[A prefatory note: Repeated, blatant misrepresentation has been
practiced in this discussion by many young earth advocates (though, of
course, not by all), as if this kind of approach is considered to be
completely fair in rhetorical maneuvers against the old universe/old
earth position - as if it is okay to sacrifice truth on the altar of
misplaced faith. Their prejudice against the old earth position appears
to be so incredibly strong that they cannot bring themselves to
acknowledge even simple truths in this matter (such as that the claimed
"comet mystery" is no mystery at all), and as a result they very
strongly resist taking seriously their responsibilities as truth-
seekers. Dr. Fox's presentation of the "Moon & Spencer conjecture" as
being some kind of legitimate criticism against the clear example of
SN1987a showing an ancient universe, demonstrates just this kind of
misrepresentative approach. Take a look...]
Dr. Marion Fox, I have to ask you, yet again, where are your citations?
You have none. My claim has been, and continues to be, that you (and not
you personally, but all young earth advocates) can provide no citations
for these kinds of "criticisms" of the ancient universe because you have
nothing substantive (nothing more than pure speculation) on which to
base your objections to the ancient universe that the empirical
information clearly shows us. Please disprove my claim.
(By the way, this is an entirely rational criticism of your position.)
The book *Thrice Upon A Time* by James P. Hogan is a fictional account
of a scientific theory of time travel which offers a significant level
of detail - far more detail than you have offered. Without any detail
and without any mathematical descriptions, what are you basing your
speculation on? If it is not based on anything, then it is no better
than fiction (and may even be worse just on the simple measure that
writers such as James P. Hogan provide more detail for their fictional
"theories" than you have provided for yours).
The ideas that you propose, which are contrary to the extensive
empirical information that we currently possess, do not even rise to the
level of hypothesis, because hypotheses are developed based on, for one
thing, trying to explain some piece of empirical information that is not
understood and, for another thing, possessing enough detail to give some
idea of how to go about "checking things out." You have provided nothing
of the kind. You simply throw out your pure speculation and want
everyone to consider it on some kind of serious level, even though you
have not provided the detailed kind of idea that can be considered in
this way. That is fine with me if that is what you wish to do, but I
want everyone in this forum to be aware of the fact of the matter with
regard to this.
I'm sorry, Dr. Fox, but mere speculation is not the same as logical
criticism, it is not the same as reasoned hypothesis, and it is
certainly not the same as a large body of empirical information. If you
want to try to contradict in any serious way the entire astronomical
community and all of the empirical information that that community has
acquired over the last hundred years, then you have to do much, much
better than this - and I have to say that you have your work cut out for
you. Mere rhetoric just doesn't cut it. You really have to do the
serious work if you want your ideas to be considered seriously.
(By the way, this is an entirely rational criticism of your position.)
Perhaps you mistake where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof
lies squarely and firmly on you. This is 1999, not 1799. Today we
possess a very extensive set of empirical astronomical information that
is relevant to this matter. It is CONSISTENT, and it SHOWS that the
universe has been around far longer than 6,000 years. NONE of it is
consistent with the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old. What
I have presented in my discussion with regard to the empirical
information that the universe is quite ancient is the simple truth of
the matter. Today, this is a fact, just as much a fact as the fact that
the earth goes around the sun and that Pluto has a moon and that our
Milky Way galaxy is just one galaxy out of millions in the universe.
You are the one attempting to propose a novel, highly unusual
speculation to go along with an idea for which you have absolutely no
empirical information or justification. It does not even constitute a
decent hypothesis - and as people who have training in science, you know
this and I know this, so please stop beating around the bush on this
matter trying to pretend to the people in this forum that you are
presenting some kind of serious idea. Please face up to your
responsibility as a truth-seeker and acknowledge the truth of the matter
on this. You have not yet even tried to attempt to detail a hypothesis,
theory, or criticism in your discussion. You have not yet presented a
single bit of empirical information in support of your thesis. You have
not cited one single astronomical expert who would attest to the
credibility of your proposal.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.
