|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/7/2005 3:55 Clifton Healy wrote (12/7/2005 3:13): Todd Greene wrote (12/7/2005 3:00): Previously he stated that the day God created Adam he would look identical to a, say, 30 year old male. Todd: Lying again. Please point me to the place where I said "he would look identical to a, say, 30 year old male". Hmmm. I didn't did I? Yeah, Todd, desperate atheist trying to hold on to his rejection of his erstwhile faith has to invent claims. That's called lying. Clifton wrote, "By empirical appearance, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have nonetheless looked as though he were thirty years old (I'm picking a random, if symbolic number here for his age)." But - as we already knew - Chief Obfuscator Clifton loves his equivocation and ambiguity. He lives in it. The point - which Clifton will continue to ignore - is that if Adam did not have a belly button and did not have 30 years of wear and tear on his body then in fact Adam would NOT have looked as though he were thirty years old "by empirical appearance." Now I'm sure we shall continue to see further equivocations and obfuscation rolling in from Clifton's keyboard on this point! — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/7/2005 4:22 Skip wrote (12/7/2005 3:57): Todd Greene wrote (12/7/2005 3:43): Skip wrote (12/7/2005 2:23): [snip] On point two, - go ahead! Take a crack at it! See if you can really explain why both light, and energy, would take 14 billion years to get here when the Solar System's matter and energy were much together to these "early galaxies" at the source of the Big Bang. After you're finished with the first point, you may be able to account for it with variations in the speed of light... Hi again, Skip. First of all, I'm truly impressed by your Christian humility where you boast that you who has never had any formal study of astronomical science in your life thinks that you are so brilliant when it comes to astronomy that somehow in some magical way you know so much more about the subject than professional astronomers do that you've uncovered a fantastic flaw that all these professional astronomers seem to be blissfully unaware of. Typical young earth creationist attitude. One of the reasons why when it comes to science no one takes you guys seriously, except other young earth creationists, who know as little about astronomy as you do! Second,... well, this question has already been answered for you (apparently you didn't do enough of the reading you said you'd done! ): How could galaxies have gotten so far away in only 15 billion years? Third, will you please explain to me what considerations about a Big Bang some 14 billion years ago (or whenever it was) have to do with the fact that *right here in our own Milky Way galaxy* we observe events and processes that took place 6,500 years ago, and 20,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago, and so on? And in a nearby neighboring galaxy such as the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy we observed events that took place over 150,000 years ago, such as the stellar explosion SN1987A that took place about 168,000 years ago. I'm truly amazed at how much you know about me... That "answer" is awfully lame, especially since the scientists aren't able to fix a value on the Hubble "Constant". Apparently, we're moving *awfully* fast if it takes light *12 billion years* to catch up... It always cracks me up when I point out a young earth creationist's lack of humility in matters of science that he knows little to nothing about, and he disavows the lack of humility but then turns right around and immediately demonstrates the lack of humility I pointed out! This happens a lot! ROTFL! Skip calls the answer "lame" - meaning either he couldn't comprehend it or just didn't like it - regardless of the fact that that is the correct answer. But typical Dark Ages mentality of young earth creationist ideology, if it contradicts YEC or the young earth creationist just doesn't like it, then he will deny it or disparage it as much as possible. It's a good thing that Skip's level of understanding science isn't holding the rest of us back. Notice that Skip can't seem to figure out that if two people start from a single point and walk away from each other, then they're TWICE as far apart from each other as they are from the point they started from. He can't seem to figure out the expansion of space. He thinks that astronomers don't know anything at all about the Hubble constant. And this is the guy who told us he'd done his reading! — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/7/2005 3:58 Todd wrote (12/7/2005 1:33): Skip wrote (12/7/2005 8:56): First, the speed of light is not a constant. Recent experiments have conclusively shown that the speed of light is determined by the medium through which it is passed. Uh, Skip, over a hundreds years is not "recent." Again, I notice that a young earth creationist, in this case you, has entered what is known as a "red herring" into the discussion. But, by the way, is the speed of light in a medium faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, or slower? Since you've mentioned the speed of light in a medium, this