The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 14)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 14)

"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 3/5/01. 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 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: More About Bait-and-Switch on SN1987A
2/10/01 9:33 AM

Hi, Jon.

It is obvious that not only can there be no antiquity issue without a beginning, there can't be anything without a beginning. So what? I've been requesting that you and Dudley show relevance to the antiquity issue, which you are pretending but which so far neither of you has even attempted to do. But I understand why you don't attempt it, because it is a genuinely impossible thing.

The (conjectured) circumstances surrounding the origin of the universe have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to determining the birthdate of John Jefferson Davis. And once I determine the birthdate of John Jefferson Davis, this tells me nothing about the circumstances surrounding the origin of the universe.

The only exception to this is in the trivial sense that, obviously, the origin of the universe was some time before the birth of Davis. It is this obious point that I was referring to when I wrote (2/7/01 4:08 pm):

...what you must understand is that the origin of the universe must, of course, be before the universe that we observe, so trying to pretend that this origin took place after directly observed events taking place in an already existing universe (such as SN1987A) is clearly absurd. Therefore, you should stop trying to connect the two, since they have no connection other than the straightforward "time arrow" of the fact that the origin — whenever it occurred — must have been some time before star Sk -69 202 exploded (among other directly observed events), meaning that the origin was some time before about 168,000 years ago.

Thus, you and Dudly can go on and on about the conjectural status of cosmological theories about the origin of the universe (and you might even be right!), but when the discussion is about the antiquity of the universe having been directly observed to be something greater than 168,000 years (in the case of SN1987A), and greater than 2.2 million years (in the case of the Andromeda galaxy), and greater than 108 million years (in the case of the galaxy NGC 4603; see http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/1999/19/index.html), that other discussion is just not relevant. Pretending that it is, that being uncertain with some cosmological theories about the origin of the universe at some indefinite time in the past somehow implies that the stellar explosion called SN1987A did not really occur about 168,000 years ago — and without ever even addressing the details about SN1987A that really are relevant — is why Dudley's discussion (and your promotion of the same approach) is erroneous.

And just to continue to demonstrate this, I reiterate the points I've made repeatedly regarding Dudley's and your bait-and-switch posts, points which both of you have totally ignored:

First of all, I note here, again, that you have still completely failed to address a single thing that I have pointed out in my discussion of "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

I point out, for the fourth time:

—» Did the primary gas ring exist at the time of the stellar explosion?

Yes. This is an empirical fact.

—» Do we know how long it took for the light energy from the explosion to reach the primary gas ring?

Yes. This is an empirical fact.

—» Can this information be used to determine the distance to the star?

Yes. This is a geometric fact.

And also for the fourth time:

...please explain to all of us how it is that we (people in general) learned that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. What "playing field" is that? Does it matter? Truth cannot contradict truth.

Again, I submit that you (and Dudley) have refused to address these points because you know that they demonstrate the fallacies of your "criticisms" in showing that your rhetoric about the origin of the universe — at whatever time in the past that was — has no relevance to dealing with the details of those things that we have observed which show us that the universe has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years.

Here, let's try it again, so you (and everyone else) will see just what it is you and Dudley are pretending but failing to actually do.

Did SN1987A's primary gas ring exist at the time of the stellar explosion?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

Do we know how long it took for the light energy from the stellar explosion to reach the primary gas ring?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

Can this information be used to determine the distance to the star using trigonometry?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

If you want to deal with the details relevant to how we observe empirically with something like SN1987A that the universe has been around at least 162,000 years longer than YECs (in their fallible human wisdom) have proposed, then you indeed have to deal with those details. Pretending that these specific, relevant details somehow don't really mean anything because of the conjectural status of something else entirely is precisely what bait-and-switch rhetoric is all about.

(The other bait-and-switch aspect of Dudley's rhetoric was in trying to pretend that I was wrong in calling my argument an empirical argument. Of course, notice who it is who refused to deal with the empirical details.)

