Bryan Nickel addresses that in the video I provided. It relates to the idea there were no such inter-mediate age radio isotopes to go extinct in the first place.
But they could also, as Humprheys and Dennis suggest happened because time flows differently there, or the could be closer than we think and think it’s 400,000 light years long, or there is another mechanism. We don’t know. If cosmologists invoke Guth Inflation, Dark Matter, Zippy light, etc. The YEC/YCC are no less outrageous.
But one thing I do know, I don’t believe what you said I believe:
stcordova just believes that globular clusters were created to look as if they’ve undergone millions to billions of years worth of cosmic evolution
I don’t believe that, and you still haven’t admitted you didn’t describe my beliefs accurately.
Oh, of course. Easy to say.
The appearance of age is not deceptive. Replicated antiques are not deceptive, they are merely replicas. The appearance of history when there is none is deceptive.
And this may be off topic, @moderators, and although it is still about aging, split it, if necessary…
I have only seen one half-baked attempt at refuting this, and it was sad – it only dealt with trying to cast doubt on the varves and not the other substantiating, mutually validating clocks that God engineered into creation, but Sal @stcordova may want to give it a crack:
3 Likes
Regarding the Globular clusters specifically, here is a possible suggestion of youth.
https://creationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/crsq-summer-2016-nethercott.pdf
The age of globular clusters and the stars they contain is thought
to be on the order of 10 billion years. Neutron stars are believed
to form via supernova explosions of massive stars, and their progenitor
stars have very short evolutionary lifetimes, so neutron star production in
globular clusters ought to have ceased billions of years ago. Neutron stars
move at high velocities, which are probably the result of large kicks they
receive during their formation. Their speeds are more than sufficient
for neutron stars to escape from globular clusters within thousands of
years. Hence, globular clusters should contain few, if any, neutron stars.
Yet, globular clusters typically contain many neutron stars. This suggests
that globular clusters may be much younger than generally thought
And if true this would certainly contradict this claim (which is not true to begin with):
stcordova just believes that globular clusters were created to look as if they’ve undergone millions to billions of years worth of cosmic evolution
I didn’t see @stcordova dispute the distances anywhere. Where did you get this idea?
Besides 1 light year is long distance away and so is ten… and both would give an appearance of distance.
Appreciate you pictures of the galaxies though
The universe is awesome and that should tell is something about God. 
FWIW, this was one of Dr. Dennis’ earlier papers in Physical Review D 1977:
There’s a huge difference between what cosmologists do and what you are talking about. This is not a competition for who knows less about reality but what models have positive evidence supporting them. There are no measurements of anything that actually returns 6,000 years. Maybe there are tricks one can do with time looking different but even if one gets the universe to be really old, the earth also bears the hallmarks of hundreds of millions of years worth of history. Something like inflation actually made specific predictions of things we can measure which we did. Dark matter has several converging lines of evidence and can be measured in specific amounts. I’m not sure what zippy light is.
The paper doesn’t deal with the entire actual argument from globular clusters which is based upon main sequence turnoff points. That is it seeks to ignore the data we get from sometimes up to 10,000,000 other stars that we understand very well. It is an important principle that physics we don’t yet understand does not falsify the physics we do understand.
However this conclusion from the paper you linked is very important and I hope you pay careful attention to it:
How do biblical creationists explain high velocity neutron stars? That is not clear. There are reasons to accept the usual explanation of neutron stars as the result of certain supernova explosions (Faulkner, 2008), but perhaps at least some neutron stars might have alternate explanations. Did God create some neutron stars at the beginning? If so, did He make them with high velocities? If so, why? In a recent creation, might we expect fewer supernovae in the history of globular clusters than in the evolutionary model and hence fewer neutron stars in globular clusters today? Unfortunately, these answers await a more fully developed creation theory of astronomy.
In other words, scientists can’t explain x, therefore main sequence calculations are all bogus and we can safely ignore any globular cluster ages. But also of note is the inability of a supernatural creation model to make any predictions of anything. It’s obviously a problem if neutron stars come from supernova which require star death. Now that too would be a problem unless we say that God made a bunch of stars that were about to go supernova. So then we can bypass all of this and just say that God made neutron stars in globular clusters. Ta da! Also this paper writes with a false dichotomy: biblical creationists vs. evolutionists.
I’m also surprised that you haven’t included the usual way YEC aim to reject main sequence turn off points through blue stragglers.
