The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 10)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 10)

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ PART 11 ]
[ PART 12 ]	[ PART 13 ]	[ PART 14 ]	[ PART 15 ]	[ HOME ]

(This page created 12/21/00. Table of contents coming soon.)

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC — Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/12/00 11:06 AM

Hi, Jon.

You wrote (12/12/00 10:23 am):

Todd has been asked by others repeatedly about what it is he believes about God and the Bible. He seems so reluctant to answer.

Why would he be? Because he does not want any one to know.

In fact, Jon, I made a very extensive post on 11/27/00 (so long, I broke it up into three posts), entitled "The Metaphorical Language of Creation."

No one addressed that discussion at all. I wondered why. And now here you are making the entirely false claim that I never posted the discussion at all.

Please get your facts straight. That discussion I posted to mars-list on 11/27/00 is also available online at

The Metaphorical Language Of Creation

So at the click of button, you can see precisely what I posted to mars-list on the topic of YEC, OEC, and biblical hermeneutics.

Also, why are you trying to engage in "forays into side issues" (Glen Young's words)?

Additionally, I have archived almost every one of my posts to mars-list online beginning at

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 1)

I have answered an awful lot of questions, and, frankly, I get tired of the repetition of some of them — especially those that I can see are geared in a purely prejudicial direction rather than being focused on the substantive detail of the discussion.

Sincerely,
Todd

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 10:23 AM ••••
Todd stated that SN 1987 had not been dealt with, but it had.

Todd asked for Scriptural verification of apparent age. When he was shown that star light was reaching the earth 2 days after their creation, and since we know the nearest star, other then the sun, is 4 1/2 light years away, then we see that light 2 days old looked at least 4 1/2 years old.

He said that does not matter... it still does not show apparent age.

Good point, Todd. You make no sense.

Todd has been asked by others repeatedly about what it is he believes about God and the Bible. He seems so reluctant to answer.

Why would he be? Because he does not want any one to know. It is my impression that the answer to the question "What does Todd believe about God?" is that Todd does not believe in God at all. If that is not the case, then Todd can set the record straight. But I am pretty sure this sums it up. He does not believe in God, or miraculous creation.

Now, this may surprise some of you because Todd has been arguing that we should be "old earth creationists" instead of "young earth creationists." I have no idea why, you'll have to ask him. But he is not an old earth creationist either. He does not believe in God as our creator.

This is the reason Todd does not answer these questions. He does not want us to know what he really believes. What is his goal? I suppose to lead anyone who will follow down the same path he took... he was a "young earth creationist"; then an "old earth creationist" and then, finally, an atheist.

I figured Todd would have answered some of you by now. Since he hasn't, I will. If I am wrong, he can say so.

Jon

[ TOP ]

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC — Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/13/00 7:24 AM

Hi, Jon.

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 3:18 PM ••••
Todd wrote:

Also, why are you trying to engage in "forays into side issues" (Glen Young's words)?

I believe those were Glen's words regarding you, not me. If you are not clear on this, we can ask him.

They were. Perhaps you are proposing, hypocritically, that there is one standard for me, but you follow a different standard? That's kind of what I thought, but I'm surprised that you would state this view so openly.

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 3:18 PM ••••
...light was reaching the earth from stars created 2 days earlier even though it would take 4 1/2 years for light to travel to the earth from the nearest star.

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 7:39 PM ••••
Todd challenged us to find "apparent age" in the Bible. I pointed out that the light of the stars lightyears away was reaching the earth two days after their creation. The Bible does teach that.

I'm still waiting for you to cite the verse(s) that state this. I've been asking, but not receiving.

I fully agree with you that if we assume the YEC literalistic interpretation, then this is the way things would have to be according to your assumption. But the text does not state this, this is merely your (false) human idea that you have imposed on the text based on presuming your YEC interpretation, which, as Terence would say, is merely begging the question.

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 3:18 PM ••••
You have to know better than this. The fact is, you know this is not a metaphorcial passage... you just want to lift one aspect out of it... "day" and make it a metaphor.

Did you actually read any of my discussion about metaphorical language, Jon? Your representation here of me is entirely false. If you wish to express criticisms of the approach I have taken, please at least try to gather a reasonably correct understanding of what I have written. This <<cliche>> "shoot first and ask questions later" approach of yours is the wrong way to go about it.