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)

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

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 2/7/01 7:23 PM ••••
Todd,

You wrote:

Obviously, if the discussion was about the origin of the universe, then I should indeed be digging into the details of Big Bang theory or what have you.

What neither you or Dudley apparently understand is that when we are discussing the antiquity issue, we are not discussing the origin issue, which is a different area.

Todd, there can be no antiquity issue at all without a beginning. And the circumstances surrounding origins (how, when what , etc,) does directly relate to how old they are.

I understand why you wish to avoid these questions, but to say that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with its antiquity is obviously an error on your part.

You also wrote:

Does not knowing details regarding Pluto's surface mean that Pluto does not really exist or does it mean that we aren't after all really certain that Pluto does exist? Obviously, this is absurd. The two questions are not connected. Being uncertain about one has no relevance to the observational (empirical) certainty we have about the other.

This is precisely the kind of non sequitur that Dudley, and now you, are promoting.

No, it isn't. Neither of us has said SN1987A does not exist. How about this... I will agree that what I have said is precisely the same as saying Pluto does not exist when you show me wghere I have said SN1987A does not exist. Of course, you cannot. Why don't you just withdraw this silly "non sequitur" charge instead?

Actually, your charge using the existance/non existance of Pluto is what lacks relevance to the discussion.

[ TOP ]

Part 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Please answer — Bait-and-Switch on SN1987A
2/10/01 9:58 AM

Hi, Ron.

Please check the archives. I have no desire to rehash things with you. If you want to engage in "forays into side issues" (Glen Young's phrase), please go right ahead and do that without me. The only thing I would add to that is to say please don't try to pretend that the side issues are relevant to the antiquity issue when in fact they aren't. If you can't or don't want to address details relevant to the antiquity issue, please don't try to confuse matters by throwing irrelevancies into the mix.

I reiterate to you (from my 1/25/01 10:13 pm post directed toward Steve Willis):

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 that 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.

If you want to begin looking at details relevant to the antiquity issue with respect to my approach in particular, then you should begin with:

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

If these other separate issues are matters that you sincerely wish to discuss, I suggest that you contact me with a personal email, and I will suggest another discussion forum where a number of issues like these are discussed from a variety of perspectives.

Regards,
Todd

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

•••• Ronald R. Nelson, 2/8/01 2:27 PM ••••
Todd:

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Does light travel at a constant speed?

What specific measurements were used to determine the antiquity of SN1987A?

Also, do you believe evolution:

(1) Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing?

(2) Organized the matter into galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun (cosmic evolution)?

(3) Created life that exists on at least one of those planets from non-living matter (chemical evolution)?

(4) Caused living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themeselves?

(5) Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)?

Take care,
Ron Nelson

[ TOP ]

Part 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
2/10/01 10:19 AM

Hi, Glen.

I accept your criticism. It is my fault for being ambiguously unspecific. Where you misrepresented me is with this statement in your 2/6/01 11:49 am post:

"...[Mr. Greene's] acceptance of the ancient earth position has caused a departure from the fundamental belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible."

This is, in fact, incorrect. That was the context of my post addressed to Jon Quinn, in which I pointed out that my "departure from the fundamental belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible" was due to theology. In fact, Glen, I was an old earth creationist for a few years before I left the COC. Sorry about not being more specific when I wrote my parenthetical comment about you misrepresenting me.

It is obvious that in regard to me, personally, taking my whole position — as a skeptic — in its totality, my position is not compatible with "the inerrant Word of God." I have never tried to claim that it was. What I have pointed out to you (and demonstrated) repeatedly is that the antiquity issue itself (since we are discussing the antiquity issue, and since I'm not the topic of discussion — though some seem to get this confused) is just as compatible with your position as is believing that the earth revolves about the sun rather than the other way around (and for a lot of the same kinds of reasons).

