A "Live" Discussion on Old Earth Creationism (Part 1)

Young Earth Advocates Argue
Against An Ancient Universe

— Using Purely Human Speculation!

A "live" discussion with young earth advocates regarding the fact that the
universe is ancient. See specifically how they offer nothing more than their
merely human speculation. (A few blatantly misrepresent everything in sight!)

Part 1

Take your pick (click):

LURlist Archive 250, Message 1 (6/18/99)
I begin the discussion. I advocate an ancient universe based on the direct empirical information that astronomy has provided to us.
LURlist Archive 250, Message 11 (6/18/99)
Several people responded. They did not recognize my "empirical information". I start getting into some details.
LURlist Archive 251, Message 4 (6/19/99)
I respond to Andy Boshers' "apparent age" argument.
LURlist Archive 251, Message 5 (6/19/99)
I respond to Gil Yoder's various claims: that the ancient universe information is not really "empirical"; that Big Bang cosmology is conjectural (how is this even relevant?); that young earth creationism is not just human interpretation; and various speculations he makes.
LURlist Archive 252, Message 1 (6/20/99)
Andy Boshers tries to say he did not advocate the "apparent age" concept. I prove that, yes, he did, whether he wants to call it that or not.
LURlist Archive 252, Message 2 (6/20/99)
Kyle Cowden claims "yom" must mean a literal day. I show that it does not. Like others, he brings up the conjectural nature of Big Bang cosmology. I ask what he's talking about since the Big Bang is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.
LURlist Archive 252, Message 4 (6/20/99)
Brian Galloway advocates the "apparent age" concept, so I discuss that subject some more.
LURlist Archive 253, Message 4 (6/21/99)
Dr. Marion Fox enters the discussion and makes several criticisms. I show how every single one is irrelevant to what I have been discussing. I also immediately "call him" on his use of prejudicial terminology in attempting to paint the concept of an old universe/old earth with the brush of "atheism," - a rhetorical technique many young earth creationists love to use. (The misrepresentation begins - whether intentional or not - and I forthrightly try to clear it up.)

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ HOME ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:59:29 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=250
1

With regard to the idea that the universe and the earth are quite ancient (billions of years old) and that Genesis can be interpreted in a manner corresponding with this, I have found that some diversity does exist in the Church of Christ.

As examples, here are several prominent members of the Church Of Christ who are either "old earth creationists" or "theistic evolutionists":

Dr. Batsell Barrett Baxter (religion)
Dr. Neal Buffaloe (professional area not known)
John N. Clayton (geology)
Dr. Donald England (chemistry)
Dr. Norman Hughes (biology?)
Dr. Archie Manis (biology)
Dr. Jack Wood Sears (biology)

Also, the late Dr. J. D. Thomas (religion) was an old earth creationist.

Since astronomy provides immediate empirical information that the universe is billions of years old, I'm curious as to the impact this has on those young earth creationists who maintain an "exclusivist" attitude (i.e., who say you must believe in young earth creationism or you are a heretic), and on how this affects young people who grow up in the Church of Christ being taught young earth creationism who yet find that this particular aspect of their religious teaching is ill-founded. What do most of these young people do as their education progresses and their thinking matures along these lines?

I close here with a quote from Dr. Bert Thompson, a prominent young earth creationist in the Church of Christ.

"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."

-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Scientific Considerations
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:27:30 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=250
11

Wow! I appreciate the wide response. All of you raised a number of very fruitful points for more detailed discussion. For the moment I shall focus on just one of them, and maybe get to others in due course.

I noticed that none of you commented on the quote I gave from Bert Thompson, of which a part was "Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it." The thrust of what Thompson is getting at is that there is truth, and then there is our human apprehension of truth - which is fallible. This is just as true of our human interpretations of the Bible is it is of our human examinations of the world and interpretations of the information we acquire.

But, I'm already becoming distracted. My point is that truth-seeking carries responsiblities, and considerations. One of those considerations is that truth cannot contradict truth.

When I stated that "astronomy provides immediate empirical information that the universe is billions of years old," that's precisely what I meant. Terry Highwater understood me best when he wrote:

"Yes, there is physical evidence or "brute facts" available to people living today and equally available to the Bible believer and unbeliever, but it is in the interpretation or logical reasoning from that evidence where the real difference lies. As you know, one's presuppositions have a great deal to do with one's interpretation (e.g. uniformitarianism) -- just as it does with interpreting the Bible itself.

Well, what are the facts? The facts we have are the propagation time of light and the distances of all of the things that we observe in the universe outside of a 6,000 light-year "shell" around the earth. (A light-year being, of course, the distance that light travels in a year.) For example, the NEAREST galaxy to our own Milky Way is the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), which is approximately 150,000 light-years away. In 1987, astronomers observed the explosion of a supernova within the LMC, designated SN1987a. SN1987a is approximately 169,000 light-years away from the earth. This means that we literally observed a stellar explosion that occurred about 169,000 years ago (because of the propagation time of light).

When Gil Yoder states "that there is no available empirical evidence of a young or old earth, because that would require one to witness creation," this is completely wrong. Big Bang cosmology, or "witnessing creation" has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

You can't sweep this kind of direct empirical observation under the rug by trying to wish it away by claiming it doesn't exist. It certainly does exist. There is no "presupposition" here. When you see lightning, then hear the thunder a few seconds later, you can estimate the distance that you were from the lightning by knowing the propagation time of sound. This is an analogous situation.

