The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 12)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 12)

"mars-list" (derived from the Mars Hill reference in the New Testament book of Acts) is a listserv email discussion list. Like the LUR List creationism discussion that I participated in which you can read at this website (LUR List creationism discussion), mars-list is run by members of the Church Of Christ. However, you will see that the "flavor" of this mars-list discussion is significantly different from the LUR List discussion. While there are still a couple of obstinate YECs (there's even a geocentrist!) participating in mars-list, most of these YECs are at least willing to acknowledge a few things. As a result, unlike the discussion in the LUR List forum, this discussion progresses beyond the stage of getting YECs to acknowledge that SN1987A does constitute a significant problem. Later on we get into some substantial discussion of the apparent age concept.
All posts are mine, with only the posts and comments of others that I have responded to being included.

(This page created 3/4/01. Table of contents coming later.)

[ 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 ]

Part 12

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: News: ...Stopping Light
1/25/01 10:13 PM

Hi, Steve.

I quite honestly appreciate your comments.

I wish to state a few points about them, as concisely as I can:

(1) In none of these experiments in any of these news items have physicists altered the speed of light at all. This is the primary point that must be understood. Doubt me if you wish, please, since I am clearly no expert on the subject. However, I certainly claim that those of you who dig into the details of the matter will find that my statement is completely accurate: Physicists have not altered the speed of light at all.

(2) I am not concerned about journalists using non-technical "phenomenological" language. I am concerned when people take such non-technical language and then try to interpret it in a technical manner and thus misrepresent it to others. I thought that was clear from the context of my comments.

(3) I remind you, again, that the question is not "What can God do?", but "What did God do?" as observed by examining the real world event that actually occurred (which can be observed by examining the real world itself).

(4) I appreciate the fact that you choose to believe that all of these objective, factual observations are merely illusions. You certainly have the right to make such a choice. I also appreciate the fact that you do not try to misrepresent your choice as being something that it is not, such as, say, "another interpretation of the data" (since it is in fact a flat rejection of the reality of the data itself).

(5) I flatly deny that my ideas are merely human. Indeed, they are not my ideas. I have related to you objective observational information about SN1987A, and about the fact that the speed of light has been observed to be (and is not merely assumed to be) uniform for billions of years. Before the rings of SN1987A were observed using the Hubble Space Telescope, their existence was not even known. Please do not misrepresent direct factual observations as being merely my human opinion, because that is entirely incorrect.

(6) You have made a number of assumptions regarding Adam and Eve, and I call them "your human assumptions" because you certainly do not possess any direction observational information about them, and your assumptions are not stated in the Bible either.

(7) You make a number of comments with regard to the origin of the universe and the conjectured Big Bang. I have not discussed the origin of the universe, nor have I discussed the Big Bang, nor have I discussed the age of the universe. Such things as the currently observed SN1987A or Cepheid variable stars in the Andromeda galaxy have absolutely nothing to do with the timing of the origin of the universe. Seeing by direct observation that the universe has been around for at least 168,000 years (SN1987A) and also at least 2.2 million years (Andromeda galaxy) is an empirical fact, and discussion about the tentative, conjectured age of the universe many billions of years ago and how it might be estimated does not alter nor does it have relevance to these direct observations about the (relatively) recent past. In fact, Steve, I tend to agree with your comments about the origin of the universe and speculations about it, such as the inflationary models, string theories, quintessence, and the like. But the origin of the universe, hidden from us by the passage of great eons, is not relevant to recent directly observed events such as SN1987A.

(8) In regard to Dr. Joao Magueijo's VSL theory, you did the very thing that I pointed out to you would be wrong to do (because it would be a misrepresentation). Here's what I wrote:

The January 2001 issue covers some cosmology topics, including the VSL (varying-speed-of-light) theory proposed by Dr. Joao Magueijo, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College in London, England. As I have pointed out in previous posts, there are a few who have proposed, within the context of the Big Bang (which would have occurred many billions of years ago), theories regarding changes in lightspeed (among other physical "constants"). Unfortunately for YEC proponents, none of these theories have anything whatsoever to do with SN1987A — or even with any of the millions of galaxies in the universe that we observe from the earth today. In other words, there is absolutely no serious scientific work of any kind regarding lightspeed decay that has any connection with the YEC idea that the universe with its millions of galaxies have not been in existence for more than about 6,000 years. That whole concept has been completely disproved by the evidence.