(By the way, this is an entirely rational criticism of your position.)
And then *you* ask *me* for citations? Here is an honest question: Why
are you even asking? Are you ignoring the several references I already
provided? Did you take a look at any one of them at all? (Remember, to
people with email, online references are typically "just a click away.")
If you looked at them, then why would you try to rhetorically pretend
here that I did not give any? If you did not even check them out, then
why do you not address what they show but instead ignore the
information?
How many more references do you want? 10? 50? 100? 500? Indeed, if my
position is the speculative, unsupported one, then why would you even
need to use discredited conjectures, like Moon & Spencer's 1953
speculation, to try to criticize it?
Here is a fact: I have accurately represented the truth of the matter
with regard to what the empirical information we have shows us about the
ancient universe. (I do NOT expect anyone to "take my word for it." I
EXPECT you, if you are a genuine truth-seeker, to check out the relevant
information, and based on THAT I am telling you that you will see that
my claims are credible and accurate. On the other hand, if you can't
bother yourself to take any time to "check things out," then you can't
genuinely claim to be a truth-seeker because you haven't exercised the
requisite responsibility and thus have no right to pretend that you
have.) You have, so far, refused to acknowledge that I honestly
represented the empirical information. When I was discussing the crystal
clear example of SN1987a, I presented references along with my
discussion. If you discount these references because you think they are
somehow wrong, then you must explain specifically why you are refusing
to acknowledge them as legitimate. I provided references in my "Moon &
Spencer (Part 2)" post. What about those? Why don't they count? Please
explain yourself.
(By the way, this is an entirely rational criticism of your position
based on practical considerations of credibility.)
To accommodate even you who are extremely reluctant to acknowledge the
veracity of my representations, here are additional references regarding
empirical astronomical information of the ancient universe:
Ned Wright, Astronomer (Ned has a nice web site covering a lot of information; when you go to this link, go to the bottom and look at the three areas "Cosmology Tutorial," "Relativity Tutorial," and "Cosmological Fads and Fallacies"):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html
Cepheid Variables In Galaxy M100:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/94/49.html
Galaxy NGC 4881 and the Coma Cluster:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/95/07.html
CASTLE (CfA-Arizona Space Telescope LEns) Survey of Gravitational Lenses:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/
Astronomy 535 Observational Techniques:
http://charon.nmsu.edu/~holtz/a535/ay535notes/index.html
AstroWeb: Astronomy/Astrophysics on the Internet:
http://www.stsci.edu/astroweb/astronomy.html
Scientific Evidences For The Universe's Age:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/c_t/c_t9.html
1998 Research Papers and Reports on Scientific Discoveries Relevant to the Christian Faith:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/1998bib.html
#YOUNG-EARTH VS. OLD-EARTH DEBATE
|
Specifically on the curvature of the cosmos:
Finally, just for your personal interest, here is an audio debate
between Dr. Hugh Ross (old earth) and Kent Hovind (young earth):
Go to your library and examine any professional scientific
astronomy-related journal. Even check out the more serious "popular"
magazines such as *Scientific American*, *Astronomy*, *Sky & Telescope*,
and so on. Take a look at any recent astronomy textbook (even any
textbook within the past 30 years!).
The fact is, Dr. Fox, with respect to the relevant empirical information
in this old universe/old earth discussion, I have been representing the
truth of the matter accurately, while the whole time you have been
misrepresenting and obfuscating virtually everything. "Moon & Spencer"
indeed! Such a pathetic attempt is beneath you. And the fact that you,
still, refuse to acknowledge the incorrectness of that conjecture (that
you presented) speaks to the reluctance with which you take your
responsibility to represent things accurately in this discussion.
Dr. Fox, do not attempt to misrepresent me again with your false claim
that I have "provided no citations or references." (Note: This warning
may have something to do with your motives.)