Here is a passage that is, I think, relevant:

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
(Psalm 19.1-4a)

Billions of years of history are literally written in the sky, if you read it and understand it. To purposely deny, reject, ignore, or misrepresent God's handiwork is to challenge God. It is the duty of truth-seekers to address the facts and not "skip over" the ones they dislike.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Scientific Considerations
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:09:32 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=251
4

Thank you for your response, Andy. I appreciate that you acknowledge that the evidence does indeed exist that the universe and the earth are quite ancient, instead of trying to claim that there is no evidence.

The idea of apparent age basically says that even though the evidence, including the direct empirical observations, regarding the ages of the universe and the earth do indeed show us that both are billions of years old, all of this evidence is irrelevant and misleading. But note that the apparent age argument acknowledges that the evidence for ancient ages does exist. Thus, because of the direct empirical observations and on the related evidence that is consistent with these, it is perfectly reasonable for truth-seeking people to accept the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of old.

In my last post, I pointed out the example of SN1987a (of which astronomers are still carefully watching its ensuing developments). What the apparent age argument implies is that everything we see of the entire universe outside of a "6,000 light-year shell" around the earth, which includes the vast bulk of our own Milky Way galaxy and every single one of the millions of other galaxies in the universe, all of it is simply an illusion or mirage.

In addition, the apparent age argument requires us to discount not only astronomical observations of events (such as the explosion of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud approximately 169,000 years ago), but also ancient events right here on earth, such as the death of the "Berezovka mammoth" about 40,000 years ago. The mammoth had fallen from a height and broken several of its bones, then died where it lay with the remains of the food it had been grazing still in its mouth. The apparent age argument says that, while this evidence does indeed show a "history" prior to the proposed 6,000 year old creation event, the history is only "apparent." In other words, the Berezovka mammoth was never really born, never really walked the earth, never really grazed on the hillside, never really fell off the embankment, never really broke its bones, and never really died.

Because of these implications, my claim (which is the same claim made by such people as Dr. Batsell Barrett Baxter and Dr. J. D. Thomas, as I pointed out as examples in an earlier post) is that it is perfectly reasonable for a truth-seeking Christian to refuse to accept the apparent age argument and to instead believe that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. Moreover, in accordance with the belief that "biblical truth does not conflict with scientific truth," then, as John T. Willis writes,

If both the natural world and the Bible are the works of God, whenever they seem to contradict one another, man has misunderstood either the Bible or the natural world.

(John T. Willis, Genesis, The Living Word Commentary, 1979)

Therefore, a truth-seeker can reasonably and legitimately take the view that the universe and the earth are quite ancient, and it is the HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the Bible as proclaiming a young earth that is in error.

There is precedent for this. The "controversy" is so long past that it has become so embedded in our cultural education that we don't even think about it. But it is extremely relevant to this topic. That is the geocentric/heliocentric controversy. The human interpretation of the Bible as advocating geocentrism lost out to the human interpretation of the scientific evidence as showing that the earth did indeed revolve around the sun. I simply point out this example here, but I shall discuss it further in another post.

(By the way: The theory of relativity has no direct bearing on what we are talking about, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it.)

Again, thank you for your response.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 1:12 EST ######
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:27:30 -0400, Todd S. Greene wrote:

This is a legitimate question about which I thought you might have been referring in your original post. My answer was in the form of the rhetorical question "The stars were made on Day Four. Were they baby stars that had to evolve or were they mature stars made with light that could be seen from earth?" A reading of the Biblical account of creation indicates that God created the heavens and the earth and all that was in them in a Fully Formed state. The chicken was first, not the egg. Adam was first, not a baby. Trees and plants were created full-grown, not as a scattering of seeds. How old did Adam look when he was one-day old?

The lights created on Day Four were "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." What use to man would have been the stars if God had not created them along with their light fully formed? I have no trouble believing that God created the light from them at the same time he created the mature stars. The theory of relativity is a funny thing and little understood by the vast majority of mankind (even among physicists, in my opinion). But certainly God is master of it.

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:12:25 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=251
5

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
Todd Greene writes:

I noticed that none of you commented on the quote I gave from Bert Thompson, of which a part was "Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it." The thrust is what Thompson is getting at is that there is truth, and then there is our human apprehension of truth - which is fallible. This is just as true of our human interpretations of the Bible is it is of our human examinations of the world and interpretations of the information we acquire.

Perhaps no one commented on Bert's quotation because we all agree with it. And while I don't think Bert was saying exactly what you say above, I agree that human judgment is capable of error both in interpreting scripture and in interpreting other information (including scientific). On the other hand, the Bible is by design capable of being understood, and it is possible to know what it says.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
Thank you for your comments, Gil. Obviously I disagree with the young earth creationist creed followed by Dr. Bert Thompson, but I certainly agree with him on the critical aspect of the nature of truth-seeking as imposing responsibilities on those who wish to claim to value truth which is why I quoted him.

With regard to your comment that "the Bible is by design capable of being understood, and it is possible to know what it says," please note that it is equally true that "nature is by design capable of being understood, and it is possible to know what it says." By pointing out the one, I hope you were not attempting to deny the other.

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######

But, I'm already becoming distracted. My point is that truth-seeking carries responsiblities, and considerations. One of those considerations is that truth cannot contradict truth.

Again, I agree with you, and I think everyone on this list would agree. Where we probably differ is that when the clear teaching of scripture contradicts what we believe to be revealed by science, do we give way to our reading of science or of the Bible. The only infallible guide is God's Word, so we give it greater weight.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
You could consider your statement that "The only infallible guide is God's Word" true in the abstract, but what does this mean in practical terms?

