the time of Abraham. (Snelling?) What does that say about pre-flood mankind?  

I also watched the full length version of your exchanged with Christian creationists, some OE.  What I notice that there is room between YE and OE that is workable and Biblical, with respect to chronology?

 But the arguments made in the video that you participated well stated some of the observable issues with respect to the Universe and the known quantum elements that infer some period before the earth was void and without form and the Spirit hovered over the deep...

With respect to science and the observable life, why are YE people trying to argue that plants are not alive?  I don't understand the Biblical underpinnings as to why this argument must play out in the YE scenario?  Why even go there?

Is there any room within the YE paradigm for peer review.  Why are these issues not discussed in house within the context of some peer review.  I appreciate the fact you went up against those from the other side and it was a very respectable exchange all the way around.  I appreciate that!!  

I believe that the "creationists" umbrella needs to be bigger and less time spent on finger pointing and more time defining what we all "do know" Biblically, scientifically, and examine our battles and front lines and what really is relevant to arguement.

 Why re-invent scientific models that have no mechanisms and imply teaching as dogma on both sides....? 

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 2, 2014 at 8:40am

I suppose that what you mean by tight biblical chronology is adherence to something close to 6,000 years since the creation. The chronology of Genesis 5 gives nearly 1700 years from creation to the Flood. The Genesis 11 chronology produces a few more centuries from the Flood to Abraham. In all, there is a little over 2,000 years from the creation to Abraham. We can date Abraham to nearly 2,000 years before Christ using chronologies found elsewhere in the OT. Since Jesus lived on earth about 2,000 years ago, this produces about 6,000 years. There is some discussion within AiG just how much room there is in the chronology. Some like the Ussher date of 6,000 years, while others might add as much as nearly 200 years to that. It comes down to how to handle some of the dates, and, most importantly, how long the sojourn in Egypt was.

Henry M Morris frequently gave 8,000 - 10,000 years, citing the possibility of some omissions in the biblical chronologies, particularly post Flood. About 15 years ago I came to appreciate that what was driving this was the oft-repeated claim that we have 6,000 years of recorded history. I think that Morris reasoned that this 6,000 years had to be post-Flood, so there must have been close to 8,000 years since creation. However, we don't have 6,000 years of recorded history, at least how I understand the phrase "recorded history." Rather, we have 2,000 years of recorded history, with an additional 4,000 years of inferred history. We have good written records going back about 2,000 years, but before that the secular chronology gets very uncertain, and the uncertainty grows as one goes back into time. I now think that secular chronologies are greatly inflated.

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 2, 2014 at 8:44am

How important is the tight chronology? I think it very important, because he raises the question of the reliability of Scripture. One can make an argument for a few omissions based upon what appear to be small discrepancies in different biblical chronologies. This sort of question needs resolution. However, it is a very different proposition to suggest omissions in chronologies based solely upon one's perceived need to gain more time to accommodate things that are entirely extra biblical. The greatest pressure here is to accommodate vast time. Such an attempt renders biblical chronologies meaningless.

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 2, 2014 at 8:55am

Lou, I'm probably not the best person to ask some of these questions, but here goes.

I'm not convinced that Psalm 104 is about the Flood. It appears to me to be about creation (noun), albeit not necessarily about the creation (verb). That is, it appears to describe creation as it now exists.

Plants are interesting. In the Bible, plants are never described as being alive. This is very different from humans and animals. Today we think of plants as being alive, almost in the same sense that animals and humans are alive. Of course, if one thinks that all living things, both plant and animals, descend from a common ancestor, then plants are alive, but if one believes in the Bible, are plants alive the same way that we are alive? The Bible suggests not. Furthermore, this dovetails nicely with the biblical teaching on death as the penalty of sin. For instance, Genesis 1:30 states that originally land animals and birds initially were vegetarian. If plants are alive, then this is a problem. But if plants aren't alive, there is no problem.

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 2, 2014 at 8:59am

What sort of peer review do you suggest? All of my work at AiG undergoes review. This is particularly true of things that I publish in the Answers Research Journal. Each article is reviewed by at least two people deemed to be knowledgeable enough of the subject to offer legitimate review. Normally, the reviewers are sympathetic to recent creation, but I don't see that that necessarily is a problem.