As for the actual literature on neutron stars, the author quotes a ‘recent article’ from 14 years before the paper was written and a paper that was written about 10 years before the paper. Your paper quotes the latter paper:
The hypothesis of high space velocities of young NSs immediately leads to the well-known problem of NS retention in GCs, since the escape velocity even in the densest clusters does not exceed several tens of km/sec. Most of the NSs born through the core collapse of massive stars should have escaped from the cluster shortly after its formation.
But your paper mysteriously leaves out several mechanisms with evidence that the original paper writes directly after the quote! And it ignores the actual conclusions of the authors of the original paper themselves!! In other words, neutron stars in globular clusters is something that is explained quite well in scientific literature but the YEC paper pretended it didn’t exist and then quote mined the actual scientists (why? I can’t say but likely to make it seem like scientists didn’t have an explanation while ignoring their explanation).
6 Likes
I strongly disagree. I am speaking as an interested amateur, of course, but I have read large portions of the popular literature published by astrophysicists. So I think what I am about to say is cogent. I invite @physicists to correct anything that I might explain poorly or just incorrectly.
Guth inflation is only hypothesized in the first femtoseconds of the universe’s existence, when the density of matter-energy was so extraordinary that its physics could plausibly be weird.
The variable speed light hypotheses proposed within the astrophysics community all still leave us with a universe that is many biillions of years old.
Dark matter is inferred by the gap between observed gravitational fields and observed mass. Astronomers have detected some phenomena that suggest “dark flows” consistent with the dark matter hypothesis. The jury is still out on the question, of course.
Regardless of whether these three concepts are right or wrong, the fact that light emitted from stars in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million years ago is reaching us tonight is basically beyond dispute. And this fact is completely undisturbed by any of the three concepts. Would you agree with this?
Lamoreaux and Torgerson have calculated any fluctuation in physics constants to have been no more than 4.5 in 108 over the last 2 billion years. (And quite possibly less, as no one has been able to reproduce their results, per Wikipedia.) Even if their results stand, we are still left with an earth, solar system, and universe that are billions of years old, are we not?
The thing that I find interesting as I look at the hypotheses you mentioned, @stcordova, is that they leave us with a solar system that is approximately 4.6 billion years old and a universe that is billions of years older than that. In other words, any YEC cosmologist who would look to them as support for a universe that is 6K years old is without question barking up the wrong tree.
Now let’s look at the YEC propositions you cite. Let’s see: are they reducing the age of the universe by a theologically insignificant amount like the unorthodox published theories? No, the YEC propositions are reducing the age of the universe by over six orders of magnitude.
This means the YEC propositions are six orders of magnitude different than the three published concepts you cited, @stcordova. They are not equivalent. VSL, dark matter, and Guth inflation do not leave the door open to every stray, unparsimonious mathematical equation that a YEC cosmologist can write down on the back of an envelope.
It seems you actually agree with this, as you have stated elsewhere on the forum that pretty much every YEC cosmology is unworthy of support:
Thus I do not understand why you backtracked and tried to justify YEC oddities that are not published in the mainstream literature.
Best,
Chris
5 Likes
Regarding globular clusters, there are some other indications of youth.
There is a problem of Blue Stragglers which is well-known but explained away by collisions. Blue Stragglers should have evolved out by now and gone extinct in short order, but there they are in the globular cluster.
Next, there is a noticeable absence of dust and gas from the burning stars that should accumulate inside the globular cluster. Even if the globular cluster gets cleaned out once in a while from passing through the galactic disc, it is not frequent enough. The rate of novae and supernovae are too low. Those are the views of Ron Samec who is a professional astronomer. So the cluster has a look of youth if one is willing to consider it.
More reasons this claim is untrue:
stcordova just believes that globular clusters were created to look as if they’ve undergone millions to billions of years worth of cosmic evolution
I just gave reasons it COULD look young. I don’t say "it definitely looks old but was created to look that way. " That’s not something I said, nor believe.
ref:
But this looks like concocting unproven, perhaps unprovable mechanisms to support a desired conclusion. Let the Guth inflation start and stop just as need for no good reason except that it has to start and stop just so it patches problems in the original model.
That’s fine, but then it’s little different from YEC/YCC. Instead of the “God did it” we have “the unknown mechanism” did it, but the mechanism has to be something that doesn’t look like God. Same for the Zippy light model of variable light speed. Does anyone think WHY it has to be fast and then slow down, except that it solves a problem in the existing model. When we keep adding patches like this that start to look hardly different from miracles, well, how is that different from a creationist model, except that it’s Godless?