The Christian geocentrists taught that geocentrism was "the clear teaching of scripture." What was discovered, to the ultimate demise of the Christian geocentrists, was that what they thought was "the clear teaching of scripture" was really nothing more than "the clear human interpretation of scripture." Moreover, by raising human interpretation up as divinely infallible, they had put themselves into a position of what I call "implicit arrogance" by making their creed of geocentrism a measure of judging who and who was not a good Christian.

I point out this example, because it is parallel to the situation now with respect to "young earth" versus "old earth" views. While a great many Christians feel obligated by their adherence to truth-seeking to accept the facts that the universe and the earth are billions of years old (and they must modify their human interpretation of the Bible accordingly), the Christian "young-earthers" use the young earth creed as one measure by which to judge who and who is not a "good Christian."

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######

When I stated that "astronomy provides immediate empirical information that the universe is billions of years old," that's precisely what I meant.

Todd, you may have meant what you meant to say, but you didn't say what you meant. We all understood what you meant to say, but empirical evidence of creation requires experimentation with creation itself. That is of course impossible because it was a one time event. What you intended to say was what Terry Hightower wrote about physical evidence being available which could be interpreted as evidence of the Big Bang. (In fact I wrote that too.) Wherever we end up in our beliefs, all of us must do some interpreting of evidence to come to our conclusions, so all of us, so none of us have empirical evidence of our beliefs about creation.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
The examples I am discussing have nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology. I am talking about direct empirical observations RIGHT NOW. What does observing the Large Magellanic Cloud (whose front boundary is approximately 150,000 light-years from the earth) have to do with the Big Bang? What do CURRENT observations of the Andromeda galaxy at approximately 2.2 million light-years distant have to do with a proposed Big Bang 13 billion years ago?

What I am pointing out is that right now we have direct empirical observations of the fact the universe is much older than any mere 6,000 years. These direct empirical observations have nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology.

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######

Todd, let me use this to point out a number of assumptions you have made about this set of "facts."

1. It assumes that the speed of light has always been the speed we observe today. Measurements of the speed of light have only been carried out for the last hundred years or so. It is possible that in the distant past that light traveled faster than it does today.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
Assumes? The speed of light is a direct empirical observation. If you wish to dispute this, it is certainly reasonable to do so, then you need to do three things:

	1.	You need to understand at least some of the effects that a higher speed of light would have had, because
	2.	You need to find at least SOME evidence that such was the case, and finally
	3.	You need to show, based on this new information, precisely what modifications are required to the current distance estimates; indeed, you must show that the effects would be so incredibly drastic as to change, for example, a 2.2 million light-year estimate for the Andromeda galaxy into something much less than 6,000 light-years.

Indeed, with respect to 3, you must realize that our Milky Way is a member of a local cluster of galaxies (called the Local Group), of which the Adromeda galaxy is a sister galaxy. The Milky Way and Andromeda are the dominant (largest) galaxies of this cluster. The Local Group consists of about 35 large and small galaxies (like the Large Magellanic Cloud I have mentioned, and the Small Magellanic Cloud), and the Local Group has an approximate diameter of 7.5 million light-years. Adromeda, as I mentioned, is about 2.2 million light-years away from the earth (meaning that right now we observe Adromeda as it really was 2.2 million years ago). Note that these galaxies of the Local Group are the CLOSEST galaxies to us. ALL OF THE OTHER MILLIONS OF GALAXIES IN THE UNIVERSE ARE MORE DISTANT FROM THE EARTH, and thus represent periods of time farther in the past.

With regard to SN1987a, specifically, see
    http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/04/
More generally, see
    http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html
and
    http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/SubjectT.html

But to get back to the immediate subject, you have not pointed out anything whatsoever with regard to 1, 2, or 3. You simply throw out "Well, maybe the speed of light was different in the past" without thinking through any of the details of what you are saying.

What are the facts? Direct empirical observations of the speed of light tell us what that speed is. Such observations, as long as they have been made, have shown no deviation within the measurement limits of our technology.

Even if the speed of light was different in the past - for which there is no evidence - was it faster or slower. Why? Under what conditions? What would be the effects of a different speed of light, especially one that is much, much faster than now? Finally, how fast would the speed of light need to have been in order to bring the entire universe, all of the millions of galaxies, each galaxy containing millions or billions of stars, into view, and wouldn't this extremely high-energy light have "roasted" everything?

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
2. It assumes that the size of the universe is accurately known. The present methodology for measuring the distant galaxies involves the interpretation of the red shift from those galaxies, and that interpretation is in part based on the assumption of the Big Bang. It is possible that that the light from the stars is red shifted for reasons other than recession. If this is true, the interpretation of the facts would be skewed, and the stars could be closer than you imagine.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
But note that there are plenty of examples of galaxies for which distance estimates based on red-shift is not relevant. As I have stated, Big Bang cosmology has nothing to do with my examples of direct empirical observations of the fact the universe is much older than 6,000 years.

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
3. It assumes that light always travels along the curvature of space. There is more we don't know about space and time that what we know. We will no doubt learn many things about the nature of space in the future that will surprise us. Some scientists have postulated the possibility that light can take shortcuts through space so that instead of taking 100,000 years light from a star 100,000 light years from earth could possibly arrive at earth in a matter of days, weeks or months. So then, even if our assumed distances to the distant space objects is correct, the assumed times that their light takes to reach the earth might not be correct.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
You keep using the word "assumes." Let's be clear here about who is "assuming" what. I am the one who is "assuming" what is currently observed (the empirical observations). You are the one who is assuming things that "might" be, things that we "may" learn in the future, things that some have "postulated." I just wanted to clarify this.