And, Glen, you yourself have acknowledged that you agree with this, when you wrote (2/6/01 12:55 am):

"Does this mean that before I would aid a person in their baptism I would require them to pronounce the young earth creation belief? No. Could a Christian hold an old universe (or some version thereof) as a private belief and remain in fellowship with those who disagree? Yes, as long as he maintained his belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and believed, taught, and lived accordingly."

In fact, Glen, that is one of the things I have been explaining all along, a number of weeks before you even joined the discussion.

Regards,
Todd

•••• Glen Young, 2/7/01 4:44 PM ••••
Glen Young to Mr. Todd Greene.

You have made a statement that leaves the impression I have misrepresented your positions.

[snip]

•••• Todd S. Greene, 2/7/01 5:44 AM ••••
Hi, Jon.

With the prefatory comment that you have asked me to respond to a question about me personally and that this thus has absolutely no relevance to the antiquity issue (and, yes, I would call the view "skeptical," not "anti-supernatural")...

In response to your question (and to correct incorrect statements about me by Glen Young), I simply copy here a response I gave in another discussion forum....

[snip]

...it was on this last consideration [the biblical potrayal of God] that I ended up abandoning theism, not because I felt that "the Bible does imply a young earth."

[ TOP ]

Part 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: More About Bait-and-Switch on SN1987A
2/11/01 10:46 AM

Hi, Ronald.

Look, having dealt with and participated in YEC discussion for years, I am well aware that there are a host of issues other than the antiquity issue that are brought up for the purpose of distracting from the substantive details. For example, whether or not apes and humans had a common ancestor has no relevance whatsoever to distant galaxies and distant stars nor does that question have any relevance to details regarding impact craters on the earth.

I could say the same for almost the whole host of questions you have brought up. If your purpose is to distract from the substantive details of the antiquity issue by getting into other, irrelevant issues about which we all know there exists a great deal of prejudice, then by all means continue to ask those questions. However, if your purpose is to dig into the details regarding the antiquity issue to learn the truth of the matter, then you should deal with what is relevant.

Now, I know that David Arnold (for example) takes such forthright and honestly sincere statements like I have just made as being "vitriolic" and that I'm merely speaking from an "atheistic agenda," but, of course, in singling me out he has already shown how one-sided his judgment is. (And that's another forthright and honestly sincere statement by me.) My forthright criticisms have been called "ridiculing" and "knavish," among other things, by others. This is because over the last few decades YECs pretty much established a hegemony over discussion of these issues, and all criticism of YEC was dealt with with full-scale intimidation within the YEC sphere of influence. Thus, criticism of young earth creationism within conservative churches dropped precipitously, because of these "exclusivist" attitudes that were expressed in full force. Forthright criticism of YEC-related issues and discourse became very uncommon within conservative churches. (By the way, due to my website, and my former membership in the COC, I get emails from time to time from COC members who are non-YECs yet who tell me about remaining silent on this issue because they don't want to deal with the sheer antagonism of YECs. These are people who are very sincere in their faith, who have no question regarding the inerrancy of the Bible, who have learned about such details as we have discussed here regarding the empirical reality of antiquity and who believe merely that the YEC interpretation is incorrect. Of course, I also hear from others who, like myself, left the COC because of the YEC exclusivism.) Thus, YECs are not typically familiar with forthright criticism of their discourse, and frequently take it personally rather than seeing the details of the criticism and what is being criticized. This is a shame.

Now, you have asked two questions which are relevant to the antiquity issue, and specifically relevant to discussion of SN1987A.

(1) What specific measurements were used to determine the antiquity of SN1987A?

In regard to this first question, I have cited this reference literally dozens of times in my posts:

"SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

Please take a look at that.

(2) Does light travel at a constant speed?

In fact, we discussed the lightspeed decay question at length late last year here in mars-list. Please check the archives.