My statements were quite accurate. Again, I certainly and absolutely do not expect anyone to accept my claim based on my say-so. I do expect any who wishes to make claims about this with respect to somehow supporting the YEC concept of a 6,000 year old universe to dig into the relevant details. Those who do dig into the details will find that my statements are accurate. Dr. Magueijo's VSL is in regard to a Big Bang model, which is indeed, Steve, what I have stated all along, beginning a few months ago, what I reiterated to Steve Rudd several weeks ago, and what I stated to you (in the postscript which I have quoted above). Dr. Magueijo would be the first to tell any YEC who wishes to take VSL out of its Big Bang context and try to illegitimately apply it to any current, direct observations of such entities as SN1987A or the Andromeda galaxy that such application is completely false and thus misrepresentative of the VSL work. Again, do not just take my say-so. Why don't you contact relevant astronomers and ask them yourself? Those who do so will find that I have represented this matter accurately and truthfully.

You claim that Dr. Magueijo contradicts my statement that "we already possess extensive data from direct observations of the universe showing that the speed of light has not been any different for at least the past few billion years." This is taking Dr. Magueijo's remarks completely out of context (discussing the Big Bang) and trying to make them apply, incorrectly, to our direct observations of the universe that we make today regarding such things as SN1987A and the Andromeda galaxy. You should not make this claim, because we all know that the context of Dr. Magueijo's entire discussion is regarding theoretical models of the origin of the universe many billions of years ago, and has absolutely nothing to do with SN1987A, which occurred approximately 168,000 years ago.

(9) You state that

You know as well as I do that NO human has been measuring the speed of light for more than a few hundred years. Beyond that, it's an assumption. It really is.

You would be correct, except for the fact of astronomical observations by which we observe processes that took place in the distant past. But in fact I have already been all through that discussion, regarding "slow motion" effects and the lack thereof, and I'm not going to rehash it here. Suffice it to say that, no, Steve, the uniformity of the speed of light is NOT just an assumption. It really isn't. It is instead a matter of empirical observation. You certainly have the right to choose to disbelieve the reality of the data (as you embrace the apparent age doctrine — which is not, by the way, taught anywhere in the Bible), but I say again that you do not have the right to misrepresent it.

(10) Finally, you state that you are "not willing to deny the scriptures that were confirmed to us as true by miracles, the greatest being the resurrection of Jesus." Yes. The same is true of all of the non-YECs who, just like you, believe in the biblical God, believe in the divinity of Christ, and believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, people such as Hill Roberts, Tom Couchman, Shane Scott, David Mathews, Don England, Jack Wood Sears, Batsell Barrett Baxter, J. D. Thomas, John N. Clayton, Davis A. Young, Howard J. Van Till, Alan Hayward, Don Stoner, Glenn Morton, Keith Miller, Roger C. Wiens, Richard Ritland, John L. Wiester, Matthew S. Tiscareno, Hugh Ross, Charles Hodge and millions of others. All of them agree with you, Steve, in not being willing to deny the scriptures. They agree with you that the Bible in inerrant. And yet they also know that the antiquity of the universe and the earth is a truth about the real world, because they have learned about and studied the relevant factual information and thus are aware that antiquity is the reality, just as is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around.

Again, I appreciate your response. Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

•••• Steve Willis, 1/25/01 6:51 PM ••••

[snip]

This is with regard to an article on "Stopping" (or slowing) the speed of light that I shared with the list about a week ago.

[snip]

Todd wrote:

I myself am not particular concerned about the "phenomenological" language that is used by some of these articles since they are, of course, written by popular journalists writing for a popular audience. I simply voiced a caution with respect to being aware of and careful about the fact that you are dealing with "phenomenological" language rather than a precise, detailed, technical description suited for physicists and engineers.

You seemed concerned. Once again, let me say that there are many who are experimenting with the speed of light. You can find articles that claim to slow it. Others which claim to speed it up, all the while saying they are within the realms of relativity. If mere mortals can play with something — even a refraction index, or some other medium, it is not out of my mind that an infinitely, powerful God, who created it all (Remember: "Let there be light"?) can do much more.

Todd wrote:

Apparently, you believe that you possess data and evidence that shows either (1) the stellar explosion SN1987A never really occurred (i.e., though we have directly observed the event, the event itself never actually happened because our observation of it is merely an illusion), or (2) the light from SN1987A (and from every other galaxy, in the millions of galaxies in the universe farther from the earth than SN1987A) travelled at a speed thousands or millions of times faster in the past than it does today.

I will be among the first to admit that I do not have answers that will satisfy everyone. I have satisfied myself with the idea that the creation was made with what some would call "apparent" age. Adam's wife, made in one day, was of suitable age that God could tell them to be fruitful and multiply. She was only a day old but had the apparent age and formation of an adult. Adam had be created the same way earlier in that day.

When God said that he created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is within them in six days (Ex. 20:11), I accept it as true and that the earth and universe appeared much older than they actually were. I may not understand it with my present human knowledge, but that's what I believe.