By the way, when you say "some scientists" have postulated these supposed shortcuts, would you please refer to them by name and cite their specific articles so that we may all refer to the information. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of your idea. This is pure speculation.

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
My point, Todd, is this. Until we know everything about the nature of light, space and time, our interpretation of the facts that you have mentioned are just that: interpretations. And because they are based on incomplete evidence, the chances that our interpretations are wrong are great. Perfect interpretation of the evidence requires an omniscience no man will ever have. However, if an omniscient being exists, He could interpret the information for us and tell us the truth. Those of us who are wise enough to accept His explanation then would know the facts, even if they seemed to contradict their own perception.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
No. I am saying that these are the empirical facts, and there is no legitimate interpretation based on these empirical facts that is consistent with a 6,000 year old universe.

I must point out that, as yet, you have not disputed a single one of the empirical facts. All you have done is raised speculations.

Moreover, you cannot take a young earth creed base on a human interpretation of the Bible and then raise this human creed up as being itself divinely infallible. Perfect interpretation of the Bible requires an omniscience no man will ever have. <grin>Woman, on the other hand...</grin>

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######

Todd, I have looked in the skies and wondered as the psalmist at the majesty they proclaim about God, but in my 46 years I have never seen a single word "literally written" there, much less "[b]illions of years of history." On the other hand 4,000 years of history (from creation to the Christ) are indeed literally written in the Bible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That history, beginning with the creation of the earth, then the stars of the universe, and finally man, is guaranteed by its writer as a perfect history of our past.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
I have never seen the Bible verse that states

"Ye shall believe that the heavens and the earth were created only a few thousand years ago, or thou art not acceptable to Christ."

or anything like it. Equivalently, I have never seen a Bible verse that says anything like

"Ye have fallen to the snare of the devil if thou believe that fossils show dinosaurs lived and became extinct long before man walked the face of the earth."

Along these same lines, Davis A. Young, an evangelical Christian who is a geologist, writes that a typical young earth creationist critique implies

that natural science, especially geology, is the only discipline that needs to distinguish between observation and theory. [It ignores] the fact that our understanding of the biblical text is also filtered through theoretical frameworks. All one needs to do is to look at the profession of biblical studies to realize how value-laden and subjective is that discipline! Exegesis and theology are as strongly affected by the approach one takes as is science. There is more consensus among geologists about the proper interpretation of rocks than there is about the proper interpretation of the Bible among theologians and biblical scholars....

(Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl)

(I refer to Davis Young, because I have found him to be a very clear-headed thinker in this context.)

In this same article, while talking about the comments of a young earth creationist against old earth creationism, Young also states:

The content of the Bible was repeatedly confused with his interpretation of it. [He] seemed to assume that "Scripture" is identical to "the traditional understanding of Scripture." ...there is no deficiency in God's written Word. Maybe, however, the deficiency lies in our fallible theological theories than in God's creation. My original article suggested that not God's written Word but our exegesis of parts of that Word may be deficient. ...Genesis can't conflict with the realities of creation, but our fallible exegesis can conflict with our fallible scientific interpretation.

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
Unlike the theories of science which are in a constant state of flux, this history is not difficult to understand, because it was written by a perfect and all powerful being who wants to be understood.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
<grin>Whereas human interpretations of the Bible never change.</grin>

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
You say on your home page, "Christians, of all people, have the duty to be intellectually honest." It is, however, intellectually dishonest to claim to believe the Bible and at the same time seek to subvert its instructions.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
Wait a minute. I'm talking about the ages of the universe and the earth. What are you talking about?

###### Gil Yoder, 6/19/99 8:13 CST ######
Todd, I believe you to be a decent man, but in order to cling to your honesty you should admit that the evolutionary theory of creation is in contradiction to the teachings of the Bible. It cannot both be true that creation occurred over billions of years and in six days. It cannot both be true that man came into existence relatively at the end of time, and "in the beginning." It cannot both be true that the earth was created before light and that light was created before the earth. Either the theory of evolution is false, or the Bible is false. The question is, Todd, are you honest enough to admit that, or will you instead "skip over" the teachings of God's Word that you "dislike"?

Your friend,
-Gil

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/19/99 12:12 EST ######
You are writing from the precise perspective that Young refers to, namely, that your interpretation of the Bible is the same thing as the Bible. My claim is that we should not do this. Moreover, because of this, and because of the clear empirical information regarding the great age of the universe (like the clear empirical information regarding heliocentrism), those who follow the young earth creed should not so adamantly hold up their human creed as a measure of who is and who is not a "good Christian."

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Apparent Age
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:36:45 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=252
1

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 13:19 EST ######
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:09:32 -0400, Todd S. Greene wrote:

Todd, I must decline your appreciation at this time. The "apparent age argument" that you summarize is not my position. Such a Creator who would purposely salt the universe with misleading evidence is not consistent with the honest God of revelation. That God created stars with light that can be seen from earth does not imply that God wanted us to believe that the universe is billions of years old.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 9:36 EST ######
However, please note that when you say "God created stars with light that can be seen from earth," and those stars are more than 6,000 light-years from the earth, and we observe the events of these stars from prior to 6,000 years ago (such as the SN1987a explosion that occurred about 169,000 years ago), and yet you claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, then you are indeed implying "apparent age." All of these claims together lead directly to "apparent age."

Let me show this implication more clearly. Let's think through some details. Let's begin by assuming, for the moment,

God created the universe 6,000 years ago.

Now we must consider the fact that

we see light from stars that are much, much farther away than 6,000 light-years.