For those who might be thinking in the back of their minds that there
might be a huge scientific "atheistic conspiracy" (or perhaps that
scientists are all just a bunch of "yo yos" as at least one person in
this forum has expressed), well, again, that's a nice speculative
notion, but where is the evidence? Out of the huge conspiracy of
hundreds (thousands?) of astronomers all over the world, coming from a
wide variety of religious and political persuasions and cultures, there
would be at least a few dissenters who would be pointing out to us the
critical empirical information that contradicts the "sophisticated
cover-up of the conspirators," so anyone who would try to go with this
conspiracy claim lies under a severe burden of proof. (Truly, you can
claim whatever you wish to claim, but backing it up is another story!)
Dr. Fox, you write that:
|
Todd has not cited any authorities that give the geometric shape
of the Universe (a point which I requested in a prior post). I
realize there are objections to the Moon and Spencer viewpoint.
I did not advance it as "the one and only explanation of the
problem" but as an example of the real problem in trying to date
the Universe by the method used by Todd.
|
(Your entire post is copied at the end of my post, for easy reference.)
In fact, despite this (umpteenth) misrepresentation, I did indeed
address this point, and I started by citing no less an authority than
Albert Einstein. I discussed this point in my "Moon & Spencer (Part 1)"
post, and again in "Moon & Spencer (Part 2)." Here is the 1916 quote
from Einstein I gave in Part 1, because it bears repeating:
|
We already know from our previous discussion that the
behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks is influenced by
gravitational fields, i.e. by the distribution of matter. This
in itself is sufficient to exclude the possibility of the
exact validity of Euclidean geometry in our universe. But it
is conceivable that our universe differs only slightly from a
Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more probable,
since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding space
is influenced only to an exceedingly small extent by masses
even of the magnitude of our sun. We might imagine that, as
regards geometry, our universe behaves analogously to a
surface which is irregularly curved in its individual parts,
but which nowhere departs appreciably from a plane: something
like the rippled surface of a lake.
|
Yes, Dr. Fox, I know that these comments of Einstein's are several
decades old, but I immediately followed that quote with this paragraph:
|
Subsequent astronomical investigations have led astronomers
and astronomical physicists to think of the entire "lake"
itself (the entire universe) as being curved in a *large-scale
manner*, similar to the way we think of a lake as being
relatively flat while the whole time being fully aware of the
facts that in the small-scale there are ripples and waves and
in the large-scale the lake follows the spherical curvature of
the earth. But this does not in any way prevent us from using
Euclidean trigonometry to calculate distances, because the
differences between the calculations derived from the
(essentially incorrect) Euclidean "assumption" and the more
complex calculations derived from the (essentially more
accurate) non-Euclidean geometry are so small that they can be
ignored. In other words, the Euclidean-based calculations are
a *very good* approximation of the more accurate non-Euclidean
based calculations in most contexts.
|
In Part 2 I followed this up with:
|
However, space does indeed possess a curvature that can be
described using Riemannian mathematics (as I have stated
repeatedly in previous posts), just as Einstein used it (and
as physicists have subsequently developed its application).
(See my previous post on this, "Moon & Spencer (Part 1).") For
example, Einstein's general relativity describes how space is
curved by the mass of the sun in the relatively immediate
vicinity of its surface enough so that the deviation of the
path that light follows from stars that are behind the sun but
just below the surface (relative to our observing them from
the earth), are actually seen on the earth as being just over
the surface of the sun. This prediction of general relativity
has been well corroborated by the empirical information that
has been gathered regarding this effect of curved space.
Additionally, I provide you with some online links showing
specific empirical examples of the fact that space does indeed
have a curvature based on matter affecting the shape of space
in the manner described by Einstein (and not Moon & Spencer!):
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/18/index.html
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/43.html
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/14.html
and finally (in my opinion, the "neatest" one)
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/10/A.html
By looking at these observations from the Hubble space
telescope, you get to see specific examples of what happens to
light from astronomical entities that gets "gravitationally
lensed" (light traveling through space that is curved by
significant mass along the line of sight between the earth and
these entities we are observing).