is the question for you. [snip] Note that Skip has purposely chosen to refuse to answer the following question: Is the speed of light in a medium faster or slower than the speed of light in a vacuum? As is quite typical with young earth creationists, when it comes to the facts that show that they are wrong, they just bury their heads deeply in the sand. — Todd Greene [Editor's note: As far as I'm aware of, Skip never did answer this question, even though I asked him at least one more time. In fact, I think Skip ran away from the discussion thread right after this post.] |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/7/2005 4:27 Todd Greene wrote (12/7/2005 3:43): Skip wrote (12/7/2005 2:23): On point two, - go ahead! Take a crack at it! See if you can really explain why both light, and energy, would take 14 billion years to get here when the Solar System's matter and energy were much together to these "early galaxies" at the source of the Big Bang. After you're finished with the first point, you may be able to account for it with variations in the speed of light... [snip] Third, will you please explain to me what considerations about a Big Bang some 14 billion years ago (or whenever it was) have to do with the fact that *right here in our own Milky Way galaxy* we observe events and processes that took place 6,500 years ago, and 20,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago, and so on? And in a nearby neighboring galaxy such as the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy we observed events that took place over 150,000 years ago, such as the stellar explosion SN1987A that took place about 168,000 years ago. Oh yeah, yet again Skip ignored a specific request - I had written the following to Skip: Please explain to me what considerations about a Big Bang some 14 billion years ago (or whenever it was) have to do with the fact that right here in our own Milky Way galaxy we observe events and processes that took place 6,500 years ago, and 20,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago, and so on. And in a nearby neighboring galaxy such as the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy we observed events that took place over 150,000 years ago, such as the stellar explosion SN1987A that took place about 168,000 years ago. Will Skip address this, or will he refuse to address this question as well? — Todd Greene [Editor's note: Skip never did address the question.] |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 8:01 Jim Rondon wrote (12/7/2005 9:44): Jim Rondon wrote (12/7/2005 8:46): Jim Rondon wrote (12/6/2005 5:17): Nothing was created before God created, Todd. Exactly, Jim! You are correct. The example I provided you with is from the most recent news release at the Hubble Space Telescope news center. We're seeing the Crab Nebula (the leftovers of the explosion of a star) as it was about 6,500 years ago. Since nothing in this Universe was created before God created Universe, we know from seeing this Crab Nebula that the Universe has been around at least 500 years more than 6,000 years, and thus we know that God created the Universe before 6,000 years ago. That was my point, though I stated it in a joking way. So, you agree that God created everything? What I agree with is that if I grant you that God created the Universe, then on this basis since nothing in this Universe was created before God created Universe, we know from seeing this Crab Nebula that the Universe has been around at least 500 years more than 6,000 years, and thus we know that God created the Universe before 6,000 years ago. In other words, granting you the idea that God created the Universe does not buy you your young earth creationism, which is contrary to what you were implying. Theistic evolutionists agree with you that God created the Universe, and they also accept the fact that the Universe has been around for billions of years. Old earth creationists agree with you that God created the Universe, and they also accept the fact that the Universe has been around for billions of years. — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 8:11 Clifton previously wrote, "By empirical appearance, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have nonetheless looked as though he were thirty years old (I'm picking a random, if symbolic number here for his age)." But as we already knew our Chief Obfuscator loves his equivocation and ambiguity. The point - which Clifton will continue to ignore - is that if Adam did not have a belly button and did not have 30 years of wear and tear on his body then in fact Adam would NOT have looked as though he were thirty years old "by empirical appearance." And sure enough, just as I stated previously we now observe Clifton's continuing equivocations and obfuscations on this point. Clifton Healy wrote (12/7/2005 11:00): Please demonstrate that the quality of human somatic maturity necessitates the appearance of somatic "wear and tear." It is not necessary to my own argument, nor did I claim it. But since you charge my argument with requiring it, then you are obligated to make an argument necessitating a logical connection between somatic maturity and somatic "wear and tear." Remember, this