As for the Super Nova 1987a, I either must say the light from the star and the explosion were created as they were, displaying apparent age, or that in some way, the light from the star and the SN event were speeded up to us. And I can't tell you which. Further, I'd not limit God's ability to do it some other way consistent with what He's revealed about the six-creative days.

Now, if you wish to present this data, please do so. Otherwise you have nothing more than your human speculation.

I admit that my ideas as to how it POSSIBLY occurred are human. And you must admit that your's are too. When scientists say they never will be able to "see" past Guth's inflationary event, all they can offer is human speculation too. When they speak of string theory with ten dimensions, or quintessential universes with eleven dimensions, THEY CANNOT MEASURE THEM EITHER. It's just human speculation.

If you wish to state that you refuse to believe the factual data, you certainly have every right to do so. You do not, however, have the right to misrepresent the data, nor do you have the right to misrepresent your own position with respect to the idea that you possess controverting data, because you don't.

I do my best NOT to misrepresent the data. When I speak of such matters, I OFTEN speak of how it could look with a special, non-natural creation. I admit that much of it has the appearance of a measured older age. I cannot say how much older it looks, and it would appear that scientists are having a hard time nailing that down too. Some say it's been around for ever. Others say its 20 billion years old. Some say the data suggest as low as 8 billion, others as high as 14 billion — and then have a problem because they say that some stars look older than that, according to the "main sequence" theory. Human reasoning doesn't nail it down much better for you than for me.

That's all I'm saying.

That's all I'm saying, too.

If you have this data that shows that God changed the speed of light in the past (despite the fact that we already possess extensive data from direct observations of the universe showing that the speed of light has not been any different for at least the past few billion years — and that, therefore, God did NOT change the speed of light) then please present your data which shows that God did change the speed of light.

How about the same Scientific American issue you recommended to me (in another post)? I had purchased this issue in December. Before I had a chance to read the article in the paper version, I saw some of the main articles online (and there are quite a few footnote-links online that aren't mentioned or accessible in the printed magazine).

So, what about the article "Plan B for the cosmos" (p.58-9)? He asked, "If the new cosmology fails, then what's the back up plan?" To start with, you can see that the author, Joao Magueijo, recognizes that there are a number of things lacking from the Plan A (Big Bang) theory. He said,

"The shortsightedness of the universe is enormously irritating to cosmologists. It precludes physical explanations — that is, ones based on physical interactions — for puzzles such as why the early universe was so uniform. Within the framework of the standard big bang theory, the uniformity can be explained only by fine-tuning the initial conditions — essentially a recourse to metaphysics." [my emphasis — SPW]

"Metaphysics" — that brings it back to MY territory, based on what the Bible says (though I doubt if he accepts that). He asks, even though he probably accepts "Plan A,"

"Could the enthusiasm generated by inflation and its offshoots conceal a monstrous error?"

So what does he offer as a backup? The VSL theory. The VARYING SPEED OF LIGHT THEORY. "Inflation" offers one explanation. VSL offers another:

"It does not take much thought [good thing for me — SPW] to realize that the same thing could have been achieved if light simply had traveled faster in the early universe than it does now."

So Magueijo, Andreas Albrecht of the University of California at Davis, have John Barrow of University of Cambridge have proposed the VSL theory. He also referred to work by John Moffat of the University of Toronto and Ian T. Drummond of Cambridge who pioneered ideas in VSL. Magueijo wrote:

"It now appears that the constancy of _c_ is not so essential to relativity after all."

And after writing of string theory,

"...the apparent speed of light in our world could vary while the truly fundamental _c_ remains constant."

Yes, he admits VSL is "far from the mainstream," "wild" and possibly "crude." But why would he begin such considerations if he did not seek another way to explain the APPEARANCE of an expanding universe when perhaps it had not begun with a big bang?

I believe he answers your statement (from above):

"...despite the fact that we already possess extensive data from direct observations of the universe showing that the speed of light has not been any different for at least the past few billion years"

when he wrote this,

"Postulating their constancy ['speed of light and other fundamental physical parameters' — inserted by SPW from earlier in the article] over the entire universe involves a massive extrapolation" [emphasis mine — SPW].

You know as well as I do that NO human has been measuring the speed of light for more than a few hundred years. Beyond that, it's an assumption. It really is.

Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than subjectively disputing the objective data that we already possess which shows that your subjective opinion is incorrect.

I dispute a beginning to the heavens and the earth that is inconsistent with the word of God's explanation of it. I'm trying to avoid the "monstrous error" of NOT believing what God says.

I am absolutely not trying to mean or insulting. I AM trying to be very clear and honest and straightforward with you regarding the facts that are already in our possession.