Additionally, I have referenced Nahum Sarna's commentary on Genesis, called Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History. You really should take a look at that. The problem with the YEC literalistic interpretation is that it wrenches Genesis 1 out of its historical context and interprets the text according to the cultural backdrop of European-cultured white males while completely ignoring the issues and concerns of the people to whom it was originally addressed.

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 3:18 PM ••••
...you have been defending the old earth creationsist viewpoint and ridiculing those who hold a young earth view, while all the time you're not a creationist of any sort, young or old... presently. I guess you could be called an "ex-creationist." So why pretend, Todd? Why call on us to adapt an old earth creationist view when you don't believe it yourself?

Now you're accusing me of pretending to be an old earth creationist, and thus misrepresenting myself.

Wrong, Jon!

I have never once pretended to be an OEC. I'm a skeptic. I have never claimed to be anything else. Moreover, I was very clear and explicit about this when this entire discussion began (at Terence Sheridan's request) several weeks ago. I have stated the fact that I am a former YEC many times.

In fact, Jon, I know that you know this, because at the time you yourself took several prejudicial swipes at me.

I am not a old earth "creationist." At the same time, the antiquity of the universe and the earth is a truth about the real world. In this, the OECs are absolutely correct. The fact is is that those who are YECs who come to the realization that the world's antiquity is true then become OECs. This is simply the nature of the thing. It also happens to be the case that I myself was an OEC at one time.

I have not misrepresented myself, and you offend me with your entirely false accusation of such.

What I have argued is that those who claim to venerate truth, who make claims like "We have nothing to fear from the truth," are rather contradictory on this particular issue because, for example, we know by direct observation that the universe has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years, and yet YECs adamantly promote all sorts of error in denying the truth about this.

I have presented some detailed information showing how we know that the universe has been around far longer than 6,000 years. I corrected some YEC misinformation that was being promoted about this (some erroneous criticisms). I provided specific examples showing how the apparent age concept was really a denial of the data even though its advocates pretend that it is "just another interpretation" of the data. And then I started getting into biblical hermeneutics issues. (Though there has been considerable overlap of these areas in this discussion.)

I have not misrepresented myself, and you should retract your accusation.

Sincerely,
Todd

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 3:18 PM ••••
Todd wrote:

I made a very extensive post on 11/27/00 (so long, I broke it up into three posts), entitled "The Metaphorical Language of Creation."

No one addressed that discussion at all. I wondered why. And now here you are making the entirely false claim that I never posted the discussion at all.

I said you had not addressed the point I made about "apparent age" being seen in the fact that light was reaching the earth from stars created 2 days earlier even though it would take 4 1/2 years for light to travel to the earth from the nearest star.

We also discussed why your "metaphorical" approach does not cut it. If it is a metaphor, then what is it a metaphor of? What is God's metaphorical use of the sun, the moon, and the stars? If these are not the literal sun, and moon, and stars, but metaphors, then Todd, what are the metaphors of?

C'mon. Don't just shout "metaphor" and not grace us with your inperpretatuibs, What are the animals metaphorical of, since they are not literal? How about the fish? If they are mere metaphorical fish, then bring the metaphor home for us.

You have to know better than this. The fact is, you know this is not a metaphorical passage... you just want to lift one aspect out of it... "day" and make it a metaphor.

Todd wrote:

Also, why are you trying to engage in "forays into side issues" (Glen Young's words)?

I believe those were Glen's words regarding you, not me. If you are not clear on this, we can ask him.

Todd wrote:

Additionally, I have archived almost every one of my posts to mars-list online beginning at

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 1)

Reading them once was more than enough, thank you.

Todd wrote:

They have been repeated because you have not answered them. The fact is, you have been defending the old earth creationsist viewpoint and ridiculing those who hold a young earth view, while all the time you're not a creationist of any sort, young or old... presently. I guess you could be called an "ex-creationist." So why pretend, Todd? Why call on us to adapt an old earth creationist view when you don't believe it yourself?

Jon

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/12/00 7:39 PM ••••
Dee wrote, in defense of Todd:

r dee colvett, interfering with a discussion between Jon and Todd.