Finally, while Jon (and perhaps Dudley) continue on their irrelevant tangents (this is my honest, forthright description of it with respect to the empirical observations of SN1987A) regarding the conjectural status of Big Bang cosmology (about which, by the way, I happen to agree with them, as I already stated to Steve Willis my agreement when he talked about the same thing), here are some online references for you related to the empirical reality of SN1987A itself:

•	Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/03/A.html

•	STIS Chemically Analyzes the Ring Around Supernova 1987A

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/14.html

•	STIS Reveals Invisible High-Speed Collision Around Supernova 1987A

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/19.html

•	Shock Wave Sheds New Light on Fading Supernova

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/08/

•	SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/04/

•	Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/11/

•	The Tarantula Nebula and SN1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud

	http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048.html

•	Supernova 1987A and Sanduleak -69°202

	http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048a.html

•	The Tarantula Nebula, before SN1987A

	http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat049.html

•	Near the Tarantula Nebula in the LMC, before and after SN1987A

	http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat050.html

•	The light echo of supernova 1987A

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

•	Supernova 1987A

	http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm

•	The SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the Distance to the LMC

	http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/homework4/hwk4.html

•	New Distance Determination to the LMC

	http://singularity.astro.uiuc.edu/projects/mcnews/newsletter18.html

	(look toward the bottom of the web page)

Now, perhaps, Jon Quinn will continue to pretend that we don't really know anything about SN1987A because of the conjectural status of Big Bang cosmology — while he continues to never actually deal with the details of SN1987A itself, and David Arnold will continue to pretend that discussing the empirical reality of SN1987A is merely part of an "atheistic agenda" (meaning, prejudicially, that it can't be true because an atheist has said it; which is itself highly illogical) while he, too, continues to never deal with the details of SN1987A itself. And this criticism — forthrightly pointing out how YECs frequently couch their discussion in tangential irrelevancies — will itself be described merely as ridicule or vitriol, even though the criticism is truthful and accurate.

Or perhaps they will acknowledge the error of their rhetoric.

Incidentally, as I have pointed out to others from time to time in this discussion, there are also a great many people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible who have also accepted the reality that the universe is ancient. I have mentioned such people as Hill Roberts, Tom Couchman, and Jack Wood Sears, among others, in the COC. I have also mentioned other believers in biblical inerrancy (not members of the COC) such as: Davis A. Young, Alan Hayward, Howard J. Van Till, Glenn Morton, Robert C. Newman, J. P. Morland, Walter L. Bradley, and John L. Wiester. Though many YECs attempt to couch the antiquity issue in the prejudicial terms of being part of an atheistic agenda, this claim is transparently false.

Regards,
Todd

— 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

•••• Ronald R. Nelson, 2/10/01 8:40 PM ••••
Subject: Todd: verbal & Plenary inspiration

Todd:

I have another question. Do you affirm the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible?

This question is requested in addition to my previous post to you:

Todd:

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Does light travel at a constant speed?

What specific measurements were used to determine the antiquity of SN1987A?

Also, do you believe evolution:

(1) Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing?

(2) Organized the matter into galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun (cosmic evolution)?

(3) Created life that exists on at least one of those planets from non-living matter (chemical evolution)?

(4) Caused living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themeselves?

(5) Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)?

Take care,
Ron Nelson

[ TOP ]

Part 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: More About Bait-and-Switch on SN1987A
2/11/01 10:50 AM

Hi, Jon.

Look, Jon. In order to show that your discussion of the origin itself has something to with the empirical observations of SN1987A, what you need to do is explain specifically how the one is connected to the other. You have not done this.

We (you and I) have already agreed with the extremely obvious point that the origin of the universe must be at some time before the SN1987A explosion event. So far that seems to be our only point of agreement.

What I have pointed out to you is that without knowing anything at all about when the origin itself occurred, we do know when SN1987A occurred (because of substantive details regarding SN1987A, and because of related details regarding observations of uniformity of the speed of light, which we discussed late last years). SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago, therefore, since the origin of the universe is at some time before SN1987A, the origin of the universe was at some time prior to 168,000 years ago. Without ever knowing anything at all about when the origin itself was, we can at least bracket it on one end because of what we do know about the time of entities, events, and processes that we directly observe in the universe.