And I would say the same. I admit, as much as I am interested in astronomy — and I have served as a director of our local club for a number of years before last — and personally possess materials on it, I think about these matters A LOT. I am not willing to deny the scriptures that were confirmed to us as true by miracles, the greatest being the resurrection of Jesus.

[snip]

[ TOP ]

Part 12

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
1/27/01 5:56 PM

Hi, Steve.

Do I like coconut pistachio ice cream?

No, I do not.

Does this have any relevance to the objective, directly observed, empirical fact about the real world that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago?

No, it does not.

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

No, I do not.

Does this change the objective, empirical fact that millions of people who do believe in the resurrection of Jesus (and who also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible) accept the truth that the universe and earth are ancient?

No, it does not.

Our personal feelings, wishes, desires, and prejudices do not and cannot alter the truth about the real world. It is an empirical fact that the sun does not revolve about the earth (it's the other way around), and how we feel about it simply doesn't matter.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

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

•••• Steve Willis, 1/25/01 6:51 PM ••••

[snip]

Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

[snip]

[ TOP ]

Part 12

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
1/27/01 11:25 PM

Hi, Steve Willis.

I stated:

Do I like coconut pistachio ice cream?

No, I do not.

Your reply (1/27/01 8:08 pm):

Neither do I. Perhaps our dislike of a particular kind of ice cream is all we have in common.

Actually, I believe we both dislike Al Gore, too. ;-)

I answered your question:

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

No, I do not.

Your reply:

I really didn't think so.

Might I ask, then, since you already knew the answer, what was your reason for asking? This is not a rhetorical nor a sarcastic question. I would really like to know.

I joined mars-list and began discussing YEC issues because Terence Sheridan specifically asked me to, because he was interested in my discussion of issues regarding the antiquity of the universe and YEC in general, and specifically my claim that SN1987A represents a direct disproof of young earth creationism, and because it is my experience that the great majority of YECs I discuss this with (indeed, every YEC I have ever personally discussed this with) are very unfamiliar with the substantive details and it is my belief that they should at least have some acquaintance with these details which in the YEC community are typically claimed to not even exist.

That's why.

I have discussed issues related to this subject in a number of YEC- oriented discussion forums (most of them not associated with the Church Of Christ), and I'm also the moderator of an egroups forum dedicated to discussion of creationism-related topics, so I was not averse to jumping into the discussion in mars-list with Terence and others who who might participate in such a discussion.

I have stated everything I have stated as accurately and truthfully as I know. I have defended my statements against false characterizations (such as, for example, when Steve Rudd described some of my comments as "wild accusations" about YECs, after which I turned right around and backed up my comments with direct quotes from YECs themselves such as from Henry Morris and mars-list's own Jack Wirtz), and have provided numerous online and "offline" references to back up my statements regarding the substantive information regarding various relevant issues.

It would be a shame if truth-seeking was discouraged simply because people were afraid of where the truth might lead them. Being motivated by prejudice, or fear, or the like should simply not be part of the equation. Unfortunately, we both know that it frequently becomes so. I, for one, will continue to fight against this, and to present the truth regardless of how people feel about it.

Whatever happened to "We have no need to fear the truth"? (Which really means that you choose to hold respect for truth and truth-seeking above your own fallible, irrational human emotions.)

Additionally, this, from the Welcome Letter:

We wish to continue in the Markslist request that Mars-List is a place where brethren are free to discuss controversial issues, and we hope that they will do so with respect for one another and in the "gentleness and meekness of Christ." This is not the 'Jesus turning over tables' list.

We desire that Mars-List will be a good resource as well as a "place" of good-spiritedness. Remember that occasionally those who do NOT share a "like precious faith" are on the list. What they see on the list may be how they view all Christians.

I have repeatedly pointed out the fact that I am not a member of the Church Of Christ, nor a Christian (and you pointed out that you already knew this, even as you chose to go over it with me yet again). So that makes me the occasional one of "those who do NOT share a 'like precious faith'...on the list." I have also pointed out that I was raised in the Church Of Christ, that I was a sincere and active member of the COC, and that I was a young earth creationist myself. I have pointed out my status as a former YEC, because after studying many details relevant to YEC issues (such as the direct observations of antiquity acquired through astronomy) I realized that YEC was not the truth about the real world, so I rejected it. I accepted the fact that the universe, and the earth, were ancient, because they were indeed facts about the real world - even though my personal feelings told me that accepting this truth against my religious biases did not feel good. I know many reasons why YEC is a false description of the real world, so in appropriate contexts I point these things out.