Comment by Robert Dagenais on October 2, 2014 at 4:22pm

Dr. Faulkner,

Do you think the evidence supports the theory that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

Comment by Robert Dagenais on October 2, 2014 at 4:26pm

Dr. Faulkner,

Do you think it is an acceptable scientific method to use the orbit of the earth as the baseline for parallax measurements of distances to the nearest stars? If so, about how far do you think that method can be used accurately?

Thanks.

Comment by Lou Hamby on October 2, 2014 at 5:55pm

Dr. Faulkner thanks for fielding my questions... I was trying to make a point ever so little and most humbly, I don't doubt that someone knowledgeable about the subject doesn't review it, but I am taking about a deeper look at what is put out there and called science or inculcated scientific views.  If it is "theory” then well great call it theory, something we are working on we may have a model that works and so we are leaning in this direction.  O.k. That to me is totally acceptable from whomever it comes from.  

But and if certain aspects of published ideas or accounts have questionable basis for the inference then its seems to me that these things should either be held off from being published or put up to more scrutiny.  I actually gave you a veiled inference but since this is not your field you did not pick it up.  So I can pass on this, I just am saying with all do respect (not referring to you personally) but there are things I have read by Creationists authors that I am amazed people are buying or accept as scientific?  Or for that matter some that accept the hermeneutics.

What we know we know!! What is true scripturally is true

when I tried to contact a creationists author in the basis of some of his inferences when I finally got a response someone else was put between me and him to give "me" an answer.  They do not allow contacts for questions that could upset their apple cart.  I don't get that practice having worked on a campus for 25 years even secular science holds their people accountable?   You have well meaning people trying to argue for these authors ideas when there is a h*** so big in them you could drive a mac truck thru it...but the person doesn't see the issue, when publishing on the volcanoes of the past was put out, I noticed that only certain information was included and the other information for instance was left out.  I don't know why that was, but the only conclusion given the evidence presented would definitely fall a certain way.  But the whole metrics of the argument would be completely different of the other information was included?  

Where is the mechansim to respectfully challenge such things in the creationists world.

Comment by Lou Hamby on October 2, 2014 at 6:10pm

Dr. Faulkner you said:

Today we think of plants as being alive...

Lou's response:

Yes of coarse...because they are!!!  There is no Scripture that implies them as being dead, this is an inference by some who actually take that position, however the same tests for "alive" applied to plants make plants pass.  In fact if we don't get chlorophyll second hand from some source we die too....  

The Scripture says all things are made of grass....

There is a very clear inference from some about this subject they give Scripture but have to explain the reasons and the observations do not fit with the reasoning.  My question is why would our creationists brothers and sisters even go there?  Why is this held up as some necessary position of Creationists?

If your talking about death as the penalty of sin...we have a clear account in Genesis of that! Animals are not sinners?  Only man? 

 

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 3, 2014 at 9:00am

Robert, I do think that there is good evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Interestingly, a century and a half ago Maxwell's four equations of electricity and magnetism when combined predicted a wave moving at the measured speed of light and indicated that that speed was invariant. At the time, everyone thought that that was some failing of Maxwell's theory.

As for parallax measurements, the earth's orbit is a good baseline. Traditional ground-based methods have an upper limit of about 65 light years with 20% accuracy. The HIPPARCHOS mission two decades ago increased that to about 600 light years. The Gaia mission ought to increase it by another factor or ten. If you'd like more information on distance determination methods in astronomy, check out:

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/a...

 

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 3, 2014 at 9:13am

Lou, we need to be careful that we don't imprint our ideas onto Scripture. For instance, the Bible includes bats with birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), though today we don't class bats with birds. It doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong; it just means that the Bible has a different classification scheme. BTW, ancient cultures classed bats with birds; the convention of including bats with mammals is modern. In a similar manner, today we say that plants are alive, but are they necessarily alive? According to what definition are they alive? We can't even define life today, and the Bible doesn't bother too either. However, the Bible in two different places gives characteristics of life (BTW, that is how biologists define life - by listing characteristics of living things). One biblical characteristic of life is blood (Leviticus 17:11), while the other is breath ((Genesis 7:21-23). That latter passage even refers to all living things on the earth, and then it goes on to list them, but the list omits plants. You are right that the Bible does not explicitly state that plants are dead, but these verses seem to leave plants out of the category of living things. I have no problem saying that plants are alive, for in some sense they are. But in some sense they aren't, because animal and plant life are very different.