Jon, uh, taunting? What is he doing?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

dee c -- This shout "not a metaphor" is a rather weak form of argument, even for Biblical subjects.

I did not just shout "not a metaphor." In the previous post I discussed it, and tin this post I asked, if it is a metaphor, then what are the various aspects (sun, stars, animals, etc,) metaphors of.

I note that neither you nor Todd have suggested an answer. Instead, you started talking about the Messianic kingdom, as if I had said there are no metaphors in the Bible. I didn't of course. I denied that Genesis 1 was metaphorical.

You wrote:

Two examples -- the prophecies of the Messiah's Kingdom were somehow metaphorical, figurative, representational, but for centuries, there were assumed to be promising a literal throne-in-Jerusalem kingdom. This was so firmly plowed into the beliefs of their day that the apostles still didn't get it, even after 3 years with Jesus. Look at Acts 1:6, and think about how that might influence our firmly plowed understandings of Genesis 1-2.

Second example -- I don't think many of us are prepared to answer the "what do the metaphors mean?" questions about most of Revelation, but anyone who makes too much of a dogmatic or literal interpretation of them is not going to be tolerated among us for very long.

Thanks... so this is supposed to prove that Gen. 1 is metaphorical? It does not.

So in those two major categories of doctrine among us, we know and teach that "figurative" does not mean "false", and in fact, that truth is carried by figurative, not literal, language. And so it is not beyond the bounds of either rationale or faithfulness to keep open to the possibility that some things described in Genesis are also presented figuratively.

Fine. "Branch" is a metaphorical name for the coming Messiah used in the prophets (Zech. 6, for example). We ae told why the metaphor was used " For He will bracnh out from where He is."

So, again, what are these things in Gen 1 metaphorical of?

As for some "science" concepts, it just happens by coincidence that in my mailbox at the street this afternoon, I received the December 8, 2000 issue of "Science", and in it are long review articles of things like cosmology and proofs and tests of "big bang" things. It may be that you reject those conclusions, but your arguments will be stronger if they address the evidences that are currently being discussed by the proponents of such.

Those arguments have been addressed... repeatedly.

Todd challeneged us to find "apparent age" in the Bible. I pointed out that the light of the stars lightyears away was reaching the earth two days after their creation. The Bible does teach that.

For you or anyone to say, "No... Gen 1 is metaphorical" gives you the responsibility to prove it so, and tell us what these things are metaphors for.

I note that you didn't do this in your post. Instead, you suggested there are metaphors used in the Bible. No one denies this. But it does nothing to show that the animals/stars/moon/sun/birds/fish/light/days/vegetation/evening/morning of Genesis 1 are metaphorical.

Jon

[ TOP ]

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC — Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/14/00 9:29 PM

•••• Glen Young, 12/13/00 3:20 PM ••••
I shall once again, for the good it will do, give an answer to Mr. Greene. Mr. Greene's knavish responses cause me to doubt that it will.

Hi, Glen.

I've been learning my "knavishness" from some of you, so if you feel that I've learned it effectively then you must have taught me well.

By the way, thank you for addressing the substance of the discussion (somewhat).

•••• Glen Young, 12/13/00 3:20 PM ••••
Mr. Greene wrote [12/12/00 10:50 am],

Incidentally, I picked up the "science is too dynamic" from one of your posts, and since you have made such a big deal about it, I will dig through, find it, and quote you in detail.

Dig away! You will find that I did say "science is too dynamic" in the context of the discussion regarding how to determine the age of the universe/earth. My position is NOT that science is too dynamic in other areas. I believe I stated in another post that we enjoy many benefits from scientific research and development.

Thank you for acknowledging that you did talk about science being too dynamic to learn anything, even though you arbitrarily restrict it to specific areas of scientific areas of investigation. And which areas do you apply this to so arbitrarily? Precisely those areas that you, personally, disagree with. Gee, how unbiased of you!

That has been my whole point all along, Glen. I'm sorry you were too upset with me to see that. This position that you have advocated is contradictory. That's what I pointed out, and that's what I stated.

I think you need to read my 12/11/00 8:54 pm post again, because you've apparently missed most of what I stated in it. Here is part of what I stated, and you have yet to address my criticism:

Since you agree with me that science really does work with respect to learning factual things about the real world, then what argument do you really have?

