HRG

What the course is called is irrelevant. They might have offered a course in geology, too - and still reject geology as an actual science.

If they claim that radioactive decay rates vary with time, they reject quantum mechanics - which is the basis for the calculation of those rates.

regards,
HRG.

MOJO-JOJO

My postings lasted all of 24 hours before their Turkey Vultures swooped in to delete them today.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste!

ex-robot

So every single piece of research for the last twenty years and more has had to do with age and nothing more???????
This is more sarcasm not based in reality. Faulkner, Humphreys and YECs in general do not believe they are illusions or any of this crap.
Speed of light? Where have you been? I guess Humphreys, Chaffin, Wanser, etc. use pretend physics in their secular careers.
More pointless and baseless sarcasm.
You may toss out all knowledge, but they don't have to do anything based on your speculations.

xr

ex-robot

It is very relevant. Why would they offer a course in something they don't accept. They don't reject geology as an actual science. Here is a quote that disproves your speculation from DeYoung in 1998:

"There are several challenging ideas in quantum mechanics. It is no wonder that some scientists remain skeptical of the entire subject. However quantum mechanics has proven invaluable in many areas. There are no strong competing explanations for transistor and laser operation, radioactivity, chemistry quantum numbers, magnetic effects, and a host of other areas. Aside from the silly and heretical interpretations which some have imposed on it, there is no necessary conflict between creation and quantum mechanics."

Taken from <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-305.htm" target="_blank">Creation and Quantum Mechanics</a>.
This is simply not true. They can disagree with how it was applied. I don't know what specifically is the case, but I am quite certain they don't reject QM as you say.

xr
P.S. I found the above info by searching for quantum mechanics at icr. I also found this tidbit about Keith Wanser, creationist fake physicist.

"2.) K. H. Wanser, "Non-Exponential Decay of Quantum Mechanical Systems Due to Tunneling", 2nd RATE Radioisotope Dating Conference, Santee, CA. Invited Lecture (May 20, 1998)."

I point this out for interest sake, but it still does not point out a denial of quantum physics.

Wanser is another one of those creation scientists who reject "all" of physics and science but has swindled the National Science Foundation and many other groups of almost a million dollars in contracts and grants.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]</p>

ex-robot

Thanks for the intersting tidbit about his work at USC Lancaster. I will hold back judgement since I do not have the details. As far as him being out of sight, this is listed on his vitae:

1997 - Present - Editor for the Program Notes on Close Binary Stars.

xr

Asha'man

I think you have missed my point. Faulkner may well believe in many aspects of astronomy, but he has no logical, rational basis for doing so. If he thinks that the universe is only 6000 years old, then he must somehow explain why we can see things that are more than 6000 light years away. No logical explanation exists unless you also break some other scientifically accepted fact, such as the distance to those objects or the speed of light. If he can’t explain that, then his belief in such things as galaxies is unjustified by the evidence.

If something is unjustified by the evidence, then it is not scientific to accept it as fact: it is merely a belief. Which is where this whole problem started: belief in things not supported by evidence, such as YEC and religion in general. Faith has no place in science.

hezekiah jones

I think these "creationist astronomers" are in the business of fiddling with notions associated with a variable speed of light. Of course the only reason they would even consider such ridiculousness is to attempt to make the age of the universe conform to the genealogies they deduce from a so-called literal reading of an ancient book compiled by goatherders.

(In fact "literal reading" is even an erroneous term in this case. A "literal reading" of Genesis reveals a multitude of authors, and a redactor that worked far more recently than any fundamentalist christian would care to admit.)

Why anyone that has spent thousands of hours and dollars obtaining a doctorate in physics would even waste his time with these idiotic pursuits is what really demands a scientific explanation. But I expect that explanation would be found within the discipline of psychiatry, not physics.

(Ever notice how it's almost impossible not to be facetious when dealing with this subject?)

hezekiah jones

Presumably only those close binary stars within 8,000 light years, if there are any.

[Edited to add: A google search for "Program Notes on Close Binary Stars" turned up exactly one hit: icr.org. If it's not something to do with an ICR publication, maybe "Close Binary Stars" is an off-Broadway show or something?]

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

ex-robot

May be to you. You can't dictate how they think. I'm still missing your point. All you did was lay out some very ridiculous and sarcastic comments and added some strawmen. How am I supposed to get a point? They believe that these things are as many light years away as you say. They don't believe Setterfield. No astronomer has a logical or rational basis for believing it then.
Yes, he must. This fact on "this" point doesn't say what you think it does.
see above. both of your examples are not valid.
Incorrect. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> They accept the evidence just like any other astronomer for distances, existance of galaxies, etc. They don't have to have a "belief" in galaxies. The evidence is there, and they agree with it. I think you have Hovind on your brain, and you associate everybody with him. I believe you are definitely extrapolating way to much.

xr

ex-robot

Hmmmm... I found something else above it when I searched.

<a href="http://a400.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/ftp/bcb/html/b61/b61.html" target="_blank">BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PROGRAM NOTES ON CLOSE BINARIES </a>


Bibliography of Close Binaries ( BCB )
<a href="http://www.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/ftp/bcb" target="_blank">http://www.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/ftp/bcb</a>

The Bibliography of Close Binaries ( BCB ) is published by International Astronomical Union Commission 42: Close binary stars / Etoiles binaires serres. It replaces the Bibliography and Program Notes on Close Binaries ( BPN ) from issue 66 ( June 1998 ). BCB/BPN are available from issue 60, May 1995 onwards as HTML, or as DVI or PS files in uncompressed or compressed (GZIP) form.