must be a *logically necessitating* relationship, or else your charge cannot hold. What did Clifton write previously? "By empirical appearance, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have nonetheless looked as though he were thirty years old." But that is wrong. If Adam's body did not possess the wear-and-tear of 30 years of experiencing life, then BY EMPIRICAL APPEARANCE, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have NOT have looked as though he were thirty years old. This is the point that Clifton has ignored and will continue to ignore as he continues to present more of his equivocations. — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 8:21 Clifton Healy wrote (12/7/2005 10:51): If one imagines an historical trajectory for a complex ordered system, and then imagines as though God picked a point on that trajectory and called that system into being at that point, then one realizes that all the attendent realities necessary to realize that point on the trajectory come into being at the same time. Light would not have to spend time travelling since it would have been created simultaneous with all the necessary realities attendent upon it. It would have been created "fully mature"; i.e., as having travelled all the necessary distance. Thus, though Clifton himself is not an apparent age advocate, in answer to the question "Did the SN1987A explosion really happen, or is what astronomers observed merely an illusion created by God?" Clifton is telling us that apparent age advocates must answer "It's an illusion created by God." What do you know, Clifton finally got something right! — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 8:24 Nick Luquire wrote (12/8/2005 8:18): The sun goes down, but there is sunlight still on the way for about six minutes. Hi, Nick. Thank you for providing this real world example. By the way, at 93 million miles, it's closer to eight minutes. Regards, |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", xxx Clifton Healy wrote (12/8/2005 8:34): Todd Greene wrote (12/8/2005 8:11): Clifton previously wrote, "By empirical appearance, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have nonetheless looked as though he were thirty years old (I'm picking a random, if symbolic number here for his age)." But as we already knew our Chief Obfuscator loves his equivocation and ambiguity. The point - which Clifton will continue to ignore - is that if Adam did not have a belly button and did not have 30 years of wear and tear on his body then in fact Adam would NOT have looked as though he were thirty years old "by empirical appearance." And sure enough, just as I stated previously we now observe Clifton's continuing equivocations and obfuscations on this point. Clifton Healy wrote (12/7/2005 11:00): Please demonstrate that the quality of human somatic maturity necessitates the appearance of somatic "wear and tear." It is not necessary to my own argument, nor did I claim it. But since you charge my argument with requiring it, then you are obligated to make an argument necessitating a logical connection between somatic maturity and somatic "wear and tear." Remember, this must be a *logically necessitating* relationship, or else your charge cannot hold. What did Clifton write previously? "By empirical appearance, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have nonetheless looked as though he were thirty years old." But that is wrong. If Adam's body did not possess the wear-and-tear of 30 years of experiencing life, then *by empirical appearance*, when he was thirty minutes old, he would have *not* have looked as though he were thirty years old. This is the point that Clifton has ignored and will continue to ignore as he continues to present more of his equivocations. Todd: I know you know this, but simply saying something twice, in bold italics, is not an actually argument. Once again, you must produce an argument that demonstrates the logical necessity of the relationship between somatic wear and tear to appearing to be 30 years of age. Simply asserting that to appear to be 30 years old one must appear to have somatic wear and tear is not an argument. Bluster all you want, but you have neither demonstrated that I made the claim you said I did (a lie, I remind you), nor did you demonstrate that my argument necessarily demands the purported inference you assert. No, you actually have to do some work here, li'l guy. Make an argument or shut up. The Grand Equivocator Clifton strikes again! Now Clifton tells us that even though Adam empirically appears to have only 30 seconds of wear-and-tear (i.e., essentially none), Adam still empirically appears as though he were thirty years old! ROTFL! Clifton sho do love his equivocations! — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 4:09 I'm looking at the current poll results as of the time of this post, and I'm seeing 9-to-2, and I'm wondering how the two people can be so ignorant (this is not meant as an insult, but is a purely factual statement) about science that they seriously believe that the speed of light is infinite. This is a very sad thing. — Todd Greene Note: The poll I'm referring to was as follows at the time I made the post above: Question: Astronomy observes past events and processes.