SN1987A is 168,000 light-years from earth, and astronomers have also observed that the speed of light of light has been uniform for billions of years, and that there is no 'highly relativistic distortion' (a la Humphreys cosmology), so that in observing SN1987A we really did observe a stellar explosion that occurred 168,000 years ago. Additionally, we have the observations of the "light echoes" where light from the explosion is observed having been deflected by at least two "sheets" of dust between SN1987A and the earth. So the data from the real world about the real world shows that a star exploded approximately 168,000 years ago, and the light-energy from this explosion passed through one sheet of dust roughly 500 years after that, and another sheet of dust roughly 700 years after that, and then reached earth about 13 years ago.

This is the data, Glen. But instead of addressing the data you go on and on about how we can't trust science. And yet here you are acknowledging that, yes, you agree that we can trust science. That science really does work.

So with regard to your position in particular, I am now at a loss, because it seems to me as if you are contradicting yourself.

So we really do learn true things about the real world through science, and you have acknowledged that I have stated this fact correctly all along, even though earlier you were trying to promote the idea that what I was presenting was wrong because — for some reason which you have never yet explained — we can't trust science. So since you have in fact acknowledged the epistemological principle that empirical data is indeed relevant, you implicitly agree with me that YECs do indeed have the responsibility of having to actually deal with the "nitty-gritty" of the real, live data that we have acquired about the real world.

And yet, Glen, you personally have completely failed to address the data, without explaining why it is reasonable for you to ignore the fact that what we observe about the real world directly contradicts the YEC position that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

In my 12/11/00 8:54 pm post, I also wrote:

I hope that you and others have noticed that this is one of the main thrusts of the general approach I have shown you from the very beginning of my discussion here in mars-list: that while YECs talk about not accepting human wisdom and human speculation over truth, it is the fact of the matter that YECs do not take their own advice but profusely engage in their own human speculations in while denying and rejecting the actual data from the real world about the real world.

•••• Glen Young, 12/13/00 3:20 PM ••••
Mr. Greene wrote [12/12/00 10:50 am],

Now, besides your casting this in the most antagonistic prejudicial terms possible, would you — please — consider addressing the substance of the post instead of engaging in pure rhetoric?

By your answers to some of my questions, you have destroyed your above statement. It is not pure rhetoric to note that your need for an old universe/earth is rooted in evolution.

Actually, it is pure rhetoric, Glen. Again, you have completely ignored my description of the fallacy of this rhetoric, which was in my 12/11/00 8:54 pm post:

You stated in your previous post that "Excess verbiage and forays into side issues are the tools of those who do not want others to know their true position." The postscript of my reponse to that post contained a very long acronym, which meant this: I believe you are trying forays into side issues to cover up the fact that young earth creationists are completely unable to handle the real world falsification of the young universe idea.

I fully agree with you that biological evolution requires a long period of time. (And it nice to see a YEC honestly concede this point. There are an awful lot of creationists who refuse to acknowledge that biological evolution can occur at all.) Unfortunately for the YEC position, in its severe prejudice against the concept of biological evolution, it is a fact that the data regarding the antiquity of the universe and of the earth is quite distinct from evolution. Indeed, this is precisely why there are so many "evangelical Christians" who advocate the "old earth creationist" position, because they have been able to bring themselves to acknowledge the astronomical evidence of the antiquity of the universe and the geological evidence of the antiquity of the earth, but they do not accept the paleontological and biological evidence for evolution.

I was of the opinion at that time that your purpose in bringing up evolution with your questions was for the purpose of generating a foray into that side issue, so that you could try to cover over the stiff evidence from astronomy and geology with the cloak of prejudice against evolution....

So please tell us what genetics and fossils have to do with SN1987A, or with, say, the Manicouagan Crater in Quebec, Canada. If you cannot, then rest assurred that I shall be (openly) wondering about your "foray into side issues."

So I see that you are continuing your foray into this side issue. I see that you have completely ignored my request that you explain to us what genetics and fossils have to do with SN1987A and the Manicouagan Crater. I see that you have also completely ignored the very existence of old earth creationists and the OEC position.

