Quote:

---

But the examples you give are of such radical types

---

Yes, you take my point. The Biblical record considers the Fall a cataclysmic event, not just a slight change in longevity.

Quote:

---

If physical laws were so different pre-Fall, we wouldn't (presumably) see the kinds of aging processes and so on that we see reflected in the world around us now.

---

Just so. That's my point.

Quote:

---

It doesn't actually do much about the question of the age of the earth

---

Unless something like my C14 analogy is correct. Something that significantly altered the apparent rate at which these changes take place. That's precisely my point.

Is that what happened? I don't know. And that, too, is my point. Nobody knows.

And realize I'm not saying that's what happened, only that it provides a possible mechanism to explain what we see.

I can think of several other scenarios.

And a final note for tonight.

The Bible record provides two catclysmic events that altered the planet. The Fall, and the Flood.

Note, I'm not saying anything about when they occurred, whether the Flood was universal, or anything like that.

I'm saying that from the Biblical author's point of view, both of these events altered, in radical ways, what happens on this Earth in terms of geology and climate (although they didn't think in those categories or use those terms). The simple change from watering the Earth by "mist" as opposed to the current water cycle, is an enormous change in climate.

It implies, at the very least, that there were no hurricanes or tornadoes previous to the Flood, because their energy largely derives from the masses of moisture within them.

No rain also reduces erosion and weathering effects on exposed surfaces.

Irrigation by mist is certainly a kinder, gentler climate.

Once again, we can simply deny those events, but if we don't, we have to deal with their implications.

Of course, we can simply say, "We have no evidence of a time when there was no rain, so it always rained."

I'm not convinced we'd know what that evidence looked like if we did have it. The history of science is replete with examples of overlooked or misinterpreted evidence.

A general comment, and not specific:

Re: A global flood.

As I understand the science, science neither supports, nor rules out a global flood such as many people equate with Noah.

Quote:

---

the apparent rate at which these changes take place

---

There is not just one mechanism making the effects, so there are many things that would have to change

> mutation rates
> continental drift
> metabolism
> thermal cooling
> erosion
> meteor impact rates
> year length

The evidence we see shows a world where these rates are in the same ballpark as we see today

Recent Creationist have a great deal of difficulty explaining the White Cliffs of Dover.

/Bevin

On a nit-picky point, but made for those who are visiting this thread and do not have enought of an SDA backgroud to understand the nuances of some of our vocabulary.

Some creationists believe that the Bible teaches a global (confined to the planet Earth) flood. They do not teach a universal flood--i.e. one that affected other planets throughout the universe at the same time.

For whatever reason, and I do not understand why, SDA creationists often refer to it as a universal flood, when they actually mean global flood. This has included me, and I have had to learn to more accurately refer to it as a global flood.

Not-picky, perhaps. But, I have had to learn that some people have become quite confused at our common terminology.

Good point - I have often wondered about the Mr Universe competition also...

/Bevin

Quote:

---

There is not just one mechanism

---

Yes, I am aware of this. Once again, what the Biblical writers saw in the Fall, and again in the Flood were systemic changes involving nearly everything, as they understood it.

Quote:

---

Recent Creationist have a great deal of difficulty explaining the White Cliffs of Dover.

---

Yes, and evolutionists have a hard time explaining the volcanic depositions in Washington and Idaho.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there are problems in both models.

The White Cliffs are a problem because they are obviously made up of huge quantities of shells. It is difficult for a recent-life creationist to explain where such huge quantities of shells came from.

Quote:

---

evolutionists have a hard time explaining the volcanic depositions in Washington and Idaho

---

I am unaware of this issue. What is so fundamentally hard about it that it corresponds to the White Cliffs?

/Bevin

What will SDA say if the scientists do discover life on Mars? Will it just cause even more rejection of science, or will it cause a rethink of current cherished beliefs?

/Bevin

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20050225/sc_nm/space_mars_dc

Quote:

---

"Hints of life on Mars are getting stronger," said Vittorio Formisano whose team found methane and formaldehyde on Mars.


He said there was so much methane produced on Mars that there was reason to believe this had an organic origin. "Life is probably the only source that can produce so much methane."

Everett Gibson, from NASA (news - web sites)'s Johnson Space Center, said he had held a poll among the 250 scientists at the conference.

On the question whether they thought there had been life on Mars, 75 percent replied in the affirmative. Asked whether they believed there to be life now, 25 percent said "yes."

Asked what kind of life, Gibson said "bacterial."

---

/Bevin

but I thought life came from methane?

Yeah - the situation is not simple. I have appended a couple of web pages.

The story reminded of the SDA preachers who taught in my childhood that "man will not walk on the moon, God will not allow sin to leave this planet". Of course, by then radio and TV signals from Earth had left the Solar System. Such people had to re-evaluate their beliefs a few years later.

What I am asking here is a hypothetical question. Today - before they have discovered life on Mars - make a decision. Would the discovery of life on Mars force you to rethink the literal accuracy of the creation week story?

/Bevin


Here are some Methane web pages...

http://www.rpi.edu/~straca/NSCORT/chem.html
" If the atmosphere of the primitive earth contained methane and ammonia, then some of the photochemical reactions there were similar to those on Jupiter. But the methane and ammonia were present only for a short period of time because they are not regenerated as they are on Jupiter and because the solar UV flux was greater on the primitive Earth than on Jupiter. The continued presence of methane on Titan, after 4.5 billion years irradiation by solar UV, suggests that it is being slowly released from Titan's crust into its atmosphere. Methane may have also been slowly released into the primitive Earth's atmosphere so it may have been present there for a somewhat longer time than predicted by atmospheric modeling experiments."

http://www.missouri.edu/~chemrg/current_news/Article_Methane_Mars.html
"Methane, the simplest of hydrocarbon molecules with one carbon and four hydrogen atoms, is fragile in air and easily broken apart when hit by ultraviolet light. Calculations indicate that any methane in the Martian air must have been put there within the past 300 years.
"