|
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 4:22 Clifton Healy wrote (12/8/2005 8:38): Todd Greene wrote (12/8/2005 8:21): Thus, though Clifton himself is not an apparent age advocate, in answer to the question "Did the SN1987A explosion really happen, or is what astronomers observed merely an illusion created by God?" Clifton is telling us that apparent age advocates must answer "It's an illusion created by God." That is a complete mischaracterization of "created maturity" which I presented. There is, as I have explicitly noted, no illusion: the empirical reality is there. What is false (on the "created maturity" position) is the human interpretation of that empirical data. C'mon, Todd. Get it right. Unless of course you simply are that ignorant. Chief Obfuscator Clifton most conveniently cut away my quotation of his statement. Here is what our Chief Obfuscator wrote in the first place: Clifton Healy wrote (12/7/2005 10:51): If one imagines an historical trajectory for a complex ordered system, and then imagines as though God picked a point on that trajectory and called that system into being at that point, then one realizes that all the attendent realities necessary to realize that point on the trajectory come into being at the same time. Light would not have to spend time travelling since it would have been created simultaneous with all the necessary realities attendent upon it. It would have been created "fully mature"; i.e., as having travelled all the necessary distance. In other words, as usual, our Esteemed Equivocator never really says what he means, and never really means what he says. [chuckle] So let us see if Clifton can directly answer the question *without* his usual attendent equivocations: *According to the apparent age concept, did the SN1987A explosion really happen, or is what astronomers observed merely an illusion created by God?* Will Clifton answer (1) It really happened, or (2) it did not really happen and so is an illusion? My guess is he will do his usual thing and answer (3) some kind of equivocation that doesn't really mean anything. [chuckle] — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 5:00 I just realized I have been negligent in my duties. My apologies. Here is a picture of the supernova SN1987A that I have been referring to:
That picture comes from this source: Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape That is information about SN1987A that's at NASA's Hubble Space Telescope News Center website, as are all of the following: Hubble Space Telescope Resolves Gaseous Ring Around Supernova First ESA Faint Object Camera Science Images - Supernova 1987A NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Establishes Accurate New Distance Measurement To Neighboring Galaxy Hubble Finds Mysterious Ring Structure around Supernova 1987a Hubble Chemically Analyzes the Ring around Supernova 1987A Hubble Reveals Invisible High-Speed Collision around Supernova 1987A Shock Wave Sheds New Light on Fading Supernova SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring Supernova Shock Wave Is Producing a Spectacular New Light Show Enjoy! — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 5:14 I'm still looking for Skip's answer to this question: Is the speed of light in a medium *faster* or *slower* than the speed of light in a vacuum? — Todd Greene P.S.: Of course, the rest of us already know the answer to this question, but it will be instructive to see if the young earth creationist Skip will ever even get around to showing explicitly that he knows that *the "issue" that HE brought up in the first place* contradicts his young earth creationism. |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/8/2005 5:19 Here's another outstanding request of the young earth creationist Skip: Please explain to me what considerations about a Big Bang some 14 billion years ago (or whenever it was) have to do with the fact that right here in our own Milky Way galaxy we observe events and processes that took place 6,500 years ago, and 20,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago, and so on. And in a nearby neighboring galaxy such as the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy we observed events that took place over 150,000 years ago, such as the stellar explosion SN1987A that took place about 168,000 years ago. Was Skip maybe introducing a "*red herring*"? Would a young earth creationist really do something like that? [raised eyebrow] — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/9/2005 6:05 Nick Luquire wrote (12/8/2005 7:31): Todd Greene wrote (12/8/2005 6:14): I'm still looking for Skip's answer to this question: Is the speed of light in a medium *faster* or *slower* than the speed of light in a vacuum? — Todd Greene P.S.: Of course, the rest of us already know the answer to this question, but it will be instructive to see if the young earth creationist Skip will ever even get around to showing explicitly that he knows that *the "issue" that HE brought up in the first place* contradicts his young earth creationism. I don't know the answer to that one. I guess it would be a little faster in a vacuum, but that's just a