Again, I point out here the fact that none of this is relevant
to SN1987a (nor to the Large Magellanic Cloud which SN1987a is
in), or other astronomical entities in "near space," because
the curvature of space is not enough at this short range (only
about 169,000 light-years distant) to significantly alter the
result obtained using a "flat space" (Euclidean) model. (And
there is no unusual, highly dense mass between us and SN1987a;
if there was, we would see the distortion effects of the
gravitational lensing.)
We do not observe multiple, distorted images of SN1987a nor of
the Large Magellanic Cloud, as we WOULD see if light followed
an extreme curvature as conjectured by Moon & Spencer. In
other words, no empirical information exists to indicate that
the idea that Dr. Fox has advocated (in criticism of my
SN1987a example) is correct, AND all relevant empirical
information that does exist indicates otherwise.
|
And, look Dr. Fox, here is another misrepresentation in your comment
just by using the phrase about "the real problem in trying to date the
Universe by the method used by Todd." Where have I even discussed
"trying to date the Universe"? I have specifically corrected you on this
point in earlier posts. How many more times do I need to correct your
misrepresentation before you will stop doing it? Here are my comments
again (from a 6/23/99 post):
|
You state that "The reason one cannot discuss the age of the
Universe outside a framework of a cosmology is because all of
the measuring techniques require some basic assumptions." I
agree with you IN THIS SPECIFIC SENSE. But I am not talking
about the entire age of the universe. All I have claimed is
that the direct empirical information shows that the universe
has been around much longer than 6,000 years. I have not been
discussing anything about the age of the universe being, say,
13 billion years. All I have been discussing is the fact that,
with the specific example of SN1987a, we have clear empirical
information showing that the universe is AT LEAST 169,000
years old.
|
Dr. Fox, why must you rely on such repeated misrepresentations of my
discussion, and the old earth position in general, in trying to justify
your position? If your position is so good, and so right, and so true,
and you are such a good advocate of the young earth position, then why
do you depend on such frequent and common misrepresentations in your
discussion? Those who genuinely seek the truth want to know.
And look! Here is further misrepresentation: You try to pretend that I
have confused displacement and distance. Come on, Dr. Fox! That is,
again, another nice rhetorical maneuver, but it is absurd, and if you
have read my discussion at all, you know that you are misrepresenting me
on this. Indeed, as shown by what I wrote previously (and is repeated
just above) I said very clearly, "this does not in any way prevent us
from using Euclidean trigonometry to calculate distances, because the
differences between the calculations derived from the (essentially
incorrect) Euclidean 'assumption' and the more complex calculations
derived from the (essentially more accurate) non-Euclidean geometry are
so small that they can be ignored" and I followed this comment
immediately with, "the Euclidean-based calculations are a *very good*
approximation of the more accurate non-Euclidean based calculations in
most contexts." In fact, Dr. Fox, as you probably already know, men were
sent to the moon and satellites have been launched to orbit other
planets and even moons around other planets using Euclidean-based
Newtonian mechanics. Why? Because the differences between the two models
are so small on a short scale that they just don't matter.
For you to even further try to claim that "This assumption [space is
close to being Euclidean in the short scale] is implicit not explicit"
is totally misrepresentative and absurd, Dr. Fox. It is not "implicit"
at all. I have already specifically corrected you twice on this point in
weeks past. Why do you continue to intentionally misrepresent me on
this? (It is intentional, because you have CHOSEN to ignore the fact
that my specifically discussing the matter shows that it cannot be
something that I am *implicitly* assuming. How can it be implicit when I
have discussed it explicitly and addressed the point? You have been
corrected on this. Please stick with the correction instead of
continuing with your misrepresentation.)