However, I certainly have no importance to this issue. I am not the issue. What is the truth? What are the relevant, substantive, objective details, and what do they show us about the antiquity of the universe and the earth? That is what is important to the matter, for anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth about the issues. All of this other stuff that many YECs frequently love to dig into about personalities, and religious politics, and prejudices is completely beside the point. Our feelings are completely irrelevant to the objective truth.

I hope that you understand that. I know that we all say that that is what we believe, but lip service doesn't count.

Finally, you talk about faith, and yet you fail to distinguish between false faith and correct faith, and yet as a former COC member I know fully well that you frequently preach about false faith, and you point out how people get caught up in their religious creeds and then make God responsible for their own fallible and erroneous human ideas. YEC is a false faith, just as geocentrism is a false faith. You cannot cover up error simply by putting the label "faith" on the box. Crying "faith" does not relinquish you from the responsibility of using your reason to show that your faith makes sense against the real world rather than merely being nonsensical. If labeling something "faith" somehow made every human belief okay, then there is no difference between a Hindu, and a Mormon, and a Moslem, and a Buddhist, and a COC member. In calling for subjectivism, you make the claim "We follow the truth" into nothing more than a meaningless phrase, because "truth" then becomes whatever you feel like it should be according to your faith for which you claim that real world correspondences are irrelevant.

The geocentrists had faith.

The New Age believer has faith, too.

So what?

A human being's fallible faith does not give him any justification at all for relinquishing his responsibility to respect truth-seeking and to accept the truth even when the truth is different from his fallible faith. I know that you know this.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

•••• Steve Willis, 1/27/01 8:08 PM ••••
Steve Willis here to Todd who wrote,

Do I like coconut pistachio ice cream?

No, I do not.

Neither do I. Perhaps our dislike of a particular kind of ice cream is all we have in common.

Do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

No, I do not.

I really didn't think so. Might I ask, then, what is your reason for joining this list?

The reason I would emphasize the resurrection, is that that miracle confirmed the teaching and salvation-efforts of Jesus the Christ. He affirmed such things as inspiration (the God-directed truthfulness of Scriptural accounts such as Genesis), and prophecy. When you answer as you did about the resurrection, it confirms to me what I thought you must feel about the Scriptures. As such, we have no common ground for discussion. You put your trust only in that which is seen or measurable. Faith must go beyond that (Hebrews 11:1).

Once again, so why join our discussion list?

[ TOP ]

Part 12

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Impact Craters on Earth; Credentialism
1/31/01 8:55 AM

Hi, Steve Rudd.

I would sincerely like to see Don Patton explain the geological processes that create the remains of something like the impact crater called Manicouagan Crater, in Quebec, Canada, in less than 6,000 years. This involves not only the land deformation created by the impact, but more importantly the erosion, lithification, and re-erosion of the geological feature.

I would like him to cite his own research, or cite research from any peer-reviewed geological or geophysics literature in conjunction with this.

In addition to this, I would like to see Don Patton explain how it is that there are over 160 impact craters, a few of them even larger than the Manicouagan Crater (such as the massive Vredefort Crater in South Africa), and yet there is absolutely no historical record of any of these massive impact crater events in the past 4,000 years since the YEC-model flood — the only way it could be according to the YEC model. (That's more than one impact crater every 25 years on average.)

Since mars-list is not the appropriate place for an invited debate, you can inform Dr. Patton that I moderate a discussion forum whose sole purpose is for discussion of creationism-related issues. Additionally, as someone with HTML editing (and computer programming) skills, I have no qualms about discussing the issue in any forum, at any time, or even in no forum, with the discussion simply to be posted to a website for public viewing.

Additionally, I have had a discussion and/or debate challenge ("Ancient Universe Challenge") posted on the front page, page one, of my website, since January 18th of last year, and absolutely no YEC has stepped up to meet this challenge.

You could also relay this to Don Patton for me. Perhaps he can also explain how it is that SN1987A, which occurred approximately 168,000 years ago, and which is a direct astronomical observation, never really happened, and perhaps, unlike all other YECs, he could actually present some real data which shows that SN1987A never happened. I know you might think I'm just being sarcastic, but I'm not. I'm just making a forthright statement. If Don Patton can really do these things, that no other YEC has ever done, with real evidence rather than simply using "smoke and mirrors" tricks of rhetoric, then I, for one, would like to know about it.

Finally, I reiterate to you what I stated to Glen Young in my 12/15/00 11:19 pm post:

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.