So in correspondence with (1) we claim that

God created all of the light permeating the universe that would have come from all of the stars IF those stars had been around longer than 6,000 years.

There you go. That's "apparent age."

But there's even more to it. The stars aren't just "sitting there." The universe is dynamic, not static. Everything is constantly changing. Stars are moving around. Stars are interacting with each other and with other "stuff" around them, like gas clouds. Stars are exploding. I call these "events."

Let's consider my example of SN1987a again. That star is about 169,000 light-years away (approx. 10^18 miles). According to assumption (1) above, then, along the immediate "light trail" from the earth to the star of SN1987a (the progenitor of the supernova was a blue supergiant catalogued as Sk -69 202), only the light from the star to 6,000 light-years out from the star is "real" in the sense that it was really generated by the star. But the light from 6,000 light-years from the star to the earth is "apparent" in the sense that the star did not really generate it - God created the light "as if" the star had generated it. Note that in the case of star "Sk -69 202" this "apparent light" would be about 163,000 light-years of the light.

Thus, the event that we witnessed several years ago for star "Sk -69 202," namely, its explosion, designated SN1987a, NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, because it is an "image only" in the "apparent light." Here is a diagram of this:

According To 6,000 Year Old Universe Model


Sk -69 202                                                earth


   V                                                        V


   @===-----------------------------------------------------o


      /\                                                    |


start of "apparent                                      light of

 light" 6,000 ly                                        explosion

    from star                                         reaches earth



   "=" denotes "real light" (i.e., light from star since creation)

   "-" denotes "apparent light" (i.e., light not actually from star)

Andy, for whatever reason you may not want to call this "apparent age," but I have written all of this to show you that this is precisely what you are arguing for. I try to be careful to not misrepresent people. Of course, I'm not going to claim to be perfect. But I have spelled out the implications here, and if you see some flaw in the discussion, please point it out. Until you can show a flaw in my representation, I shall continue to refer to this as the "apparent age" argument.

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 13:19 EST ######
There is evidence in the universe. Sometimes the explanation of the evidence is difficult for man's wisdom. The old earth paradigm does not (in my opinion) have less difficulty explaining the majority of evidence.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 9:36 EST ######
Thank you for acknowledging that we are in the area of "opinion" instead of "critical biblical doctrine necessarily inferred which is a criterion for measuring whether or not a person is a good Christian."

Furthermore, I would ask you to please also acknowledge that when you say, "Sometimes the explanation of the evidence is difficult for man's wisdom," this is equally applicable to human interpretation of the "evidence" of the Bible as it is to information about the world around us.

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 13:19 EST ######
For the record, I believe that the dead animals and plants found in the earth were at one time alive since the creation of the world.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 9:36 EST ######
Perhaps you simply disagree with my particular example of the mammoth. However, would you also claim that the entire fossil record and the entire geological record have developed subsequent to a creation 6,000 years ago? (And don't forget, off the planet, the "dead" supernova remnant stars, like from SN1987a. These are just like fossils in showing us "apparent ages" past.)

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 13:19 EST ######
My reference to relativity in my prior post referred to the apparent speed of light and its relation to perceived time at a reference.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 9:36 EST ######
I don't understand its relevance to my example of SN1987a. But I did not interpret your reference to relativity as having anything to do with "apparent age." If I've missed some relevant point you are trying to make with regard to relativity, you'll have to explain it to me more.

###### Andy Boshers, 6/19/99 13:19 EST ######
I am curious as to your agenda with respect to this list. I did visit your web page at Greene's Creationism Truth Filter and did not read all of it (there are many words!) but I found some titles without bodies including "Creationism & The Church Of Christ (coming soon)". Am I correct to infer that our discussions on this list are research for a future web article on your site?

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 9:36 EST ######
Thank you for asking. That inference would be incorrect. I have no "agenda." That "topic" IS a project of mine, but it is an ongoing one. My discussion right here and now regarding old earth creationism is what it is, and not part of some "larger agenda." Just to let you know. I will say that from looking for information for that project, I discovered Gil Yoder's discussion forum.

(In fact, I'm not even sure if anyone in this particular forum could even help with that project unless they could specifically discuss the current status of those who advocate something other than young earth creationism. For example, I have almost nothing on Donald England or Neal Buffaloe, and I would like to learn about other people.)

I used to be a young earth creationist. In my first post on old earth creationism I mentioned that I would like to learn more about "how [young earth creationist exclusivism] affects young people who grow up in the Church of Christ being taught young earth creationism who yet find that this particular aspect of their religious teaching is ill-founded." Several years ago, I WAS one of those young people.

To tell you the truth, I had thought that the LURlist would have at least some people on it who accepted positions other than young earth creationism. (Where are they?) I know that there are old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists in the Church of Christ, and I know that young earth creationists can be quite antagonistic and prejudicial toward them. I thought I might encounter a few people on the LURlist from whom I could "discuss things with" in regard to old earth creationism or theistic evolution in the Church of Christ.

However, I have, so far, only seen young earth creationists respond to my initial post. To you, I will certainly respond (always in a courteous manner) when I see what I believe are mispresentations of the truth, because, for example, it was truth-seeking that led me away from young earth creationism, and it is truth-seeking that I continue to follow to this day.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 12:20:31 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=252
2

###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/19/99 16:12 CST ######
I was once asked by a dear friend, while discussing those that hold to theistic evolution in the church, "what do you call a man that believes that Jesus is the son of God, confesses him and was baptized for the remission of sins?" I replied simply, "Brother!" But the implications of a belief in old earth creationism is pervasive. The Old Testament supports the new and there is no form of exegesis that one can, being intellectually honest, fit billions of years into the creation account. The implications of this selective adherence to scriptures is extremely dangerous.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 12:20 EST ######
When you say "The Old Testament supports the new and there is no form of exegesis that one can, being intellectually honest, fit billions of years into the creation account," you are already assuming the very thing we are discussing without supporting your position with evidence or reasons.