Dr. Fox, do not attempt to misrepresent me again with your false claim
that I am "implicitly assuming" the near-Euclidean nature of space in
the short-scale. (Note: This warning may have something to do with your
motives.)
We have the empirical observations, and we do not observe the
highly-radical space curvatures that you are talking about. Stop
pretending otherwise. If such radical curvatures existed in "near space"
(on distances ranging up to tens of millions of light-years), then we
would have seen the distortion effects of these curvatures long before
today. What is observed, Dr. Fox? What does the empirical information
show us, Dr. Fox? Does the empirical information show radical
curvatures, or does it show near-Euclidean curvature in the short-scale?
(Especially on the scale from the earth to the CLOSEST galaxy in the
universe, the Large Magellanic Cloud, where SN1987a is.)
Dr. Fox, we are waiting for you to acknowledge the truth of the matter.
Your pure speculations are meaningless, even insulting to our
intelligence, when you have absolutely no empirical information to back
it up and have absolutely no intention of even trying to provide any.
We DO possess EXTENSIVE empirical information of which ALL of it shows
precisely the opposite of your speculation. Please - please - come up
with something more than ideas from your imagination.
After all of this, you try to pretend that "I have pointed out that Todd
has not proven his case simply because I did not disprove his argument"
as if this somehow constitutes some kind of fundamentally fatal flaw.
You think you are arguing with my "argument"? No, Dr. Fox. You are
arguing with the nature of reality as we have actually SEEN it. If this
was 1899 and we were talking about what could possibly be causing
perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, and we were stuck with the
observational limits inherent in late 19th century astronomical
technology, then you would have a point. But this is not 1899. For
decades we've had a number of highly sophisticated astronomical
instruments collecting information for us (some of them from above the
atmosphere in space to remove the filtering and blurring effects of the
atmosphere), we have computers to help us piece some of the more
complicated bits of information together (and to allow us to collect
even more information), we have atomic clocks measuring relativistic
effects, and on and on and on. Dozens of specific examples have been
observed of space having been curved by matter, and the effect is not
"implicitly assumed" but is a matter of empirical observation. The
curvature and the conditions of the curvature are understood more than
you are letting on. Your "objections" to the ancient universe are so
purely speculative that you deny the curvature effects that have
actually been observed (direct empirical information) and propose that,
no, the curvature MUST be RADICALLY different than the curvature that
has been observed, of an entirely different type and nature altogether,
and you never provide any empirical information (or even any hypothesis)
to back up your claim.
Despite your misrepresentation to the contrary, we are not in a
conjectural state on any of this. That the universe is ancient is what
we observe, based on the very simple fact that we do indeed observe,
right now, events that took place hundreds of thousands, even millions
of years ago, out in the universe. The fact of the observation itself is
the fact of the history. The speed of light for example has been
observed and measured very precisely for a few decades now. (Atomic
clocks, you know.) That light has actually "traveled the distance" is
shown, for example, by its dispersal (dimness, apparent magnitude) and
spectral broadening.
It is you who are disputing the vast amount of factual information that
we possess, thus the burden is on you to justify your absurd
disputation. The observations have been made. The unequivocal results
are in. The earth really does revolve around the sun. It is you who are
pretending that these things are "assumed" when, in fact, they are a
matter of empirical observation. It is you who are trying to pretend
that conjectures about the large-scale structure of the entire universe
(on the order of several billion light-years across) will, somehow,
change the small-scale structure around the earth that has already been
observed and measured, and for which there is extensive empirical
information regarding its near-Euclidean curvature. And along with all
of your misrepresentations you have not yet even actually tried to
justify the young earth position (from anything external to your human
interpretation of the Bible). I'm sorry, but pure speculation just
doesn't cut it. It's not relevant. You know this as well as I do.