I don’t think YEC/YCC is empirically or theoretically defensible right now. It doesn’t mean ever. And the more I think of YEC/YCC relative to Guth Inflation (which can’t really be proven, maybe falsified at best), dark matter, or any number of quirks in the standard Big Bang models – YEC/YCC looks better every day.
I mean, I keep seeing reports like this:
They found that the satellites are distributed in a planar arrangement, and the members of the plane are orbiting in a coherent direction. This is inconsistent with more than 99% of comparable galaxies in simulations. Centaurus A, the Milky Way, and Andromeda all have highly statistically unlikely satellite systems. This observational evidence suggests that something is wrong with standard cosmological simulations.
Regarding the Hetzsprung-Russell diagram of stars and why God would create them, just like the reason he created a progression of forms in biology from simple to complex. It could be MIS-interpreted as an evolutionary progression (somewhat like the geocentrists mis-interpreted the rising and setting of the sun as evidence of geocentrism) – the progression of forms assists in scientific discoverability – short of maybe God speaking from the heavens.
In biology, if we didn’t have creatures like bacteria, like yeast, like zebrafish, like mice, like chimps – we’d have a harder time understanding human biology except through dissecting other humans 
But if we have evidence the fossil record is young AND that evolutionary transitions are mechanically infeasible, then we also know we weren’t evolved, but specially created. Thus the progression of forms in biology from simple to complex is evidence of common design for scientific discoverability, not evidence of universal common descent.
In like manner, the availability of models of what stars could look like when they age and what they would do if they ages gives us ability to say “this star must be young” therefore the system is young. Hence we can suspect the globular clusters are young because of blue stragglers and the lack of dust and gas in the cluster. So God can put a young looking star and create absence of gas and dust in the right place to assure us the system must be young, and can’t be old. It will look anomalously out of place.
The universe is constructed to preclude an “eternal universe” explanation. The question then is “how old is the universe.” Some of the anomalies I’m pointing out, as echoed by Michael Disney, suggest the Big Bang model is false.
As a YCC/YEC, I have to wonder how much more difficult it would be to make claims about the youth of the cosmos if God didn’t provide models of what old and young stars could look like, but he would also position the stars, as he did in globular clusters in such a way that we would reasonably think the clusters are young.
The universe is structured such that to force the Big Bang model onto it, it will require concocting and postulating mechanisms that look indistinguishable from miracles.
1 Like
No.
Imperfect alignment of early Big Bang models with certain data did prompt Guth’s hypothesis. But astrophysicists did not stop working the instant Guth wrote his paper, as you seem to imply.
Two things give Guth’s idea real strength today:
- It has made predictions that later observations confirmed.
- It applies only to the briefest of moments in the universe–that tiny fraction of a second where local quantum mechanics applied across the entire universe. (I think I am expressing this correctly. If there’s a better way to express the extraordinarily conditions in the first moment of the universe’s history, I would be happy to hear it.) Such an extraordinary condition makes an extraordinary hypothesis worth considering.
Unfortunately for YCC prospects, neither of these two things apply to the YCC ideas. That is why they are not on the same level as Guth’s inflation.
Best,
Chris
Thanks for your comment, but I don’t think so, any more than abiogensis “predicts” life arose. We’re here, so I supposed that’s a “confirmation”.
We can’t confirm the universe expanded at thousands or millions of times the speed of light. But we’re here, so I suppose that’s a “confirmation” Guth’s inflation works since the Big Bang is true, but the Big Bang is true because Guth inflation works – that’s ciruclar reasoning.
But anyway, regarding Dark Matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05257-z
Dark-matter detector draws a blank The world’s largest experiment intended to detect weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) has come up empty-handed after collecting data for nearly a year. XENON1T is located 1.4 kilometres underground at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in central Italy. The experiment looks out for the tiny flashes of light that should be given off when WIMPs — a popular candidate for dark matter, which is thought to make up 85% of the Universe’s matter — collide with atoms in 1,300 kilograms of cold liquid xenon. On 28 May, researchers from the XENON1T collaboration reported at seminars held simultaneously at Gran Sasso and at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, that no such flashes were detected. The data suggest that WIMPs — if they exist — interact even more weakly with ordinary matter than previously thought.
my friend David Coppedge points out:
Experimental results from the XENON1T dark matter detector limit the effective size of dark matter particles to 4.1 x 10-47 square centimeters — one-trillionth of one-trillionth of a centimeter squared — the most stringent limit yet determined for dark matter as established by the world’s most sensitive detector.
but
Any particle as small as 4.1 x 10-47 square centimeters is, for all practical purposes, non-existent. That’s almost a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a square centimeter! An electron (10-16 cm) is inconceivably gigantic by comparison.