guess. [snip] Hi, Nick. Thanks for helping Skip out. Earlier he was pretending that the speed of light in a medium, as opposed to the speed of light in a vacuum, was somehow in some magical young earth creationist way a problem for astronomy's observation of the antiquity of the Universe. *In fact*, as you have pointed out, the speed of light in a medium is *slower* than the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course, young earth creationists need the speed of light to be *faster* (and not just a little faster, but millions of times faster) than the speed of light in a vacuum! That's a big whoops for the young earth creationist Skip. But to take a little pressure off him, in my own experience I've had several other young earth creationist bring up this same point in the exact same way that Skip did, demonstrating the state of serious confusion about basic astronomy issues that exists in young earth creationist circles as they run around like headless chickens trying to prop up their failed religious dogma. With respect to real world astronomy (as opposed to la-la land YEC astronomy), it just so happens that the density of matter in space is so small that the deviation in the speed of light is so tiny that it is essentially the same as the speed of light in a vacuum (though it actually travels at an extremely tiny fraction of a percent *slower*, the difference is so tiny it is undetectable because the interstellar medium is so sparse). — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", xxx Jim Rondon wrote (12/9/2005 1:06): Todd Greene wrote (12/8/2005 8:01): Jim Rondon wrote (12/7/2005 9:44): Todd Greene wrote (12/7/2005 8:46): Jim Rondon wrote (12/6/2005 5:17): Nothing was created before God created, Todd. Exactly, Jim! You are correct. The example I provided you with is from the most recent news release at the Hubble Space Telescope news center. We're seeing the Crab Nebula (the leftovers of the explosion of a star) as it was about 6,500 years ago. *Since* nothing in this Universe was created before God created Universe, we know from seeing this Crab Nebula that the Universe has been around at least 500 years more than 6,000 years, and thus we know that God created the Universe *before* 6,000 years ago. *That was my point*, though I stated it in a joking way. So, you agree that God created everything? What I agree with is that if I *grant* you that God created the Universe, then on this basis *since* nothing in this Universe was created before God created Universe, we know from seeing this Crab Nebula that the Universe has been around at least 500 years more than 6,000 years, and thus we know that God created the Universe *before* 6,000 years ago. In other words, *granting* you the idea that God created the Universe does not buy you your young earth creationism, which is contrary to what you were implying. Theistic evolutionists agree with you that God created the Universe, and they also accept the fact that the Universe has been around for billions of years. Old earth creationists agree with you that God created the Universe, and they also accept the fact that the Universe has been around for billions of years. Nonetheless, God created. "Billions of years" does nothing to explain first cause, it only attempts to push it back. As far as "6,500 years" is concerned, how can anyone know that it actually took light that long to travel from there to here? As has already been mentioned more than once, God created a mature Adam. Your questions about scars and navels does little to address this fact. Secondly, the Scriptures do not only say that God created the sun, moon and stars, but they also say that he made their light show in the "firmament" (cf. Gen. 1:14-19). Surely, if you can concede that God created all things, you can also concede that God brought light from the stars to the earth without waiting for that light to get here on its own? Hi, Jim. I wasn't discussing the subject of "first cause." I was discussing the fact that since we observe the fact that the Universe has been around longer than 6,000 years, then *whenever* God created the universe it was *before* 6,000 years ago. I asked about navels and scars, and I have asked about other things such as stars blowing up, because in the Universe we observe "navels" and "scars," so if God created such things as illusions of stars blowing up even though such things never actually happened, that makes God a Divine Prankster. By the way, did you ever answer the question: Did the stellar explosion SN1987A really happen, or is it an illusion that God created? — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/10/2005 9:01 Clifton Healy wrote (12/10/2005 8:19): Todd Greene wrote (12/8/2005 4:22): So let us see if Clifton can directly answer the question *without* his usual attendent equivocations: *According to the apparent age concept, did the SN1987A explosion really happen, or is what astronomers observed merely an illusion created by God? Will Clifton answer (1) It really happened, or (2) it did not really happen and so is an illusion? My guess is he will do his usual thing and answer (3) some kind of equivocation that doesn't really mean anything. Here Todd demonstrates that he has done nothing