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 3, 2014 at 9:20am

Lou, thanks for explaining your comment about peer review. Even without being specific, I know what you mean, and you're preaching to the choir! I know of many things published by creationists that I disagree with. Some of them on the hermeneutics, but on other issues as well. Better peer review would help on some of this, but not completely. I hear a lot of this sort of complaint from fellow creation scientists, but almost always behind the scenes. My response is that people ought to write their differences and submit those for publication, and I encourage you to consider doing this yourself.

As for not being able to reach the person that you attempted to reach, that ought not to happen. Some people are incredibly busy to the point that it's difficult to get to them. I appreciate that problem, but personally I like to make myself available, and I think more people ought to.

Comment by Robert Dagenais on October 3, 2014 at 8:53pm

Dr. Faulkner,

Thanks for your kind response. Would it be fair to say then, that the best scientific explanation of when the light was emitted from a star measured as being 500 light years away was 500 years ago? (Not trying to get to a "gotcha" moment but just trying to carefully step through the logic of why scientifically I should doubt mainstream accepted age of astronomical objects) I hope it is ok to take it in stepwise fashion.

Thanks.

Comment by Lou Hamby on October 4, 2014 at 7:51pm

Dr. Faulkner you said:

Lou, we need to be careful that we don't imprint our ideas onto Scripture.

Sir, I Holy agree with you on that!!!  Good word there.

For instance, the Bible includes bats with birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), though today we don't class bats with birds. It doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong; it just means that the Bible has a different classification scheme.

Actually I see no "classification" scheme at all, as a generality it flies like a bird, I understand the Bible's position on bats and birds.  This is taking Scripture and applying some modern principles to the biblical language, and your right..it doesn't make the Bible wrong, this is ancient history and the nuance studies of animal species is something that has taken place over 2,000 or more years.  Someone who quotes scripture is quoting the vernacular and specific view of certain species at the time...There is nothing wrong with this at all.  

BTW, ancient cultures classed bats with birds; the convention of including bats with mammals is modern.

Sir we agree, but there is plenty of evidence and study to apply them to mammals.  The bat is "designed" to fly---just like birds are designed, flying does not make a bat a bird anymore than feathers make dinos in the bird family.

In a similar manner, today we say that plants are alive, but are they necessarily alive? According to what definition are they alive? We can't even define life today, (criteria for life in my humble opinion is very clear) and the Bible doesn't bother too either. However, the Bible in two different places gives characteristics of life (BTW, that is how biologists define life - by listing characteristics of living things).

Agreed. BUt not just characteristics, but actual function of the biologic unit.

One biblical characteristic of life is blood (Leviticus 17:11), while the other is breath ((Genesis 7:21-23). That latter passage even refers to all living things on the earth, and then it goes on to list them, but the list omits plants.

Mankind breathed in, animals were spoken, and plants too... I think plants meet all criteria for being alive including its own blood, the fact that Scripture left out plants is no sense that was a purposeful thing.  The Scriptures deal with the immediate...

You are right that the Bible does not explicitly state that plants are dead, but these verses seem to leave plants out of the category of living things. I have no problem saying that plants are alive, for in some sense they are.

I appreciate that observation, I think that whole scenario should be looked at deeper, as the whole counsel of God and not just Genesis narrative before we should draw a firm conclusion, but I am with you on much of what you say.  Cheers!!! 

But in some sense they aren't, because animal and plant life are very different. Yes they are... 

Lets define what infers life:

  How about animation.  Not all things alive move or respond to their environ, but many so. Does have need to eat or take in energy?  Doe sits morphological characteristics imply life.  Does it work within the context of a symbiotic relationship.  Does it procreate? Does it exchange atmosphere. 

 

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 5, 2014 at 5:32am

Robert, the most straightforward inference one can draw from the huge size of the universe is that it took a long time for the light to travel to the earth. If the Bible did not so directly address the age of the world, I'd probably adopt the view that the world was far older than thousands of years. However, the Lord saw fit to indicate that the world is only thousands of years old, so that must be an important topic. Fundamentally, this is why I believe in recent creation, so therefore I must develop some resolution of this question.