It seems that some people want to misrepresent my discussion as me being on some intellectual high horse trying to lord my education over other people. Those who do this obviously don't know what they are talking about, since I don't use credentials in any kind of status-improving strategy because I don't have any. My arguments and criticisms are not based on credentials, of myself or of anyone else. My arguments and criticisms are based on objective information about the real world itself, which anyone can check out for themselves, as I have pointed out clearly and repeatedly. If you don't check out the details, then you have no right to be preaching (wrongly and ignorantly) about them. That's the truth-respecting nature of any subject, not just YEC.

First and foremost, it is by such clear objective, empirical facts as that of SN1987A that we know that the universe has been around a lot longer than just 6,000 years. This is just as factual as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. No YEC (in any forum, in any publication, anywhere, not just here in mars-list) has ever successfully shown, according to the empirical facts, that the relevant data (such as we have discussed here in mars-list about such things as SN1987A and Cepheid variable stars) is incorrect or misunderstood. (And, again, none of the substantive information regarding this has anything whatsoever to do with me, or with any credentials I may or may not have.)

Indeed, unlike you, Steve, many (most?) of your fellow YEC travelers have abandoned the empirical approach of "scientific" creationism altogether in espousing the ultimate "escape clause" of the apparent age concept, which holds that, <<imputed dialogue>> "Well, regardless of what the data is, the empirical data itself is not not real but just an illusion." (YEC apparent age claim: The light of an exploding star was created "in transit" about 6,000 light-years from earth — the exploding star itself never having ever really existed — and that "in transit" illusion just reached the earth in 1987. This position has been demonstrated by many right here in mars-list, so please don't falsely accuse me now, as you did earlier, of making "wild accusations.")

I don't care about credentials. I don't care about fallible religious creeds that fallible people believe in, nor do I care about fallible human interpretations that people make of the biblical text. I simply care about the truth. I want to know what the reality is. I couldn't care less if some guy has a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering with 30 years of intensive post-graduate work in the field to back it up, or if some guy's been preaching the Bible and proclaiming his dedication to truth for 40 years, or even if some guy has a diploma from a diploma mill from some town in the Australian outback. If any of these guys can't back up their empirical claims with real data from the real world about the real world, then their claims are so much malarky, and I really couldn't care less what their credentials are or are not.

It is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun, because that is the data. The tree that falls in the forest really does make a sound, whether or not anyone is around to hear it. These empirical realities are completely separate from us human beings and our prejudices and beliefs (which is what "objective" in "objective reality" means, you know). They don't depend on us. I relate something to you, and you may go to the real world itself to check out my claims. My claims are simply my claims and nothing more. The truth is in the world, not in me, and not in any other human being. The real world exists apart from us, and if you take the time and effort to do so, you can go straight to the real world to check up on these Ph.D.'s and these preachers and anyone else.

Second, as I have already pointed out, I myself have no credentials, so how is it even possible for me to "use my credentials" to try to "intimidate" people with my "superior education" — when I don't have any? Obviously, anyone who tries to portray my discussion in such a manner simply doesn't know what he's talking about. And he might — or might not — also be doing it as a sort of rhetorical maneuver to try to take the heat off by engaging in ad hominem against me rather than dealing with the substantive empirical details that I point out.

I am a "lay person," just like you, Steve. And being a lay person does not in any way relinquish a person from the responsibility of striving to be careful about his handling of relevant information in the process of truth-seeking. Being a lay person does not excuse anyone from letting his personal prejudices blind his reasoning capacities, from being careless and thus misrepresenting matters inaccurately, from being obstinate in promoting error, or from refusing to acknowledge legitimate logical and empirical matters that are pointed out. Holding those kinds of attitudes and engaging in that kind of behavior is wrong, no matter who you are, lay person or not.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

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

— Proverbs 12:17

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.

— Proverbs 18.15

•••• Steve Rudd, 1/27/01 11:55 PM ••••

[snip]

If you want to refute someone, try Dr. Don Patton Ph.D. not some lay person like myself.

[ TOP ]

Part 12

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
2/1/01 10:37 AM

Hi, Tom (Wheeler).

Carelessness, false innuendo, and "not telling the whole story" is not becoming of a person who claims to be a truth-seeker.

You state:

I am not going to discuss the things that you bring up for three reasons.

And then only three sentences later you state:

I believe your mind is made up in spite of any evidence.

So, let me get this straight: In the course of the last few months I have discussed a number of lines of direct, objective, observational evidence from the real world about the real world. You, in fact, have discussed none, and state here explicitly that you are not going to. And then you have the temerity to accuse me of insincerity in making up my mind in spite of the evidence. What gives you the right, as a Christian, to engage in such rhetoric?

You see, part of the problem with YEC (as I have stated before) is the attitudes that YEC proponents demonstrate in being very careless and misrepresentative about their "facts" (you know, the discredited YEC myths regarding moon dust, shrinking sun, Moon & Spencer conjecture, earth's magnetic decay, ocean salinity, Lewis overthrust has no friction layer, missing supernovae remnants, and on and on the list goes) and then in turn being very obstinate about correcting error when their errors are pointed out to them in detail.