And then, the worst claim of all, you try to pretend that you don't even
need to justify your position with the comment, "It is irrelevant
whether or not I disprove his argument on the supernova." Thank you for
admitting that, in reality, you really believe that none of the evidence
matters to you. Of your implicit claims, this is truly the most
dangerous one, the claim that "my human interpretation of the Bible is
right regardless of the evidence" (my statement of the implication of
your words). THIS is the great fallacy that the geocentrists fell into,
the fallacy that, even in the face of believing the Bible to be
inerrant, they refused to accept the empirical information of
heliocentrism because they were so strongly attached to their particular
human interpretation of the Bible.
The old universe/old earth advocates are right on this one, Dr. Fox.
(And even the young earth advocates who use the "apparent age" view
agree with the empirical information on this!) With regard to the
empirical information and with regard to biblical interpretation, the
old earth advocates, the ones who believe in biblical inerrancy, are in
the same position as the heliocentrists of the 18th century. "Now that
we realize, from the extensive observations that we have made (because
we are now able to make them), the truth of the matter with regard to
the nature of the temporal extent of the universe into the distant
past, we must figure out where we went wrong in our human
interpretation of the Bible in this respect, and we must seek to
determine a better interpretation."
I have never claimed that science is 100% certain. I have and will claim
that there are certain things about which there is relative certainty
because of the extensiveness and consistency of the empirical
information that has been gathered. The ancient universe falls into this
category, right along with a spherical earth, heliocentrism, a universe
populated with millions of galaxies, disease being caused by
microorganisms, radioactive decay, and other items I have pointed out
that no one has even attempted to dispute. Which of these other ideas do
you dispute? Are they less than 100% certain because they are
empirically derived? Perhaps. Are they certain enough to be considered
factual statements about the reality of nature which those who claim
otherwise must be strongly and critically challenged when they claim to
be truth-seekers while at the same time they don't even TRY to come up
with any reasonable justification whatsoever for their position - and,
even worse, claim that they don't even need to?
I'm sorry, Dr. Fox, but people who are really trying to seek the truth
deserve better than this. They deserve to have the truth of the matter
represented to them. They deserve to understand what the information
really is. They deserve to not be led astray by distortions and
misrepresentations. And they deserve to understand the logical truth
that epistemological considerations regarding levels of certainty and
uncertainty apply across the board, that no area of human
interpretation and understanding is exempt because BY THE NATURE OF THE
FACT THAT WE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT IT ARE HUMAN, *ALL* OF IT IS SUBJECT
TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR, INCLUDING BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. To try
to pretend otherwise is just a further misrepresentation on your part
(unless, of course, you are not human or are receiving direct divine
communication of some sort, and just have not revealed this to us yet).
Your discussion is not just riddled with flaws and misrepresentations,
much (most?) of its very fabric is woven with such material. Because of
this, the credibility of your whole argument is extremely deficient.
You are an intelligent and educated man, Dr. Fox. (I have never tried to
approach this discussion from any perspective different than this.) You
have no excuse for representing your position as poorly as you have. We
are waiting for you to face up to your responsibilities in this matter.
Acknowledge that which is true, represent information accurately (if you
are going to try to represent it at all) even though it is detrimental
to your position, then proceed with your argument from there.
"We...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" (Bert Thompson). People are so very quick
to agree with this statement, but many are ever so reluctant and slow to
actually follow it.
Very honestly and sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)
Apply your mind to instruction
and your ear to words of knowledge. (Proverbs 23.12)
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. (Matthew 22.37)
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
(1 Corinthians 14:33)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4.17)
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)
| |
###### Marion R Fox, 8/19/99 ######
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:31:39 -0400, Todd S. Greene writes:
Hi, Dr. Fox.
. . .
Some consider me to have a relatively aggressive style, but I will
not attempt to compete with you in this regard. Frankly, Dr. Fox, I
really don't have anything more to say in response to your posts of
this kind. I have specifically addressed how wrong your presentation
of the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture is. If you are unable to
respond, or simply choose not to respond, substantively to my "Moon &
Spencer (Part 2)", and instead you wish to pursue this other route,
please go right ahead and do so.
|
Marion here,
Todd has not cited any authorities that give the geometric shape of the
Universe (a point which I requested in a prior post). I realize there
are objections to the Moon and Spencer viewpoint. I did not advance it
as "the one and only explanation of the problem" but as an example of
the real problem in trying to date the Universe by the method used by Todd.