Just for completeness:
But onto the supposed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB-R). Perhaps it should be renamed LOCAL Microwave Background Radiation (LMB-R).
Some common sense issues by two professional astronomers and physicist who worked in the secular world but were YECs, Danny Faulker, John Hartnett, Ron Samec:
Comments on the Cosmic Microwave Background | Answers Research Journal
Second, there ought to be gravitational lensing in the CMB, but there is none (Samec 2006). Third, Hartnett (2006a) has pointed out that the CMB contains quadrupole and octopole modes that the standard inflationary big bang model cannot explain. Fourth, Hartnett (2006b) also has explained that inverse Compton scattering by electrons (Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect) in the intergalactic medium within clusters of galaxies ought to distort the CMB, but this is not seen. These last three problems suggest that the CMB, rather than originating in the most distant parts of the cosmos, actually comes from a much closer source or sources, perhaps even within the solar system or even the earth.
If the CMB is locally produced (essentially making it a local microwave background (LMB) rather than the CMB), then it would render the CMB as evidence of the big bang a huge red herring. Given that this would make nearly everything published in cosmology over the past half century wrong, cosmologists will have tremendous resistance to this possibility.
Last but not least there is the Axis of Evil, suggests CMB is LMB, bwahaha!
The " Axis of Evil " is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which runs counter to expectations from the Copernican principle.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation signature presents a direct large-scale view of the universe that can be used to identify whether our position or movement has any particular significance. There has been much publicity about analysis of results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
that show both expected and unexpected anisotropies in the CMB. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the eliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe. Specifically, with respect to the ecliptic plane the “top half” of the CMB is slightly cooler than the “bottom half”; furthermore, the quadrupole and octupole axes are only a few degrees apart, and these axes are aligned with the top/bottom divide.
Regarding evidence against the CMB being cosmic, but rather an Local Microwave Background (LMB), this article gives ominous warning signs. The CMB should be gravitationally lensed as it passes through certain galaxy groups, but it doesn’t get lensed – perhaps maybe because it doesn’t exist as CMB, but an LMB!
From
The magnification of distant sources by mass clumps at lower (z<=1) redshifts is calculated analytically. The clumps are initially assumed to be galaxy group isothermal spheres with properties inferred from an extensive survey. The average effect, which includes strong lensing, is exactly counteracted by the beam divergence in between clumps (more precisely, the average reciprocal magnification cancels the inverse Dyer-Roeder demagnification). This conclusion is independent of the matter density function within each clump, and remains valid for arbitrary values of Ωm and ΩΛ. When tested against the cosmic microwave background data, a rather large lensing-induced dispersion in the angular size of the primary acoustic peaks of the temperature-temperature (TT) power spectrum is inconsistent with WMAP observations. The situation is unchanged by the use of Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profiles for the density distribution of groups, which lead in fact to slightly larger fluctuations. Finally, our formulae are applied to an ensemble of NFW mass clumps or isothermal spheres having the properties of galaxy clusters. The acoustic peak size dispersion remains unobservably large and is also excluded by WMAP. For galaxy groups, two possible ways of reconciling with the data are proposed, both exploiting maximally the uncertainties in our knowledge of group properties. The same escape routes are not available in the case of clusters, however, because their properties are well understood. Here we have a more robust conclusion: neither the NFW nor isothermal sphere profiles are accurate descriptions of clusters, or important elements of physics responsible for shaping zero-curvature space are missing from the standard cosmological model. When all the effects are accrued, it is difficult to understand how WMAP could reveal no evidence whatsoever of lensing by groups and clusters.
Would it not also contradict your claim that neutron stars were created as neutron stars? That article seems not to understand that neutron star production, at all, implies a certain age that exceeds the few thousand years they’re willing to grant. Here, “young” still means some millions of years.
Sal is willing to bend time and space as needed. It’s very odd that he elsewhere claimed to support an old universe model.
4 Likes
You already have your hands full replying to many people in this thread, so I will mostly stay silent. However, I have to caution that a lot of the arguments you cited are out of date. For example, CMB lensing has been detected, so have distortions of the CMB due to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect.
7 Likes
That’s @Joel_Duff’s blog, always good stuff! I don’t want to pick on Sal because I think he is sincere, but for most of Creation Science consilience of multiple data sources is simply ignored. If there is any YEC answer at all, it usually crosses the line into Omphalism.
3 Likes