In other words, since we observe SN1987A from 168,000 years ago, it is obvious that the origin of the universe as a whole was at some time before SN1987A.

I certainly do "grasp the significance that if the universe was created by God less than 10,000 years ago, then SN1987A could not have occurred 160,000 years ago" (your words). This is precisely why the truth is that God did not create the universe less than 10,000 years ago. If God had created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, then obviously we would not be able to observe events in the universe that took place hundreds of thousands, and even millions and billions, of years ago. Yet we do. This is precisely why the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is an incorrect description of the real world.

I have acknowledged that those who advocate the apparent age argument (which I don't think you advocate) deny the reality of the observations of the stellar explosion. They argue that the explosion is merely an illusion built into "light created in transit," implying that the entire universe that we observe right now outside of a 6,000 light-year "bubble" around the earth is nothing more than a gigantic mirage of truly universal proportions (pun intended). If you deny the reality of the data that we acquire when we examine the real world itself, then I acknowledge that everything is "up for grabs."

Everything.

But this is not the argument that you are making, by your own statements regarding that you agree that the observed stellar explosion is a genuine event and not merely an illusion.

I again ask you to address this part of my previous post to you, which you did not address at all:

Here, let's try it again, so you (and everyone else) will see just what it is you and Dudley are pretending but failing to actually do.

Did SN1987A's primary gas ring exist at the time of the stellar explosion?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

Do we know how long it took for the light energy from the stellar explosion to reach the primary gas ring?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

Can this information be used to determine the distance to the star using trigonometry?

[Dudley's and Jon's paraphrased response]: Since scientific conjectures regarding the origin of the universe are uncertain, scientists don't really know the answer to this question.

As everyone can see, this is a non sequitur.

You have never yet even tried to explain (nor has Dudley Ross Spears or anyone else who throws up talk about Big Bang cosmology as a rhetorical smokescreen) how considerations about the origin of the universe have any relevance to the empirical facts surrounding SN1987A.

What is it about the origin that is supposed to somehow change what we have observed about SN1987A having these interesting gas rings around it? Is discussing the origin supposed to make the rings disappear? If it is not, then why aren't you discussing details regarding the rings themselves, insteading of engaging in all of this irrelevant discussion about conjectures about the origin of the universe?

What is it about the origin that is supposed to somehow change the time that it was observed to take between the stellar explosion and when the light energy from the explosion hit the primary ring? Is discussing the origin supposed to make this process and its observed timing just vanish? What? Explain yourself. If discussing the origin is not going to change what has already been empirically observed, then why aren't you discussing details regarding the light energy hitting the primary ring, insteading of engaging in irrelevant discussion about conjectures about the origin of the universe?

Make no mistake about it. I agree that my criticisms of your arguments are tough ones. But they are not ridicule or vitriol. Far from it. My criticisms cut right to the fallacies that exist in your arguments, just as I intend them to in my intentionally forthright manner. Don't try to take the light off this fact simply by accusing me of merely engaging in ridicule (your term) or vitriol (David Arnold's term) or "shabby treatment" (David Willis' term). These terms of personal non-endearment based on rhetorical spin are far more dangerous to truth-seeking than is dealing with the substantive details of the discussion itself.

I make absolutely no apology for forthrightly pointing out the fallacies in your arguments. Truth-seeking demands it, and I know that you agree that it does.

You claim that I "have conjectured that there was no miracle that happened less that 10,000 years ago by which the universe came to be." This is incorrect. I have made no remarks at all regarding miraculous or non-miraculous origin of the universe. I have (intentionally) not discussed it. My discussion is (intentionally) not based on assuming a non-miraculous origin of the universe. I have pointed this out to you (and others) numerous times. For example, we have considerable data that Abraham Lincoln was born in the early 19th century. Therefore, whether the origin of the universe was miraculous or not, I know for a fact that the origin was before the event of Lincoln's birth. The same goes for SN1987A. We have considerable data by which we see that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago. Therefore, whether the origin of the universe was miraculous or not, I know for a fact that the origin was before the event of the observed stellar explosion.