more than memorize some scientific data and a specific argument structure. In other words, Todd demonstrates that he cannot construct an argument of his own, nor does he have any apparent ability to actually analyze and counter a specific argument that has been made. He's got his single chord that he can strum, and that's about it. A real one-note Johnny. Though I am not of the YEC position, my co-religionists who are do now, I think, see quite clearly that Todd is a pompous little boy who's no threat to them or their argument (since, apparently, he does not have the capacity to even grasp it in the first place). Now, Todd, listen up. I'll try to 'splain it slowly so... you... can... understand... it. Your question is based on a presupposition: namely that all the present empirical phenomena that we can observe has always operated under precisely the same natural conditions that obtain today. It is perhaps a reasonable assumption, but note this important fact: apart from this assumption science cannot operate. That is to say, science MUST first make this assumption before it can try to interpret the empirical phenomena which confront it. I understand why science must do this. As I said, it has to make this assumption, or else it cannot even get off the ground. The only thing is, however, science cannot, on its own terms, prove this assumption is true. The only thing science can say is that in the past six thousand years (I'm being generous in my estimate) it seems that these presumptions can hold. Beyond that, however, we have no empirical proof that the natural processes of the universe have always operated under the same conditions that are now present to us. All that science has is a set of unproven assumptions by which it interprets the present empirical phenomena it observes. The YEC position does not say - nor does it require - that the present observable phenomena is some how fake or that it is not precisely the same reality for YECs or non-YECs. The difference is that the YECs interpret that data through their own presuppositions (one of which includes created maturity) and the non-YECs interpret that data through their presuppositions (one of which includes that present natural conditions have always obtained). So, as I have said, it is *false* to claim of the YEC position that they posit a *false* or *phony* reality. They claim to observe the same precise reality that non-YECs observe - in all its complexity. They just interpret that data differently - based on differing presuppositions - from non-YECs. What is absolutely important to remember is that BOTH YECs and non-YECs use *scientifically unproven* presuppositions on which to interpret that data. There. I've 'splained it once again fer ya. There'll be a quiz later, so memorize it. Obviously, just as I predicted, Clifton chose "answer" number 3! ROTFL! Now, can Clifton actually answer the question? According to the apparent age concept, did the SN1987A explosion really happen, or is what astronomers observed merely an illusion created by God? — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/11/2005 8:51 Jim Rondon wrote (12/10/2005 2:36): Todd Greene wrote (12/10/2005 8:44): I wasn't discussing the subject of "first cause." I was discussing the fact that since we observe the fact that the Universe has been around longer than 6,000 years, then *whenever* God created the universe it was *before* 6,000 years ago. I asked about navels and scars, and I have asked about other things such as stars blowing up, because in the Universe we observe "navels" and "scars," so if God created such things as illusions of stars blowing up even though such things never actually happened, that makes God a Divine Prankster. By the way, did you ever answer the question: Did the stellar explosion SN1987A really happen, or is it an illusion that God created? From my vantage point, that's the way that it appears. However, that alone does little to tell me if it did, indeed, occur. It also does little to tell me when it occurred. Hi, Jim. I appreciate you answering the question, "Did the stellar explosion SN1987A really happen, or is it an illusion that God created?" Your answer, as I interpret what you wrote, is that the explosion never really happened, but is simply an illusion of light that God created out in space about 5,990 light-years from Earth of an event that never happened. This Prankster God is like a Divine George Lucas, creating special effects that are so perfect that it is literally impossible to tell the difference between reality and illusion. I used to think it was Satan who was the Father of Lies, but young earth creationism as manifested in the apparent age argument has taught me that Satan is just a poor imitator of God. But I digress. That's a theological issue I'll let you theologians deal with. The more critical issue is the epistemological issue. Apparent age advocates such as yourself have utterly divorced themselves from any and all evidence. Lying at the core of the apparent age argument is the destruction of epistemology, where the advocates of a particular belief have decided to believe what they wish to believe REGARDLESS of the evidence. In this particular example of SN1987A we have