Comment by Lou Hamby on October 5, 2014 at 6:52am

Dr. Faulkner, Robert,

The literal "earth" I have no idea when it came to its specific position in the design of Gods plan. None of was there? The privileged planet (earth) is not an accident as to where it is located. It has specific design requirements in order to exist as it does. We all I think agree including Robert. While the bible does not give us any exact dating per se (in my humble opinion), I like the rest here are YE on purpose!  Why would God need millions or billions of years?  So from my perspective the "earth" from the time GOD began creating the biosphere when the Spirit hovered dover the waters (let us) is absolutely in a time line young!  It took almighty GOD 6 days and on the 7th He rested, if that was 6,000 10,000 or 25,000 in the light of millions and billions, the earth is young!!!

Where I diverge is the time line before God started the earths creation may have a been a longer period?  Some say not, that it started in the "beginning" and was all part of the 6 days narrative.  I leave open due to the Universe and the vast amounts of space between point A and Point B, and even your recent exchange with other Christian astronomers on Youtube this point was made very pointedly, Since the creation process was started the earth is young as it was birthed in 6 days.  Since I am not an astronomer of up on THe UNiverse and it nuances I can only relate to the huge plethora of information on the Universe and some of the readings on the subject that imply some other time element or timeline for the Universe and its creation including the placement and development of earth.  I know that GOD can do anything...  So my argument is always with what we "do" know and we do know the earth is young!!! I sort of lean in this direction. 

Comment by Floyd on October 5, 2014 at 3:41pm

Dr Faulkner, I would suggest that the answer to the 500 light years question depends on

1) When you think the universe began and
2) Why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is precisely the same temperature from all directions.

The universe is an isolated system and from the Second Law of Thermodynamics we know that that the universe had a beginning, hence the universe is not eternal. After the beginning, simply put, the standard light measurement can’t be used during the equalizing of the CMB. The reason is because different parts of the CMB have precisely the same temperature, but light from each part has not had enough time to reach light in each part. So, the standard light measurement can only be used after the equalizing of temperature. Evolutionary ideas state the ending was between 13 and 17 billion years ago, which is an ad hoc assumption. The biblical view indicates it was during the middle of the creation week 6,000 years ago. (Without the fine tuning of the same temperature we probably would not exist)

This means the standard measurement in light years must be adjusted to include theories regarding when the equalizing of the CMB ended. So the answer to the question is that it was 500 years ago, but before 6,000 years ago another variable (as yet unknown) needs to be added to the standard light measurement, just as it would need to be added to the evolutionary ideas before 13 to 17 billion years ago.

Effectively the equalizing or fine tuning of the CMB by as yet an unknown process will inflate the standard light measurement i.e. in either case (creation or evolution) it will give billions of years as a result.

If my thinking is at fault please correct it.

Comment by Todd Elder on October 5, 2014 at 4:26pm

Referencing light years and time: a few years ago, I read an article discussing the possibility of light traveling in a non-euclidean manner. The non-euclidean math suggested that the light from the furthest known stars could reach Earth in only 15 days. I have not seen any follow up on this topic.  Do you know anymore about this or just have any thoughts of your own?

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 6, 2014 at 6:28am

Todd, I think that you are referring to a suggestion made by Moon and Spencer in 1953. These two physicists were not creationists. Rather, they were proposing an idea that challenged modern relativity theory. The also promised a follow-up paper to explain their proposal in more detail, but that paper never appeared. They concluded that their proposal would allow light from the most distant parts of the universe to reach us in 15 years, not 15 days.

Recent creationists referred to this frequently 40 years ago, but you don't hear much about it anymore. In 1984, Akridge published a paper critical of this suggestion (CRSQ 21:18-21). This may be the reason why one doesn't hear much about it anymore. There is at least one other problem with this suggestion that Akridge didn't discuss. Moon and Spencer had selected the parameters of their model to prevent our detection of its effects on either end. One was within the solar system and the other was within close binary stars. In the 60 years since, we've expanded the data in either regime tremendously to the point that if their proposal were correct, its effects would be detectable. Off and on I've thought of publishing something on this, but I so rarely hear of it anymore it doesn't appear that such a thing is needed.

Here is the abstract of the Akridge paper: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum21_1.html

 

Comment by Robert Dagenais on October 6, 2014 at 2:28pm

Dr. Faulkner,

Thank you for your response. I had read your 1991 paper addressing the physics and evolution of stars as a topic that needed more discussion within the young earth school. I thought it one of best brief descriptions of the subject I have read, but thought it worth checking in to be sure I was not misunderstanding that this issue naturalistically suggests stellar ages in the millions-to-billions of years age range. 