Since you state that you are not schooled in science, then if you do not take the time to dig into the details you have no right to incorrectly represent those details, since you would be representing something that you know little or nothing about. If you don't know what you are talking about, then as a genuinely honest truth-seeker your honest reponse is to simply say, "I don't know or understand the details on this," rather than responding, as YECs typically do, by misrepresenting things left and right, and routinely trying to cover things up with rhetorical smoke and mirrors.

You state:

Anyone can make up tests that prove what they already believe, especially if they are dishonest.

Oh? Wait a minute, didn't you also state explicitly that you are "not schooled in science"? Well, that explains, then, why you are now falsely representing the scientific process concerning which you are not schooled in.

It is certainly possible to come up with bad tests (because they don't actually produce data that is relevant to the hypothesis you are examining, even though when you started you thought it would; or because you screw up, unintentionally or intentionally, the data or your presentation of the data). In fact, Tom, these kinds of things happen all of the time. Scientists are not superhumans, and I have never pretended that they are (nor would I). They are fallible human beings just like everyone else.

The beauty of the scientific process (which someone not schooled in it would perhaps not appreciate) is the critical, self-correcting way of thinking that is built right into the process, philosophically, pragmatically, and educationally. Again, the process is by no means perfect and cannot be perfect. No one is pretending that it is.

And yet, the fact remains that it works, and works stunningly well, because of its critical, self-correcting nature. While there are incompetent and dishonest scientists from time to time (like the Chinese archaeologist who publicly apologized a few weeks ago regarding his fraud), and competent scientists who are simply fallible, the process of science as a whole is that no scientist is an authority based on the authority of his person (if you know what I mean). Authority in science is acquired solely on the basis of doing good work and having the work tested out over time. In other words, in the social world a scientist becomes imbued with authority not on the basis of himself but on the basis of how well his work has stacked up against the real world itself.

Reality doesn't change because of who you are or what you believe. If the rock we are examining is primarily olivine, then it is. If it is not, then it is not. Whether you are an atheist or a theist, a Republican or a Libertarian, a Ravens fan or a Giants fan, or even someone who likes coconut pistachio ice cream for Pete's sake, this has absolutely nothing to do with the objective, empirical facts regarding the mineral nature of the rock with respect to its olivine content. In their rhetoric, YECs commonly imply that the relevant details are somehow different based on who you are and what your personal beliefs and desires are. I realize that that is what YECs must do as a philosophical implication of their common portrayal of anything non-YEC as if it was somehow a vast worldwide conspiracy against YEC. (Please don't let on to anyone that I told you about my decoder ring.) But, in fact, the notion is completely ridiculous, specifically because it is "non-YEC" that covers the wide spectrum of beliefs — including a great many people who believe in biblical inerrancy — while it is YECs themselves who share the common bias.

SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago. What, Tom, you aren't familiar with the details? Okay, fine. Then just stick with acknowledging that. You have no right to then go further — in your unfamiliarity — and accuse me of having made up my mind in spite of the evidence. What gives you the right to make such a false claim? The details are there for anyone to examine. Everyone who examines the details will find exactly the same thing I found. I have never asked people to accept what I claim on my say-so. I have always appealed to the data itself. This data is not going to change just because I like a cinnamon stick in my cafe latte (sp?) and you don't.

When I talk about SN1987A, I might cite some "astronomical authorities" along the way (and I have done so), but I certainly do not do this for the purpose of claiming that you should believe the data because, after all, these men with Ph.D.'s have claimed it. Absolutely not. I cite them for the simple reason that these are the guys (gender neutral, please!) who have done the actual work, and as a community of "experts in this area by reason of the fact that they have the professional experience of working with these kinds of relevant details a lot" they are familiar with this relevant data.

Incidentally, SN1987A information is all over the Hubble Space Telescope public NASA website, and I gave numerous references to that when I was discussing the relevant details, so people have absolutely no excuse for simply ignoring that kind of stuff when to get it all you have to do is literally lift your finger (it's only a mouse-click away!).

Science works. This is a given. You do yourself no good by trying to ignore this fact. We certainly do know factually (meaning, "we know this with a very high degree of certainty") that the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around) through scientific examination of the universe (astronomy). We certainly do keep people from dying from disease (smallpox) or biological "wear and tear" (heart attacks) as benefits of the scientific process (whereas even as little as one hundred years ago nothing could be done). Pluto exists, and it has a moon. This moon was not even learned about until about 24 years ago. SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. All of these are empirical facts.