I also see that you completely misrepresent me. I have absolutely no personal "need" for an ancient universe/earth rooted in evolution. If upon examination of the relevant information about the real world I had seen that the universe and earth were young, then I would merely have accepted the fact. The facts about the real world show it to be ancient, therefore I accept this fact about the real world. It really is just that simple, Glen. Biological evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it. This is the truth. You should stop trying to pretend otherwise, especially after having had your mistaken portrayal corrected. I know that as a YEC you sincerely desire to cast the matter in other, prejudicial, terms. But this YEC portrayal of the matter is completely false, and I — a former YEC myself — am here to honestly and forthrightly clear up your prejudicial rhetoric on the matter. As a Christian, you have the full responsibility on your shoulders to cast aside your false, prejudicial portrayal of this.

•••• Glen Young, 12/13/00 3:20 PM ••••
One cannot believe in the omniscient Jehovah God and argue for a non-instantaneous, non-miraculous creation.

I know, I can tell, that this is a sincere feeling of yours. Know that I am not accusing you of lying. But you are flatly wrong about this. It is a fact — a fact that you would do well to recognize instead of continuing to ignore it — that there are many people who believe in the God of the Bible, and who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and who believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, who also have accepted the empirical fact that the universe and the earth have been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years.

Incidentally, Alexander Campbell was one of them.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....

— Proverbs 12:17

[ TOP ]

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: The Metaphorical Language of Creation
12/15/00 11:16 PM

Hi, everyone following this discussion.

A number of centuries ago, Martin Luther, relying on his fallible human literalistic interpretation of the Bible, proclaimed that

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

(Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.)

Sure enough, interpreted literalistically, Luther was exactly right about the literal words of the Bible:

Genesis 1:6-8,14-19

[6] And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

[7] And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

[14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

[15] and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

[16] And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,

[18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

[19] And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

It states that God created a "firmament," then separated the waters to waters below the firmament and waters above the firmament, then set the sun, moon, and stars in this firmament.

In The Living Word Commentary series, John T. Willis points out in his commentary on Genesis regarding 1:6-8 that

Elsewhere, the Old Testament describes the sky as God's "upper chambers" (Amos 9:6) that resemble a "molten mirror" (Job 37:18) and rest upon "pillars" (Job 26:11). It seems most likely that these authors are using terms that pertain to the building of a large, impressive building to describe the earth and the sky.

These are metaphorical pictures of creation, and not meant to be interpreted literalistically. Those who interpret this literalistically are genuinely misinterpreting Genesis. And that's a big part of the problem.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "The Metaphorical Language of Creation"

[ TOP ]

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC — Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/15/00 11:19 PM

Hi, Glen.

Yet again, I see that you have completely ignored my request that you explain to us what genetics and fossils have to do with SN1987A and the Manicouagan Crater. I see that you have also completely ignored the very existence of old earth creationists and the OEC position.

•••• Glen Young, 12/15/00 11:08 AM ••••
Mr. Greene would love to keep this discussion bogged down in interpretating emperical evidence with human wisdom. My position has been all along that science is too dynamic to give us a deffinative answer to the age of the universe/earth. There are things we do not presently know. There are things we may never know. As human knowledge (and hopefully, wisdom) grows, our interpretation of emperical evidence changes.

Yes, Glen. Of course, you are correct: We will soon discover that the earth revolves around the sun, and biblical geocentrism was correct all along!

•••• Glen Young, 12/15/00 11:08 AM ••••
Mr. Greene wants us to take at face value his present day knowledge in interpreting the data he has introduced. It is quite possible that at a future date he (and scientists in general) may come to a knowledge that will blow his present day theory out of the water.

You're right. In a few decades we'll find that disease really is caused by evil spirits after all, and microorganisms are just figments of our imagination.

•••• Glen Young, 12/15/00 11:08 AM ••••
I know personally that several men have engaged him in this discussion who have as impressive credentials as he. They are learned men in the scientific method. Men who have given answer to Mr. Greene.

First of all, Glen, I have no "credentials" at all, so what are you talking about? I could not care less about credentials. What I care about is the truth.

You can appeal to your "learned men" all you want (in fact, you have not, but I'll go along with you and pretend that you have), the fact remains that the actual observational data shows us an ancient universe. And so far you have completely failed to address the data in any manner whatsoever.

