I already read this. Where in this article does Oard discuss impacts on densely cratered Mercury?
If you already read it, then how could you have missed the fact that Oard is arguing for a massive bombardment that affected the whole solar system, including mercury? He places this at the start of the Flood, and as the physical mechanism that was used to set it off.
And then there is that which is actually a good argument. The generation of the Flood.
By the way, I can supply the 5D spacetime line metric to support his model if needed and it can be double-checked here. But I can tell you that it works. First moments to the universe are hard to argue successfully sometimes when dealing within a YEC paradigm. Like any other science, there are heated arguments.
But I can tell you that if you take Hartnett’s line metric and begin the universe from an indeterminate size, it does in fact accelerate the aging of matter in the system. And even though this next statement will be also a heated exchange, if you allow for dark matter to be created by God, it will easily do the work of forming galactic structures as we see them today even under accelerated processes.
Don’t tell John Hartnett I included dark matter though :). He absolutely hates it. I am just using it here to show that what you think is impossible from YEC perspective is actually very possible indeed.
If you are willing, let’s start with the basics and work our way up.
We observe unstable atoms that spontaneously decay and they do so at a very precise and predictable rate. Furthermore, as we have learned more about the atom we have gained the ability to roughly predict the rate of decay from first principles, which includes the fundamental nuclear forces and quantum mechanics.
These observations have led to the conclusion that radioactive decay rates could not have been different in the past without completely changing the fundamental nature of both matter and energy. In addition, there is evidence both from astronomy and geology which demonstrate that decay rates were the same in the past.
So how can these observations be interpreted so that decay rates were much faster in the past by multiple orders of magnitude?
6 Likes
I don’t necessarily subscribe to that theory, but I don’t reject it either. I’m largely agnostic as to the proper interpretation of radiometric evidence, because I don’t think we have enough information at this point. If you’ll be patient enough to wait for it, there is an upcoming article called Historical science, chaos theory and the sliding scale of trust, which will shed some more light on my thinking in this area.
Easy, you have to understand time. For instance, when Hartnett adds his 5th dimension, it is actually a dimension of time. So in laymen’s terms the anomaly you think you would see in the data due to accelerated rates would be “absorbed in the 5th dimension” of time. In other words, you would not even know it was there. You would never detect an accelerated nuclear decay in the data.
What information are we missing? Why isn’t the information we have now sufficient for making conclusions?
We are told that YEC’s are making different interpretations, but in this case it seems you are refusing to make an interpretation without any explanation as to why.
3 Likes
Any evidence to back this up?
I did not miss anything. Read it again yourself; Oard does not specifically discuss mercury. If the impactors came from one direction, why is mercury cratered on both sides?
1 Like
The spacetime line metric is the evidence. Beyond that all you need to understand is the expansion/contraction of the system allowed by and based on the metric. Do you want the line metric?
How so?
Alright. Let me find it.
Tree rings do not HAVE to form at a “constant rate” to provide useful evidence. Indeed, the fact that tree rings do NOT form at a constant rate is exactly what makes them so useful in studying climate histories and major catastrophic events!
1 Like
He doesn’t go into great detail on Mercury, but he does specifically mention it.
Does he state that the impacts only came from one single direction? Is the cratering on Mercury totally homogenous from all directions? These are just some starting questions, but ultimately I don’t have all the answers here, and I don’t think anybody else does either.
In short, the metric allows for a normal elapse of time in in dr/dt while an accelerated elapse of time and a very rapid expansion of space is occurring in dv/dt
If they don’t form at a constant rate then they are not a reliable clock. Would you trust a clock that ticked at a different rate based on the weather outside? This gets back into assumptions-land again. The significance of the tree rings changes based upon your view of Earth’s history.
Where is the evidence for this rapid expansion of space within Earth’s history? Wouldn’t Earth have to be pulled apart for this to work?
Is “biblical worldview” code for “the interpretations of the Bible I and people who agree with me happen to hold”?
Have you noticed how people of very different hermeneutical positions all claim to hold “biblical worldviews”? And do Baptists and Presbyterians hold the same “the biblical worldview”?
1 Like
Yes, I am refusing to make an interpretation on this. And I answered that I have an upcoming article that will explain my reasoning why.