Allow me to set forth Todd's argument (as I understand it). The simple
equation, Velocity = (displacement)/(time), is the heart of Todd's
argument. If this is a misrepresentation of his argument, he will
correct it.
From this equation we determine that time = (displacement)/(velocity)
With this equation I am in total agreement. I pointed out that
displacement is different than distance. Todd has confused the two. I
used the position of Moon and Spencer to demonstrate that, under certain
conditions, light could travel great distances in short periods of time.
What we must do is determine the assumptions of Moon and Spencer to
determine if their assumptions are correct. Todd should cite the
authorities which refute the assumptions of Moon and Spencer. He has not
cited a single scholarly journal as evidence. Todd should give evidence
that the geometric shape of the Universe is a shape that demands that
light travel in the manner he claims it travels. In addition, he should
prove that it cannot travel in a different manner (through a 4th or 5th
dimension etc.).
Allow me to go back to the original equation.
Time = displacement / velocity
What assumptions has Todd made? First, Todd has assumed that light
travels in a straight line (space is Euclidean). This assumption is
implicit not explicit. He has denied the shape and conditions set forth
by Moon and Spencer but failed to tell us the shape the Universe.
Second, he has assumed that the velocity of light is constant and has
always been constant. Third, he has assumed there is not some unknown
factor that might change this simple equation. For example, did God
create space and stretch it out during the creation? If it started as a
"white hole" it might have time moving at different rates in different
parts of the Universe. The general theory of relativity would have time
to move at different rates because of different gravities.
My whole line of argumentation is that Todd cannot know with a
probability of 100% from science (empirical knowledge) but that we can
know with a probability of 100% from faith. I have asked for a quote
from a reputable scientist who claims that scientific knowledge is
absolute (100% certain). I have asked him if he believes Bible knowledge
is 100% certain. If he claims that neither are 100% certain he must be
either an agnostic or a cynic (or both). This is a logical conclusion of
his line of reasoning. If he properly admits that scientific knowledge
is not 100% certain and that Bible knowledge is 100% certain, then he is
irrational to reject Bible knowledge for scientific knowledge. I pointed
out that this would be walking by sight and not by faith. These
arguments have nothing to do with his motives but with the
argumentation.
This is what the whole line of reasoning is all about.
Todd continues:
|
Should you wish to address the specific points I made in "Moon &
Spencer (Part 2)," then we "shall meet again." Until then, "Adieu."
|
Marion here,
In addition, I have pointed out that Todd has not proven his case simply
because I did not disprove his argument. I pointed out that this
contains a logical fallacy (denying the antecedent). It is irrelevant
whether or not I disprove his argument on the supernova.
Brethren, Todd should admit that every theory of cosmology has major
flaws. These are serious unanswered questions that the theory does not
answer. Will Todd claim he has disproven each one of them because they
have problems? If not, how can he claim to have disproven the Moon and
Spencer theory? The Moon and Spencer theory may be wrong and there may
be some other similar explanation or some dissimilar explanation. Todd
has not given us a single reason to reject the most reasonable
interpretation of Genesis 1 as literal 24 hour days. Until he does I see
no need to discuss supernovas, redshift, radiometric dating, etc. If
Todd were an atheist I would discuss some of these other matters with
him. But he claims to be a theist, and I accept his word. If he is a
biblical theist, he should accept the Scriptures (faith) over and above
sight (empirical knowledge). This is why I appeal to the Scriptures in
my discussions with him. I have tried to warn him of the danger of
following the course he is on in his argumentation. These warnings have
nothing to do with his motives.
Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox
|