Following from my last question, I had wanted to progress to determining whether you could accept that a baseline could be established at say the orbit of Neptune that, at about 30 A.U., would allow direct star distance measurements beyond the 6000 year distance, and if so, whether you made any distinction at that point.* But, of course you anticipated the direction I was headed and skipped to the answer that you acknowledge an apparently large universe at least allows a naturalistic inference of deep history.  I accept that you have strong beliefs that supersede this inference, and I do not wish to challenge you on this. I thank you for your time and will make time to read more of your papers. I may not be able to read your book anytime soon as I am currently unemployed and can't make such a discretionary purchase.

   

*As some of the other respondents seem to be doing

Comment by Mary White on October 7, 2014 at 7:46am

Has Leslie, Humphries, or Hartnett commented on your Answers Research Journal article A Proposal for a New Solution to the Light Travel Time Problem?  (Although I suppose at least one of them peer-reviewed the paper.) https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/a-proposal-for-a-n...

(BTW Radiometric dating and Starlight travel time are what I hear most often as support for a very ancient creation from people.)

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 7, 2014 at 8:04am

Not in print. I've had a few conversations about it with Russ Humphreys, but prior to publication. There has been very little response to many of the things that I've published over the past two years, though I expected that there would have been.

Comment by Robert Dagenais on October 7, 2014 at 6:08pm

Mary,

Thank you for the link. I have just read the paper.

Dr. Faulkner,

I apologize for not reading the 2013 paper Mary referenced first, before posing my questions. It is presented in a clear and forthright manner. I actually admire the fact that you rely on a "miracle" and thus non-naturalistic explanation for your way toward reconciling your supreme authority to the observational evidence. Some of the other distance/age contenders make me cringe when they attempt to contort the verifiable physics beyond rationality. 

Would it be fair to ask then, that if the christian bible had included a description of the creation as occurring in deep time with a long evolutionary period leading to the present day as the Creator's preferred method of action, that you would be ok with that? Another way to ask might be whether you have found any naturalistic showstoppers to the current mainstream secular description of the physical universe?

Thanks.

Comment by Danny Faulkner on October 8, 2014 at 12:22pm

Yes, if the Bible indicated deep time with evolution, I'd embrace them. Or if the Bible were silent on the question of the history of the world, I probably could embrace billions of years too. However, the Lord saw fit to give us some specificity about the origin of the world. Many people claim that the six days of creation mean something other than six days. However, I have to ask the question if God did create in six days, would there be any other way that He could have conveyed that message than they way that He did? The clear answer is no. On the other hand, if God had created over billions of years, could there be another way that He could have conveyed that message other than how He did? The clear answer to that question is yes.

Comment by TrustJesus on October 16, 2014 at 4:03pm

I found out that in physics I like to study, classical Mechanics, are you familiar with Richard Swensen, would his material be any good?  I think astronomy is helpful for understanding Genesis, our cosmology.  I choose to strive to accept God as the authority over man, in my knowledge.  Does your new/ updated book: The New Astronomy Book (Wonders of Creation); cover Astronomy History?  Thanks for standing on the bible as your foundation.

Comment by TrustJesus on October 16, 2014 at 6:35pm

or maybe I should say commited relationship with Jesus.  Written revelation and devine revelation (Living Word :-)

Comment by Carolyn Reeves on October 20, 2014 at 11:30am

Do you have any thoughts on the meaning of the Biblical references that God "stretched" out the heavens (as Is. 45:12)?

Comment by Lou Hamby on October 28, 2014 at 8:28am

Dear Dr. Faulkner:

You said in bold: (my response in regular type)

However, the Lord saw fit to give us some specificity about the origin of the world. 

In the definition of world I ask "what world", there is the world that GOD set in place as the privileged planet, this is no accident, the earth was designed and created to be in this specific position---crated in six days, that is totally biblical for me, however I also have to ask, do you find there is a time before that actual creation event started before the biosphere was created by almighty God.  

It (the Word) says that it was void and without purpose, until God applied his creative design and implementation... He is specific in the actual protocol if you will he used in creation. The biosphere did not just appear fully robust, but was created and spoken into existence and the covering of fauna and flora were an event of some time, in this case we believe GODs Word when it says 6 days.  When it speaks of in the beginning, this seems to imply to me that there was a time however short or long before that actual creation of the "World"? IS there room for this view in your over view?

Many people claim that the six days of creation mean something other than six days.