There ARE forms of exegesis that do just this. There are also forms of exegesis that don't even try to fit billions of years, or millions or years, or even 6,000 years into the creation account, saying that the account is not even properly interpreted from our modern technical/scientific perspective because that is not the perspective from which it was written nor was that the perspective it was trying to convey.

I'm just pointing out that there are indeed other forms of exegesis that are intellectually honest. Are those who no longer interpret the relevant biblical passages as implying geocentrism being intellectually dishonest because they follow a form of exegesis that fits heliocentrism into the biblical account? I'm not getting into any details on this at this moment, because I am so far focusing on SN1987a as one example of direct empirical information that the universe is quite ancient.

###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/19/99 16:12 CST ######
First consider this admonition:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)

Now consider the effects of compromise if your defending your faith to a skeptic and you capitulate on the evolution/creation issue... If this person is versed in the Scripture at all, all he has to do is bring up this verse:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so...: or, that they may be} (Romans 1:20)

Imagine your problem if he asks, "Wasn't Paul supposed to be inspired? How could he make such a blunder? Was this evidence SEEN or UNDERSTOOD by ammonia/methane molecules?" Then he turns his attention to the Lord's words...

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

Imagine how his words would cut, "This is the Son of God?! He is either a fool or a liar." Too often we strain the Scripture through what is en vogue scientifically, and that is always changing. If you strain scientific concepts through the Scripture instead, and accept what passes as consistent, then you will probably be proven out eventually. How often, in the interest of compromising with the powerful "scientific" storytelling lobby, (in order to not sound ignorant) has the prevailing hypothesis fallen into disrepute leaving the evangelical floundering in his own "wisdom"? Now, with your indulgence, I would like to address your words specifically.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 12:20 EST ######
Imagine using error to try to "defend God's Word." To the skeptic who understands clearly the evidence of the ancient universe written in the night sky, the Christian who tries to get a hearing by proclaiming that the God's Word teaches that the universe is only 6,000 years old is actually damaging his evangelistic effort - just as any Christian who tried to proclaim that God's Words teaches geocentrism would damage credibility and make people think that obviously the Bible was NOT God's Word if it could teach such a thing.

This is exactly what Bert Thompson is talking about. If you are using error to defend God's Word, then you are not helping what you are trying to do. You are also certainly damaging your own credibility with respect to being a genuine truth-seeker, in the eyes of the skeptic. In fact, the skeptic can always say that he "has one over on you," because he accepts the truth (with regard to the ancient age of the universe) while you don't.

###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/19/99 16:12 CST ######

A lot has already been said concerning the interpretation of Genesis, but there is no semantic or linguistic way to interpret it any other way than it reads. The word translated as "day" is yom. This is almost always used in the since of a solar (24 hour) day. To make it completely sound, the modifier "there was evening and morning" removes any doubt. There's problem one. The diversity of opinion can be assigned almost entirely to the prolific writings of John Clayton of South Bend, IN. A careful review of his teachings would illustrate to you the errors of his words. He continually compromises Scripture, he vacillates as to the his science, models, conclusions and is often found denying his own words. When confronted with a glaring error, rather than answering or defending the conclusion, he attacks the one who asked the question. I have experienced this personally.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 12:20 EST ######
It is my opinion that you are not fairly representing this particular issue.

First, "Yom" in Genesis 2.4 immediately discounts your first claim.

Second, to say that "The diversity of opinion can be assigned almost entirely to the prolific writings of John Clayton" is just simply not right. I quote from Dr. J. D. Thomas book *Facts and Faith: Reason, Science, and Faith*, 1965 (pp. 163-164):

A valid Christian faith does not have to make a decision as to how creation came about before one can accept that it did. With these views or perhaps combinations of them [Thomas had just described various interpretations of the Genesis creation account, such as the "day-age" and the "revelatory days" concepts] we can see that it is POSSIBLE [original emphasis] to harmonize the statements in Genesis with the known facts of science and that there can be ample time for the earth to have existed as long need be to fit any scientific fact; that life on the earth for both plants and animals may have been for any period of time as far as the book of Genesis demands -- especially if "the days" can somehow be accepted as figurative descriptions of long periods of time (as Genesis 2:4b necessarily demands).

These words of Dr. Thomas were published (as noted) in 1965. This is significantly before John Clayton started his "Does God Exist?" project. Others, such as Dr. Batsell Barrett Baxter have written similarly. I gave a whole list of other prominent Church of Christ leaders who have taken this approach.

Third, you must consider that truth-seekers who approach the issue from the concept that truth does not contradict truth realize what the astronomical information is, realize the direct empirical information that it is, and therefore modify their own human interpretations accordingly. You cannot discount this by trying to paint the approach with an "ad hominem" brush. A truth-seeker must deal with the specific facts of the direct empirical information.