Tom, you may certainly choose to ignore and refuse to believe any of these things. You have every right to do so. However, you do not have the right to falsely represent such matters — even by insinuation and innuendo — as being based on misinterpreted data, bad data, or fraudulent (dishonest) data. Even the apparent age advocates, who fully disagree with me regarding SN1987A falsifying YEC, acknowledged that I presented the relevant empirical data accurately. If you have relevant factual information showing that I have made mistakes in my presentation of relevant empirical data about such things as SN1987A in my discussion, then please present it. You should present it. However, if you do not, then please do not make comments based on innuendoes and insinuations implying otherwise.

You write:

I have been asked if I believe all evolutionists are dishonest. My reply is a question. What basis does anyone have to be honest if they do not believe in God? I think that a fair question.

No, Tom. It is a blatantly prejudiced question that fairly drips with the insincerity of falsely accusing atheists of being dishonest, without even making the attempt to actually show that your accusation has any merit whatsoever.

And that's just part of it.

Tom, you also make the entirely false implication that evolutionists do not believe in God. In various posts I myself have pointed out a number of evolutionists who believe in God. The truth of the matter, though you chose to falsely represent otherwise, is that most evolutionists (people who accept the idea of evolution, like accept the idea that the earth revolves about the sun) are theists, not atheists. Please get your facts straight.

And there's even more that's wrong with your comment.

This one, I'll grant, is perhaps a bit more subtle, but it is a relevant point nonetheless: The YEC-related discussion focus has been almost solely on the antiquity issue alone. It is a fact that the antiquity issue is independent of the biological evolution issue. The antiquity issue is empirically and philosophically independent of the evolution issue. Discussing the empirical details regarding, say, SN1987A, its distance from earth, the speed of light, and hypothetical lightspeed decays, and details regarding astronomical observations of process cycles for which no slow motion effects are observed, none of these have anything whatsoever to do with evolution. (I grant to you that the reverse is not true: We cannot say that the evolutionary fossil record is not dependent on an ancient earth.)

So in stating criticisms of biological evolution, you have not actually said anything at all relevant to the fact that the universe and the earth are ancient, and that the antiquity of the universe is a direct empirical observation. (I could also point out errors in your comments regarding the specific fossils you mention, but that's another issue which is, frankly, beside the point.)

I have communicated with Don Patton before. It's Steve Rudd who keeps relying on the "wisdom" of fallible (and wrong) human beings like Barry Setterfield and Don Patton (all while he keeps claiming that it is non-YECs who have this problem, because YECs, of course, don't do that), and who keeps trying to sidestep his own personal responsibility in how he promotes bad information (he's just a "lay person," you know, so we should excuse his promotion of error).

Finally, I'm organizing a seminar which I will hold this summer on SN1987A and its direct disproof of YEC. It will be in Grand Rapids, Michigan, probably less than a quarter mile from one of the exits from either major freeway downtown. I hope you can make it.

This is not a game of personalities and religious politics. It is a matter of truth, and it would behoove you, as someone who claims to be a truth-seeker, to treat it that way.

Regards,
Todd

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

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

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

— Proverbs 12:17

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.

— Proverbs 18.15

•••• Tom Wheeler, 1/31/01 11:54 AM ••••
Tom Wheeler here to Mr. Greene

I am not going to discuss the things that you bring up for three reasons. 1. I don't have time. 2. I am not schooled in science. 3. I don't believe you would accept the truth on the matter. I believe your mind is made up in spite of any evidence. I am not schooled in science but I believe that I can tell the difference in at least reasonable truth and an assertion. You are handy with putting forth assertions and theories and calling them facts. Give you a few billion years and you can suppose that anything can happen and you are quick with your suppositions. The great find of a fossil proving that birds came from dinosaurs was published as truth in every newspaper that I have heard of but when it was questioned and proven to be a hoax a person had to search diligently to find that published anywhere. As far as I know it wasn't published except in a few papers and magazines published by creationists. When you show me someone or a group that have observed that Crater from the time it began until now I will accept their dating. I will not accepting the dating of people who decided the dates and then devised a test to prove them. Anyone can make up tests that prove what they already believe, especially if they are dishonest. I have been asked if I believe all evolutionists are dishonest. My reply is a question. What basis does anyone have to be honest if they do not believe in God? I think that a fair question.

I believe that you can contact Don Patton through Steve Rudd's web site, if you really want to contact him. If you have credibility with your peers, I am sure that there are several that would gladly debate you publicly. Again I am not schooled in science enough to debate you publicly or privately, and don't have the years left to study science that deeply but I believe I know the difference between assertions and what you call "empirical evidence".

[snip]

[ 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 ]