Others here in this forum have treated us to such fallacious ideas as that (1) matter does not travel faster than 5 miles per second, (2) lightspeed was radically faster (at least a million times faster) in the past and has decayed radically since 6,000 years ago, (3) space and time around the earth was radically warped by the creation event such that billions of years passed in the universe whereas only 6,000 years passed in a "bubble" around the earth (Humphreys cosmology). In every single case, I have cited the information that shows the fallacies in these ideas and have provided some explanation as to why they are wrong. (And you should note, by the way, that the Humphreys cosmology idea actually agrees with OECs that the universe is ancient while disagreeing that the earth is ancient.)

You are correct, Glen, that some "learned men" have given answer to the the facts about the antiquity of the earth. The problem is that in searching out the truth, it is not just any answer that will do, but only those answers that are consistent with reality, and none of the "answers" that these "learned men" have given have yet met this standard. They have treated us with nothing more than some already falsified human speculations.

Finally, on this score, the concept that ended up seeming to get the most support was the apparent age concept, and I hope you understand the fact that the apparent age concept actually acknowledges that all of the data really does show antiquity but it portrays the data itself as being simply a "grand illusion."

•••• Glen Young, 12/15/00 11:08 AM ••••
Mr. Greene wrote [12/14/00 9:29 pm],

Incidentally, Alexander Campbell was one of them.

I stand by my statement because I do not follow men.

The questions I have been asking you prove my statement true. Please, answer these questions and do it in a way so that I will not miss your answer. When you coach your answers among other statements with an over abundance of verbiage, I could miss them.

Glen! Why do you insist on promoting this particular error! My paragraph quoted here was in response to this statement from your 12/13/00 3:20 pm post:

One cannot believe in the omniscient Jehovah God and argue for a non-instantaneous, non-miraculous creation.

I have simply pointed that not only can a person do this, but that there are indeed many who do. There are many, many people who believe in the biblical God, who believe in the divinity of Christ, and who believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, who also accept the facts that the universe and earth are ancient.

These are straightforward facts, Glen. You do yourself and your position absolutely no good in so obstinately refusing to acknowledge such obvious facts and adamantly promoting an erroneous position about this.

You said that a person cannot believe in "God and argue for a non-instantaneous, non-miraculous creation" in total contradiction of the fact that there are many who can and do, such as Alexander Campbell. You state that you "do not follow men." Okay, fine. So what? I never said that you did. I simply pointed out the wrongness of your statement and why it was wrong.

•••• Glen Young, 12/15/00 11:08 AM ••••
So, just give us simple answers and identify them as your answers to these two specific questions.

Question 1) How long has the Bunsen burner been burning?

Empirical evidence 2) In a room there is a Bunsen burner that is burning. The burner actually exists, it is observable. It is observed to be burning. It is possible to calculate the burn rate by measuring the decrease in the amount of gas available to power the burner. The rate of decay (burn) can be manipulated to a greater or lesser rate. Because we can calculate the burn rate and know the amount of gas left in reserve, we can calculate when it will burn out. However, there is one unknown factor. We do not know how much gas existed initially. Now, tell us. When did the burner begin burning?

Question 2) At what juncture in man's evolutionary development did he receive a spirit from God?

From the evolutionary chart of man, tell us at what juncture man received a spirit from God. Was it when he was an ameba swimming in the goooo and oooze? Maybe, it was when he climbed from the slime. Could it have been when he had a tail and lived in the trees? Tell us please. I for one would like to hear your explanation of this important fact.

For your consideration.

While you're engaging in these forays into side issues (that you tried to accuse me of), I have a couple of equally relevant questions for you.

Question 1: What is the third largest political party in the country?

Question 2: Who wrote the book Foucault's Pendulum?

I know that you do not wish to address the actual details surrounding such matters as SN1987A or the Manicouagan Crater. If I were a young earth creationist, I too would avoid these things like the plague.

Uh... Wait a second. I was a YEC. I did not avoid these things. The reason is because I was more interested in learning the truth about the real world based on the objective information about the real world, than in adamantly adhering to my own personal human beliefs about the real world regardless of what the objective information about it was.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....

— Proverbs 12:17

[ TOP ]

Part 10

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC — Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/16/00 8:50 PM

Hi, Glen.