When speaking of the fully robust creation of the "earth" as we know it, the bible is very clear that it was six days. But the Universe and the placement and preparation of earth to receive GODs creative acts implies some time factor before the actual earth was created as the narrative clearly states and we all accept.  

However, I have to ask the question if God did create in six days, would there be any other way that He could have conveyed that message than they way that He did?

Again that is my question, the narrative of Genesis seems to imply there was preparation of the whole Universe in order for this "privileged planet" to exist.  At a minimum it had to be set in place. The planets and stars and sun and moon would of also been part of that whole product.  So maybe this is splitting hairs with some here on the forum, but I have every confidence in the narrative that tells me that when you speak of the Universe that is a "time factor", when you speak of "our" world that is a time factor, specifically the bible lays down both of those.  Now if one assumes that Universe was created in seconds, then that pre-world time factor I am alluding too would be very short, while others including your colleagues that you debated recently on the age of the Universe would be longer or long by our standards. 

Your thoughts on this?  There is a canned accepted interpretation of the narrative message that is accepted by both YE and OE with respect to this question per each sides belief, I have no problem with some time of preparation of the Universe in order to create this planet in a fully robust way.  While GOD can do anything and I see this as all miraculous. Any time factor before actual creation of our planet commenced does not affect any iota of Scripture or GODs work on behalf of all men.  I say this because it seems that GOD used the laws to create but also did it in a miraculous way??? Again your thoughts?

Comment by Professor David R. McQueen, MS,E on November 1, 2014 at 7:01am

Dr. F....I am sorry I did not join CC while you were the expert, interesting conversation. I had a conference call with Ken Ham and Andrew Snelling a month ago. They mentioned you and your expanded ministry to AIG. While I was full time at ICR (83-87) I hiked the Grand Canyon with Ken...1987...I worked for Dr. Vardiman and Andrew on the RATE project for a year around 2000. As a University of Tennessee Geology Major (class of 1974) I worked part time as Bob Gentry's lab assistant at ORNL. He taught me about Radioactive Halos. AS I LOOK BACK ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSION threads in early October, I see a discussion about Moon and Spencer (1953). Bob Gentry has commented over the years about this too. Have you seen any of Gentry's recent (2000 to 2010???) papers about a math error in Einstein's paper of Gentry's view about the Center of the Universe (on a vector from earth through Orion's belt )??? Thanks for all you do My brother, David...PS we have a son that lives near Clemson University.

Comment by Professor David R. McQueen, MS,E on November 1, 2014 at 7:08am

that last post should be edited as...Einstein's paper OR Gentry's.....

Comment by Danny Faulkner on November 1, 2014 at 1:29pm

I think that the Moon and Spencer proposal is pretty much a dead letter. It was published more than 60 years ago and has had no follow-up since. Creationists used to talk about it 30-40 years ago, but I've not heard anyone seriously suggest this for a long time. I think that that more recent discoveries have rendered it dead. I've thought about writing that up and publishing it, but why worry about something that no one seems interested in anymore?

As for Robert Gentry's work, I've looked at it a little. Maybe 3-4 years ago I watched a DVD of his where he talked about the center of things being in the direction of Orion. More specifically, it's the Orion Nebula, not the belt of Orion. I hadn't heard that before, so I did some investigating. Again, I've thought of publishing something on that, but it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. This belief about Orion is an SDA thing. I believe that Gentry is an SDA, so I think that much of this stems from that. Gentry has some fundamental misunderstanding of cosmology and the big bang model.

Comment by Professor David R. McQueen, MS,E on November 2, 2014 at 9:20am

Dr. F, You are right about the SDA/Ellen White connection. Up until 5 years ago I called Prof. Gentry each year...I owe him a call. Thanks for that Orion Nebula comment...I mis-remembered what he told me years ago. Of MORE INTEREST, is Gentry's work on General and Special Relativity. I will look up his ???Physical Review??? article and send you the exact reference about Einstein's math error...maybe I have the wrong journal. I worked for him...parttime...until I went to Michigan for my MS work in 1975. Sometime around 1980, I think he was a part-time Calculus teacher at U. of TN in Knoxville. Math was my minor, but I would have never had the confidence to double check the math on Einstein's peer reviewed articles. More on that later...Your Moon and Spencer comments are well taken...back when he was with ICR, I had a chance to talk to Harold Slusher about M&&S...must have been in the late 70s thru the 1980s.

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service