###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/19/99 16:12 CST ######

Terry Hightower and others have addressed the nature of evidence very well. But I ask you to consider a couple of other points. One is so devastating to the Big Bang theory, many old universe evolutionists are scrambling (some more publicly than others) for a more suitable model. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This law states simply that, as the "Big Bang" model suggests, that as a spinning piece of matter flies apart (in a frictinonless environment) the pieces will continue spinning in the same rotational direction. Ask your self then, "How is it that galaxies spin in different directions and on unequal planes and radii?" The second issue is trigonometry, it is the only way to determine within a reasonable degree of accuracy, distance between distant objects. One of my old astronomy texts stated that it is impossible to use trig past 150-200 light years or so. Everything else is a guess. There are many, many more issues, but I'll leave it at this.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 12:20 EST ######
Please point out where they have addressed the nature of the evidence. Some even tried to claim that the evidence did not even exist.

You, like others, keep mentioning Big Bang cosmology. I have repeatedly pointed out that Big Bang cosmology is not relevant to the details of the examples I have been discussing.

SN1987a was the explosion of a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy. SN1987a is about 169,000 light-years distant from the earth. Thus, the explosion took place 169,000 years ago, and since it took the light from the explosion 169,000 years to travel the distance from that star to the earth, we just recently saw the explosion (in 1987).

What does this have to do with the Big Bang? Please explain the connection to me, because you are, I think, the third person to bring it up. It has no relevance, but it is repeatedly mentioned as if it somehow discounts the example of SN1987a. If it is supposed to have some relevance then you are going to have to explain the relevance, because it is just not apparent to me.

And when you state that "everything else is a guess," you are again misrepresenting the true situation. It is NOT "just a guess." One method (of many different measurement methods), for example, of figuring astronomical distances has to do with luminosity and magnitude. Along with this are measurements of Cepheid-type stars.

But even without knowing the details of Cepheid stars, or the details of other distance-measuring methods, you would have to claim that ALL stars beyond, say, a few hundred light-years of the earth are radically different from all of the stars within a few hundred light-years of the earth. In fact, they would have to be so incredibly different that they would not, indeed, be stars at all. In other words, every single thing that we think of as stars that are relatively far away would have to be something different entirely. You may certainly claim this if you wish, but please note that when you do so you are venturing into the realm of pure speculation.

I have been pointing out the direct empirical facts. Everyone else, so far, has been dealing in speculation.

The facts are that the universe is much, much older than 6,000 years. SN1987a, from about 169,000 years ago, is just a single example. Note that the LMC galaxy, which SN1987a occurred in, is the CLOSEST galaxy to the earth out of all of the millions of galaxies in the universe. What does this tell you?

###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/19/99 16:12 CST ######

I close here with a quote from Dr. Bert Thompson, a prominent young earth creationist in the Church of Christ.

-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)

I am somewhat familiar with Dr. Thompson and his work, he has used these words before in relation to the propagation of "urban legends" supposed to defend creationism. Like the missing day being found, etc. His caution is well taken, evolutionists can make as many blunders as they wish. They simply go on to something else as quietly as they can. But when an apologist errs one iota, they shout it from the roof tops, "SEE! They are ALL fools!" Thus, we must be especially cautious about our evidence, and our proclamations. Stick to the Scripture and you are using sound words. Dr. Thompson and Apologetics Press offer many, well qualified materials. Perhaps you might consider reading some of them.

Todd, you take care. If you wish to discuss these issues in more depth, I would welcome your reply on the list or by private e-mail. I would also be glad to steer you towards some sound apologetics material.

###### Todd S. Greene, 6/20/99 12:20 EST ######
Please feel free to point out references. I have a couple of Thompson's books in my personal library, and AP material is well represented on the WWW. I also have several books from strictly Church of Christ authors, the majority of them from the young earth position.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Apparent Age
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:49:26 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=252
4

Hi, Brian.

Thank you for joining the discussion. You are referring to the "apparent age" argument, as others have. Please note that when you espouse the apparent age argument you are doing two things:

	1.	The apparent age argument acknowledges that the direct empirical information exists and that it does show a universe that is at least dozens of millions of years old. (While you claim that the evidence is "fake," you acknowledge that it exists.)
	2.	The apparent age argument, in the words of Andy Boshers, implies "a Creator who would purposely salt the universe with misleading evidence."

With this understanding of the implications of the apparent age argument, is this truly what you are saying?

Please see my most recent post to Andy Boshers regarding the apparent age argument, because there I go into some detail regarding just what it means to claim that God created "apparent light."

I do not understand why you mention the use of stars for navigation. Why does this have any relevance to the discussion?

God could have made two moons around our planet, instead of one (or none at all). God could have put us on a planet that was actually a large moon of a large planet like Jupiter. God could have set up biology differently so that we would be better suited to living on a planet like Mars, and living on Mars. There are an infinite number of things God could have done that are not the case. But this is all imaginative speculation.

I am dealing with direct empirical information. If you choose to deal in speculation, please go ahead. But please understand that when you do you cannot legitimately claim that what you are saying has any basis in fact. Indeed, the very nature of the apparent age argument is that it is competely unverifiable IN PRINCIPLE. Because of the very nature of the apparent age concept, not only is there no evidence or reason to accept it, there is no possibility for there to be evidence in verification of it - because it is based on the idea that the evidence does indeed show great age but that the evidence is somehow irrelevant. That is all I am pointing out.