astronomers (and others who can view the pictures, such as the picture I posted here a couple days ago) "witnessing the murder" so to speak. Yet despite the fact that we have a dead body (and we're still watching the blood drain across the floor as astronomers are continuing to watch the aftermath of the explosion), we have hundreds of witnesses and even photographs of the murder taking place, young earth creationists step forth and wave the evidence aside and tell us, "It doesn't matter what the evidence is, it doesn't even matter if you have witnessed these events, they did not actually happen." It is in utterly divorcing yourselve from evidence that young earth creationists demonstrate the fact (that most people already know anyway) that young earth creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Jim Rondon wrote (12/10/2005 2:41): Now that I've answered your question, Todd, please answer mine: Surely, if you can concede that God created all things, you can also concede that God brought light from the stars to the earth without waiting for that light to get here on its own? Jim, perhaps you are not familiar with granting someone a premise for the purpose of following the implications of an argument. That is what I did, and that's all that I did. I have never "conceded" that God created all things, so please do not state that I did. That being said, I do also grant you that an omnipotent Prankster God can come up with some really good pranks. Now let's see you come up with evidence for this, without using a circular argument. [chuckle] (My chuckling here is over the fact that you've made that an impossible task for your position.) — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/12/2005 2:55 Charles Sloan wrote (12/12/2005 12:56): Todd, What are you going to do when you die and stand in Judgment before a Holy and Righteous God? All your clever arguments and analogies will never justify your sin. Your conscience bears witness to your guilt, and your need for forgiveness. Which is why your trying so desperately trying to disprove God's existence. You are going to die, please don't die in your sins. Repent, First of all, Charles, who died and made you God? Second of all, what does anything you state have to do with the subject of this discussion thread? NOTHING. That makes you a troll. — Todd Greene |
|
GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes", 12/13/2005 9:52 Clifton Healy wrote (12/11/2005 3:38): Once again, Todd fails to accurately grasp the core of the issue. Todd Greene wrote (12/11/2005 8:51): The more critical issue is the epistemological issue. Apparent age advocates such as yourself have utterly divorced themselves from any and all evidence. Lying at the core of the apparent age argument is the destruction of epistemology, where the advocates of a particular belief have decided to believe what they wish to believe REGARDLESS of the evidence. In point of fact, this is not an epistemological issue at all. For both YECs and non-YECs utilize precisely the same rational apparatus for their arguments (primarily induction). The point of difference is not one of epistemology but one of presuppositions. YECs do not reject the evidence that they see. What they reject is an interpretation of that evidence that runs contrary to their own presuppositions. They presuppose that the cosmos is young. They look at the evidence - the exact same evidence that non-YEcs consider - and they come to different conclusions about what such evidence *means*. One might call this a hermeneutical issue and not an epistemological one. But non-YECs are guilty in exactly the same way of using scientifically unproven presuppositions (namely the "natural-law" state of the universe projected into the ultimate historical past). They are just as guilty as YECs of reading all the evidence that runs counter to their presuppositions such that they somehow work it into their presupposition, or leave it as an anamoly. So, it's not a matter of epistmemology, it's a matter of presuppositioins. In this particular example of SN1987A we have astronomers (and others who can view the pictures, such as the picture I posted here a couple days ago) "witnessing the murder" so to speak. Yet despite the fact that we have a dead body (and we're still watching the blood drain across the floor as astronomers are continuing to watch the aftermath of the explosion), we have hundreds of witnesses and even photographs of the murder taking place, young earth creationists step forth and wave the evidence aside and tell us, "It doesn't matter what the evidence is, it doesn't even matter if you have witnessed these events, they did not actually happen." It is in utterly divorcing yourselve from evidence that young earth creationists demonstrate the fact (that most people already know anyway) that young earth creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Once again, it's not a matter of YECs rejecting the evidence, it's a matter of interpreting that evidence. But Todd is apparently suffering from a particular closed-minded affliction that does not allow him to objectively reason about these matters. Once again, our resident equivocation expert is so utterly confused by his equivocations