I see that, yet again, you have still completely failed to explain how genetics and fossils — or Bunsen burners or soul infusion — have anything to do with SN1987A or the Manicouagan Crater.

As expected.

I suspect that your forays into these side issues will effectively lead some astray from the truth of the matter that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago, because I must admit that I'm fully aware that many people are blinded by prejudice from pondering, let alone understanding, certain ideas that they personally dislike.

You write (12/16/00 1:55 am):

SN1978A equals emperical evidence. The fossil remains of animals, man, and geological formations equals emperical evidence. Emperical evidence must be interpreted. From a philosophical perspective, the interpretation we place upon such evidence determines our perception of who we are, where we came from, and where we are headed.

The fact that the earth revolves about the sun, instead of the other way around, is also empirical evidence. The fact that microorganisms, not evil spirits, cause disease, is also empirical evidence. The fact that the Kuiper Belt region, with comet-sized bodies, exists beyond the orbit of Neptune is empirical evidence. The fact that there are millions of galaxies in the universe is empirical evidence. The fact that impact craters the size of the Barringer Crater, or the much larger Manicouagan Crater, do not erode, lithify, and re-erode in a mere 6,000 years is empirical evidence. The fact that light travels approximately 300,000 kilometers per second is empirical evidence. The fact that the speed of light has been uniform for billions of years is empirical evidence. The fact that light from the SN1987A explosion traveled through sheets of dust relatively close to SN1987A on its way from the explosion to the earth is empirical evidence.

All of these, including the fact that the earth revolves about the sun, are interpretations of the very extensive and very unequivocal empirical data.

You have not offered any interpretations of the data at all, Glen. I have asked you several times to even address the data, and you have so far refused to do so. Making statements like "When I look at the most distant star or examine the minutest of particals of the earth, I see an instantaneous miraculous creation" is nothing more than a statement of your personal opinion.

Do you understand the meaning of "dealing with the data"? Do you understand how the distance to SN1987A is calculated?

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

Do you understand the meaning of the "light echo" from SN1987A, and how the radius of the deflections can in turn be used to calculate the distance of the dust sheets that the light energy passed through on its way from the stellar explosion to the earth?

These are observational facts about the real world. Please go right ahead and deny these facts — or simply ignore the facts — all that you desire. Just don't keep pretending that you are "interpreting" the data when you know fully well that you are denying the data itself. Just don't keep pretending that you are "explaining" the data even though you completely fail to address the data at all.

I'm not at all trying to compel people to accept the facts. Whether you accept the facts or not is entirely up to you. My 'beef' with YECs is that they misrepresent their own position to others, in making these constant pretensions about 'just another interpretation of the data' and 'just a different explanation of the same thing.' Contradicting the data, denying the data, sweeping the data under the rug, promoting false criticisms of the data, and so on — none of these things can be legitimately described as interpretations or explanations of the data. And they certainly are not becoming of those who make such strong claims about respecting truth. To make this kind of claim is to represent your position falsely. This is why I have referred to such prevalent YEC rhetoric as nothing more than propaganda, because the rhetoric is nothing more than a masking of the genuine YEC position vis-a-vis the empirical data.

Earlier exchange:

•••• Todd Greene, 12/15/00 11:19 PM ••••
Yes, Glen. Of course, you are correct: We will soon discover that the earth revolves around the sun, and biblical geocentrism was correct all along!

•••• Todd Greene, 12/15/00 11:19 PM ••••
You're right. In a few decades we'll find that disease really is caused by evil spirits after all, and microorganisms are just figments of our imagination.

Your response (12/16/00 1:55 am):

Instead of answering factiously, wouldn't it have been better to prove my statement false? I believe my point was that men do not have all (infallable) knowledge. Mankind is constantly discovering new knowledge that causes him to re-write, re-evaluate past scientific positions. Are you so bold as to say that your knowledge of space, time, speed of light in space, the nature of space, etc. is perfect? Is it possible that there is something about the afore mentioned things when discovered might change your interpretation of SN1987A?

Have you not been reading my discussion at all, or even your own? You have already agreed with me that there are indeed many aspects of the real world about which we have through science acquired 'relatively certain knowledge.' The example I have frequently pointed to is the empirical observation that the earth revolves about the sun. In this discussion here in mars-list I have discussed the empirical observation of SN1987A having occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. Because of the nature of the information that we have acquired about such aspects of the real world as these, I have shown that we do indeed know that the universe has been around for at least about 168,000 (with just the example of SN1987A) just as certainly as we know that the earth revolves about the sun instead of the other way around.