By the way, I want to take this opportunity to state that I have absolutely no animosity toward anyone in this discussion. I know that with email you don't get to hear things like tone of voice, or see things like facial expressions. I understand that sometimes when you are being very straightforward in what you are writing, that "straightforwardness" can seem to be hostility. So I just want to say here that I am only being straightforward in my manner, and at all times I try to never be sarcastic or abusive. <wink>Actually, you may see me use the *reductio ad absurdum* form of argument, which generally comes across as sarcasm, but only to make the strictly logical point of showing the absurdity of a claim by stating a logical consequence of it that people see is absurd.</wink>

As a truth-seeker, I sincerely believe that the truth of reality is that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. I have been focusing on specific, direct empirical information that shows this. Along these lines, I further believe sincerely that Christians who believe in a "strong" concept of biblical inspiration have just as much basis for interpreting Genesis in accordance with the fact of an ancient universe, as young earth creationists have for interpreting otherwise. (And I have brought up the geocentrism/heliocentrism controversy as a specific historical example of the fallacy of placing human interpretation of the Bible on an equal plane with divine inspiration.)

Because of this, I sincerely believe that it is terribly wrong for young earth creationists in the Church of Christ to hold up young earth creationism as a religious creed by which Christians are to be judged as "good," or "untrustworthy," or "heretical."

As I said in my second post to the LURlist on old earth creationism a few days ago, all who have responded to my posts (<grin>and there are many!</grin>) have raised several issues which deserve detailed discussion from an old earth creationist or theistic evolutionist point of view. I immediately focused on the two points that I believe are foremost: (1) Truth-seeking demands that we accept the truth when we learn what it is (though I'm not taking a naive approach here; I know you must "test the spirits"), and (2) the truth is that the universe has been around much, much longer than 6,000 years. To my mind, all of the rest simply falls into logical place.

I think everyone here agrees with me regarding (1). It is (2) that we are in the middle of discussing based on my purposeful focus on it.

I just wanted to make sure everyone understood my approach.

Have a good week!

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

###### Brian J Galloway, 6/20/99 15:41 CST ######
Dear Todd

If God can make a tree full grown (or a man like Adam), why can he not make the light already at the earth? Otherwise man would not have seen stars for thousands of years. Since stars are used for navigation, we would have been at best limited in such.

In Him
Brian Galloway
Gloster St. church of Christ
Tupelo, MS

[ TOP ]

Part 1

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Old Earth Creationism - Some Clarifications
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:15:24 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=253
4

Hi, Marion.

Thanks for responding and joining the discussion.

I just want to clarify a few things.

First, red shift is one of the evidences used in support of Big Bang cosmology. It is also used to estimate the distances of very distant galaxies. It is never purported to be anything more than a *rough* estimate. Please note, carefully, that red shift is USELESS for measuring distances with "nearby" galaxies.

I have already mentioned that these distances are calculated using various luminosity and magnitude related measurements. Did you miss my comments on this? Here is an online reference that is directly relevant to this particular subject, and which is very informative at a summary level:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

I point out, yet again, that I have not referred to red shift or Big Bang cosmology in any way, shape, or form in any of my discussion. I do not understand why people continue to repeatedly misrepresent my discussion in this fashion.

Second, maybe you were not aware of this, but according to general relativity, space is indeed considered by astronomers and physicists to follow a Riemannian geometry, NOT a Euclidian one. General relativity REQUIRES a non-Euclidean, Riemannian geometry. So clearly, considering space to be Euclidean is simply not part of determining that the universe is much older than 6,000 years. Your representation that it is is simply incorrect.

Third, radiometric dating is specifically relevant to determining the age of the earth, not the universe. And note that I have, purposely, not even discussed this subject yet. (I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the direct empirical information of the specific example of SN1987a.)

Fourth, and finally, you use the prejudicial rhetorical technique of trying to claim that, "Of course, these are only atheist arguments. So we don't have to pay any attention to them." I would point out two things in this regard: (1) Just because an atheist makes an argument, this fact in and of itself has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is reasonable, or true. <grin>If an atheist says 2 + 2 = 4, are you going to disagree with him simply because he, an atheist, said it?</grin> I hope you see my point. (2) The practical fact of the matter is that every single bit of my discussion thus far has already been put forth by members of the Church of Christ who believe in a strong concept of biblical inspiration (i.e., the infallibility of God's Word), as well as by many, many other evangelical Christians who believe in a strong concept of biblical inspiration. I have not made any original or novel arguments. I have repeatedly pointed out this fact. I know that you know this. The characterization of this discussion as a "Christian versus atheist" debate is completely incorrect, because of the fact that the information I am pointing out regarding an ancient universe, and the old earth position, is advocated by *Christians,* not "just atheists."

Very sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

###### Marion R. Fox, 6/21/99 16:41 CST ######
Marion Fox here,

I thought I would put my two-cents worth into this discussion.

There are two basic arguments which are employed to prove the universe is old:

The red-shift of the light from distant stars. This assumes several factors:

a.	The red-shift is caused by the Doppler effect.
b.	Space is Euclidean and not Reimannian.

The decay of radioactive isotopes. (Including the isochron method). These methods assume:

a.	The decay rate of radioactive isotopes is known.
b.	The decay rate of radioactive isotopes is unaffected by outside factors.
c.	The initial value of the isotope is known (actually, it is merely assumed).

These two systems are based upon extrapolation and in some instances (linear extrapolation where the rate is not linear). This is a common error made by atheists (they use linear extrapolation when the variables are not related in a linear manner).

In addition, atheists are frequently guilty of the fallacy of "denying the antecedent." For example they argue:

First Premise:	If the Christian can answer argument x then argument x has an answer.
Second premise:	The Christian cannot answer argument x.
Conclusion:	Therefore argument x does not have an answer.

(Where argument x is an atheistic argument).

Marion R. Fox
Professor,
Engineering Technology and Applied Physics
Rose State College
6420 SE 15th Street
Midwest City, Oklahoma 73110

[ TOP ]

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ HOME ]