that he pretends that two contradictory positions are the same thing! ROTFL! Our Chief Obfuscator, in his continuing efforts to make excuses for young earth creationists, states: "YECs do not reject the evidence that they see. What they reject is an interpretation of that evidence that runs contrary to their own presuppositions. They presuppose that the cosmos is young. They look at the evidence - the exact same evidence that non-YEcs consider - and they come to different conclusions about what such evidence *means*." Stated like a true young earth creationist apparent age would state it! This is the "just another interpretation" tactic, from the standard young earth creationist toolbox. And totally false. The fact is that the data that we have is from the explosion of a star. We observe the explosion. We observe the radioactive decay of radioactive nickel and cobalt (elements produced by the stellar explosion). We observe that the electromagnetic energy from the explosion even traveled through a couple of dust sheets in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy and was deflected by those dust sheets (we see a similar deflection of moonlight through layers of ice particles high in our atmosphere, when we see a "halo" of light around the moon). We OBSERVE a stellar explosion. Young earth creationists (apparent age advocates) say that there wasn't any stellar explosion. Saying there was no explosion at all is not an "interpretation of the data," and it is blatantly deceitful to refer to it as just another interpretation of the data. The data shows that *matter* that exploded off the surface of the start traveled out from the star and started impacting the primary gas ring around the star approximately 12 years later. (I gave you a picture of this, and I gave you references to dozens of other pictures of these events.) Young earth creationists (apparent age advocates) say that none of these things ever even happened. Saying that what we have observed didn't even happen is not just another "interpretation of the data." That is a false statement, a false description, a false use of language. The data shows that the electromagnetic energy (light energy) from the explosion traveled through a couple of dust sheets, a few hundred years, and a little over a thousand years after the explosion. Young earth creationists (apparent age advocates) say none of that ever even happened. That is not some alternative interpretation of the data. It is a denial of the data. Calling a denial of the data just another "interpretation" of the data is to abuse words in a deceitful manner. Chief Obfuscator Clifton chalks this all up to "presupposition." But note the equivocal (yes, Clifton just continuing to practice his arcane art) nature of his use of the word "presupposition." He himself has totally retreated from the epistemological requirement for any kind of evidence. In this case, the word "presupposition" does *not* mean assumptions being made without or despite evidence, but the very assumption that the evidence itself is real and not fake. Clifton does so love his equivocations, that here he redefines "presupposition" in such a way that if we observe an event it becomes merely an assumption that the event we observed has taken place - but even worse even if the event was faked (which is possible because we know that there is possibly staging of evidence in criminal trials by some people trying to frame other people) Clifton argues that fake events are *in principle* indistinguishable from real events by the empirical evidence. INDEED - NOTE THIS CRITICAL POINT THAT BLOWS CLIFTON'S EQUIVOCATIONS AWAY - THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DATA OF ANY KIND OF ANY MAGICAL 6,000 LIGHT-YEAR "BUBBLE" AROUND THE EARTH, SUCH THAT ONE COULD OBSERVE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUPERNOVAE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND SUPERNOVAE THAT ARE ILLUSIONS CREATED BY THE YEC PRANKSTER GOD. But even though there is no such data (and in principle it is impossible to find such data) of a "virtual envelope," Clifton says it's perfect valid to presuppose that everything outside of this 6,000 year old bubble is an illusion, no need for any evidence of this, thank you anyway. As I already stated, apparent age advocates have utterly divorced themselves from any and all evidence, and Clifton steps forth and argues that my description is wrong even while he does the very thing that proves my description correct! [chuckle] But then note Clifton's hypocrisy in saying that non-YECs are "guilty in exactly the same way" as YECs of using unproved assumptions and "just as guilty as YECs" of ignoring anomalous data. Which is a red herring. If they're guilty of incorrectly using assumptions (using assumptions is not the problem, the problem is using assumptions and not recognizing it, and not all assumptions are the same), or guilty of ignoring anomalous data, then they're just as wrong as YECs. Of course, in reality they are not just as wrong and not just as guilty, but our Grand Equivocator sees it as his job to work hard to destroy objective reasoning about these issues by equivocating everything into meaninglessness. — Todd Greene |
