Patriarchal Life Span Exponential Decay
Charles A. Glatt Jr
The Biblical patriarchs’ longevity from Noah through Joseph declines by logarithmic curve (exponential decay) given by Lifespan (years) = 6664× e−dob /τ where e = 2.718... is nature’s constant, and dob is the patriarchs’ dates of birth since Adam, and τ = exponential time constant = 563 years. The equation was obtained by the natural logarithms’ linear regression Ln (lifespan) = 8.804 – 0.00177· dob The logarithmic graph’s estimate of the standard deviation (s.d.) is 0.263; the correlation coefficient is (–0.850). Ten (71%) of the data fit within the first standard deviation; the other four within two. The life span equation predicts 68 years of longevity at the time of Moses 1500 years from the flood (2580 years after Adam). The effect of Shem’s uncertain date of birth (not Noah’s firstborn son) is evaluated for its effect on standard deviation, the time constant τ, and the correlation coefficient, which will be shown to not undermine this paper’s compelling reason of using a logarithmic curve, i.e., as the most common curve in nature and, within nature, in engineering systems. This single correlation between Genesis life spans and the years following the Flood is of interpretable value to report again to review the work that has been done on this subject since 1948, to incorporate RATE project results, present the time-based analysis’s correlation coefficient, express the natural (Naperian, base e) curve as part of a family of the universe’s most common curve, the logarithmic curve, introduce common knowledge of life span during Joseph’s time, explore anomalies in relation to space expansion, and to present more information that discusses the statistical outliers and supports Moses’ recorded life spans.
A Review of the Lynden-Bell/Choloniewski
Method for Obtaining Galaxy Luminosity Functions, Part I
Jake Hebert and Jason Lisle
In the biblical worldview, Earth is not just another planet, but the unique world where God placed those who are made in His image. For this reason, some creationists have speculated that our world might have a privileged location in the physical universe. For example, some have suggested that the solar system may be near the center of a sequence of concentric shells of high galaxy number density, accounting for the “quantized redshifts” seen in cosmic surveys. In order to rigorously test for this possibility, it is necessary to first determine the true spatial distribution of galaxies in our local neighborhood. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to correct for the fact that some dim galaxies are too faint to be seen, an effect that becomes more severe with increasing distance. This correction is often obtained via a luminosity function, which gives the fraction of galaxies that fall within a selected intrinsic brightness range. Recently, the Institute for Creation Research has done additional work in this area. In order that the creation science community may be able to intelligently critique future galactocentric claims, this review presents a detailed description of one method for obtaining the luminosity function.
Full Article: [PDF]
A Review of the Lynden-Bell/Choloniewski
Method for Obtaining Galaxy Luminosity Functions, PART II
Jake Hebert and Jason Lisle
In order for cosmologists to discern the large-scale structure of the cosmos, it is necessary to determine the true distribution of galaxies in space. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to correct for the fact that some dim galaxies are too faint to be seen (the Malmquist bias). This correction is often obtained via a luminosity function, which gives the number density of galaxies (galaxies per unit of comoving volume) per bin of intrinsic brightness (or absolute magnitude bin). This review uses real data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to demonstrate one such method for obtaining the luminosity function, the Lynden-Bell/ Choloniewski method.
On Creation Toward Scientific Explanation:
A Directional Law
Jeffrey N. Howard
The various debates concerning man’s origin have lingered on at least since Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species was published in 1859. The crux of one such debate pits evolutionary theory against the theory of creation. Evolutionists have long argued evolution to be a more valid, logical, empirical, and scientifically credible explanation for man’s origin. However, I argue that the very process of creating things, specifically whereby man’s creations are designed to generate scientific data toward explanation and understanding, presents as a highly structured natural directional law—a law whose fundamental tenet is the initiation of action by the creator (man) onto that which is created, before the generation of data and subsequent explanation and/ or understanding is possible.