Bevin, You only assume that the earth looks millions/billions of years old because it looks like that based on your prior assumptions. Would you suggest God was dishonest because He created Adam as an adult (or at least something older than an embryo)? If you acknowledge that God exists at all, you must also take into consideration what His purpose was.

Gregory, I am merely reporting what I have read in various places. Some say there are nine dimensions, some say 13, and as far as I know, the maximum number postulated is 27. I am not a mathematician nor a quantum physicist versed in string theory (or whatever you have to be to theorize about upper dimensions), so I cannot defend the various proposed number of upper dimensions.

But if we as Christians believe that such things as angels really exist, in our world with us, and we cannot see them, then there must be some way to account for their connection to the physical world we can perceive. Perhaps angels have the center of their existence in some upper dimensions. This is not much different from saying that they are "spirits" who exist on a "spiritual plane," whatever those things mean.

Now, if we are going to stipulate (in the legal sense) that God at some point caused the universe to come into being at plasma state temperatures, then why not also see as equally reasonable that God is not limited to doing this at just one point in time? Why could God not do the same thing in one localized area when He decided it was time to create the earth? In other words, if you can believe in one "Big Bang," why cannot you also believe in one or more additional "Little Bangs"?

Making personal attacks against Dr. Boudreaux because of some terminology he chose to use does not change the experimental results he reports that the rate of all kinds of radioactive decay are drastically changed when heated to plasma temperatures.

And yes, I would like to see some original sources on this as well. Perhaps Dr. Boudreaux performed these experiments himself. The brief summary in the Creation Science Newsletter was not clear on this.

It does not impress me whatsover that "conservative SDA scientists" are not convinced by Dr. Robert V. Gentry's findings concerning radiohaloes in granite. Conservative SDA scientists do not impress me. They give too much evidence of being cowed and intimidated by the mainstream scientific establishment, and of pathetically trying to curry favor with the authoritarian evolutionist majority. I have come to disregard their testimony as being totally worthless. Non-SDA Christian creationists, such as those who contribute to Creation Science Research Quarterly, have far more to say of value, and render much better and more faithful service to God. They are doing the work we should be doing as part of the First Angel's message, but which we are failing to do because of unbelief in God and His Word.

Nope, no personal attacks on Dr Boudreaux at all. A couple of points about the science of someone who quoted his work. (And these are not just problems of terminology, they are problems with basic understanding of science. The science is not unclearly written or using questionable termiology, it's plain wrong.)

I'm still waiting for someone to bring an article by the guy himself from any sort of reputable science journal. I can't find any despite my best efforts. It's a pretty fundamental finding - why wouldn't he have published it?

Something does not add up, Bravus. The criticisms are too extreme. How could Dr. Boudreaux have a Ph.D. in physics and believe that nuclear particals are held together by "electrostatic forces"?

Dude, he doesn't. Someone who quoted him does. Check out the linked article. And of course that doesn't reflect on him - anyone can quote and misquote me on educational theory any time they like. This is kind of a red herring in the discussion: I found that on my search for Dr Boudreaux's papers and posted it to encourage people to try to get the science right if they want to use it in argument. I didn't post it as a critique of Boudreaux himself or his work, so apologies if it sounded that way.

Now Dr Boudreaux himself is actually a chemist rather than a physicist: Edward A. Boudreaux is a theoretical chemist, Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana, and an "adjunct professor of chemistry" at the ICR. He has written a number of creationist tracts, most focusing on the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis.

Here's more info on him: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/boudreaux-e.html

He's a well credentialed guy, but in the field of nuclear physics he's talking outside his own specialisation. I don't believe any experiments have been done on this work (I'm happy to be corrected) - his papers are presenting a theoretical possibility based on certain models of what goes on inside the nucleus.

I still get an extensive set of hits for him on the Creation Science talk circuit. I also get some for him in computational chemistry on the modeling of molecular systems, but nothing from scientific conferences on the radioactive decay stuff.

I'm genuinely interested, and not presupposing any particular outcome. If someone can point me to the peer-reviewed science, I'll be very grateful.

Nuclear chemistry is still chemistry, just as much as physics. There is a point at which all the scientific disciplines merge into one.

But he's not in nuclear chemistry, he's in theoretical molecular chemistry, which studies electrons and orbitals. It's true that the disciplines are close together in this area, but one of the generally agreed dividing lines is that the inside of the nucleus belongs to the physicists and the electrons belong to the chemists. I'm not saying he's not at all qualified to talk in this area, just that he's outside his area of specialisation.

I found this excerpt which refers to reports of actual experiments published in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal:

Quote:

---

There are several kinds of radiation that can come from radioactive atoms. One is called beta decay (in addition to alpha rays and gamma rays). In 1987, Takahashi published in the Physical Review Letters (p1522-7) the theory that beta decay can be faster. Jung confirmed this with an experiment (also in Letters, p2164-7) in 1992. Bosch did follow-up research in 1996 (Letters, p5190-3). What did this community of scientists discover?
.
They discovered that radioactive Dysprosium and Rhenium do decay up to one billion times faster, when they are in what is called the hot plasma state of matter.

---

Source: http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010409.html

Quote:

---

Bevin, You only assume that the earth looks millions/billions of years old because it looks like that based on your prior assumptions.

---

I have been over this so often, I can't believe you have not seen it already. However one more time does not hurt.

When we look in the rocks we find fossils - proof of large dead animals or a very deceptive god.

When we look at the rocks, we find many lines of independent evidence all showing that the rocks are old. The lines include (a) meteor impacts rates, (b) erosion, (c) magnetism, (d) bending, (e) continental drift, (f) radiological, (g) fossil genetic drift, (h) glaciation, (i) metamorphosis, (j) sedimentation, (k) coal formation, (l) limestone, (m) fossilized coral reefs, and many more.

It is not my prior assumptions that leads to believing the rocks are old. The evidence in the rocks strongly points that way, you need prior assumptions to the contrary and very often a complete failure to examine the evidence to have another opinion.

Quote:

---

I have come to disregard their testimony as being totally worthless. Non-SDA Christian creationists, such as those who contribute to Creation Science Research Quarterly, have far more to say of value, and render much better and more faithful service to God. They are doing the work we should be doing as part of the First Angel's message, but which we are failing to do because of unbelief in God and His Word.

---

Telling Lies For God is not doing Him faithful service.
There is a fascinating book with that title...

You have clearly decided to ignore the evidence, in favor of your preconceived notions about what the Bible requires.

/Bevin

Ron:

The questions that I asked were sincere, and coming from the position that I don't know what the answer would be from someone else--either creationist, or evolutionist.

String theory: Yes, string theory is the theory that lies behind the dimenisonial constructs that you mentioned, and to which you responded. I was sincer in asking. I was introduced to string theory, and my interest in astro physics was sparked by a SDA who has developed his own therotical system that integrated the 11 - 13 dimensions that he teaches into a theological framework that I can not accept. It is from that background that I asked you the questions that I asked. I sincerely wondered if you had anything practical relating to string theory that I could find practical meaning in.

As to your view of conservative SDA scientiests, you are entitled to whatever view you want to hold.

speed of light may be changing?