I answered you facetiously, because you have continued to pretend that there is something wrong with this data even while you never get around to actually attempting to understand the data, let alone explain what is wrong with it. You have offered nothing more than your personal opinion that the data must be wrong. I have repeatedly asked you to address the data, and you have so far refused to do so. My facetious remarks had a definitely substantive point, which is: Since the observational data is so extensive and unequivocal regarding the fact that the universe is ancient, the burden is on you to address the data and explain either (1) how the data itself is flawed, and/or (2) how the data can be interpreted differently in a manner consistent with the idea that the universe has been around for only 6,000 years instead of billions. Denying the data by pretending that the data itself is not real is even worse than a murderer expecting the jury to acquit him by claiming that the extensive bodies of evidence against him, including fingerprints, DNA evidence, and even eye-witness accounts, every last shred of it, is fake.

Here is what I stated about this in my 11/18/00 3:58 pm post:

To say that a stellar explosion did not occur even though we literally observe the explosion is to deny the data, not "explain" it or "interpret" it. It is no more an "explanation" of the data than it would be for me to claim that Abraham Lincoln never really lived (and died) because it might be the case that all of reality popped into existence yesterday, including the (illusory) memories in our brains and the archaeological data. I repeat: This is not an explanation. It is a full retreat to the subjectivist position that the data from the real world about the real world itself is not real but illusory. What makes this pure subjectivism "plausible"? My understanding of plausible explanation is that it is a genuine explanation and that it is consistent with the data. The data shows, for example, that the light from distant stars has actually travelled through interstellar (and intergalactic) gas and dust on it way from the source to the earth. You claim, in contradiction of the data, that it has not travelled through this gas and dust, yet you do not even attempt to offer any evidence (empirical or biblical) to support your claim.

Take a look for yourself.... With regard to the question, "Has this light actually travelled through intervening interstellar (and intergalactic) gas and dust?", what does the data itself show you:

http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat066.html

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/42/

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/14/

•••• Glen Young, 12/16/00 1:55 AM ••••
I admit that my perspective is rooted in my belief in Jehovah God who spoke all things into being (Hebrews 11:3).

Golly, Glen, so what? Did I say otherwise? The problem here in this specific area is that you have promoted the obvious error that every person who disagrees with you regarding the YEC creed cannot be rooted in the belief in Jehovah God who spoke all things into being. Here again I have cited factual information showing that your YEC proclamation is absolutely wrong, and yet you fail to address the factual information and continue to espouse your error.

There are many, many people who believe in the biblical God, who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and who believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, who have also accepted the reality that the universe and the earth are ancient. It is time for you to acknowledge the existence of these people. It is time for you to acknowledge that OECs (and theistic evolutionists) exist. I'm not asking that you agree with them, Glen. I'm merely asking that you acknowledge the truth regarding the fact that there are many, many people with this same general religious perspective who have accepted the antiquity of the universe. There are people from years past, such as Alexander Campbell and J. D. Thomas, but also today, such individuals as Hill Roberts, Tom Couchman, David Mathews, Archie Manis, Kenneth Williams, Jack Wood Sears, Neal Buffaloe, William H. Davis, John N. Clayton, and so on. And these are just the well-known ones in the COC. Outside of the COC, there are such people as Glenn Morton, Davis A. Young, Alan Hayward, and Howard J. Van Till, as just a few examples.

Stop misrepresenting the truth, Glen. It is not right for you to try to misrepresent this prejudicially as just a vast atheistic conspiracy against YECs, when you and I both know that it is nothing of the sort.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....

— Proverbs 12:17

[ TOP ]

[ TOC ]	[ PART 1 ]	[ PART 2 ]	[ PART 3 ]	[ PART 4 ]	[ PART 5 ]
[ PART 6 ]	[ PART 7 ]	[ PART 8 ]	[ PART 9 ]	[ PART 10 ]	[ PART 11 ]
[ PART 12 ]	[ PART 13 ]	[ PART 14 ]	[ PART 15 ]	[ HOME ]