You claim that I do "not [realize] that the miraculous is not bound by...natural laws...." I have never stated nor implied that the miraculous is bound by natural laws. I have stated that whatever has happened (miraculous or not), right now we observe the results of the origin of the universe. Therefore, if the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago — miraculously or not — then that is what we would observe. If the universe was created far more than 10,000 years ago — whether created miraculously by God or not — then we would observe features about the universe that have been around a lot longer than 10,000 years.

And this is, indeed, what we observe, SN1987A being the case in point.

Finally, I thank you for acknowledging that YECs do not possess any empirical data at all that provides evidence for the YEC belief, and for acknowledging that the data indicates otherwise. That, too, is what I've been pointing out all along.

Regards,
Todd

— 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

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 2/10/01 11:04 AM ••••
Todd,

I am surprised that you still insist that the circumstances surrounding the origin of the universe has nothing to do with its antiquity. I'll try one more time, but if you continue to insist that one has nothing to do with the other, then I'll simply be forced to accept the obvious... that you are so focused on proving your point that you are shutting your eyes to the truth... and it is simple truth. One does not need to take years of calculus and physics to see it, but if he did he could still see it.

You wrote:

I spent my last post showing the relevance of origins to the antiquity issue of the universe. I did it adequately.

The simple fact is that if we are correct about the Bible's statement concerning origins, then you are incorrect about the antiquity of SN1987A. It is just that simple. You seem to grasp the significance that if the universe was created by God less than 10,000 years ago, then SN1987A could not have occurred 160,000 years ago. How on earth you continue to say these two things are not related is beyond me.

There have been at least three possible explanations given you, all which refer to the miraculous workings of God, that explain (you use "conjecture" which is fine because I freely admit I do not know all the particulars of creation, only what God has chosen to reveal) how it is that SN1987A looks to have happened 160,000 years ago. You have conjectured that there was no miracle that happened less that 10,000 years ago by which the universe came to be. You have appealed to the Hubble telescope findings and similar data to bolster your case, not realizing that the miraculous is not bound by the natural laws that are in the realm of natural scientific investigation and therefore not discoverable by science methods.

Again, I understand why you do not want to talk about origins, and have so arbitrarily pronounced that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the antiquity of its parts, but even a casual reader easily sees that it does. Something cannot come from nothing, and if you begin to talk of origins then you must think of the Originator, the first cause, and you do not have one.

I do.

[ TOP ]

Part 14

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Personal Beliefs and Prejudice
2/11/01 11:43 AM

Hi, David.

I write this to you in full knowledge of your status as list moderator.

You have made several false statements about me, statements which are even acknowledged to be false by other mars-list participants who have engaged in this particular discussion.

You claim that my criticisms are merely "vitriolic," even while you never even make the attempt to explain why a truthful criticism is "vitriolic" merely because it is stated forthrightly. You purposely choose to not even get into any details (such as maybe trying to show that the criticisms are not accurate), even admitting "I will not go into documentation of this," yet without ever touching upon a single detail relevant to the actual discussion of the antiquity issue, you choose to poison the discussion with these ad hominem remarks.

And then you turn around and try to deny any responsibility when you claim that "I am sure...that you understand that the one primarily responsible for the perception of a reader is the one who has written." Uh, no, David, I do not "understand" that one at all. You yourself have clearly ignored many of my own very clear and explicit statements in my posts, and then turned around and made statements (such as in this post of yours) based on wrong ideas that you have developed based on your own personal misperception of what I have indeed stated. I absolutely do not accept any responsibility for your lack of perception.

I have "obfuscated" nothing. When I first joined mars-list in discussion of the antiquity issue, I introduced myself, and I also posted a "personal introduction" post as per your Welcome Letter request, and I was explicit from the very beginning that I was not a member of the Church of Christ, among many other personal items about me. Just because you weren't reading my posts, or because you yourself may have become confused about what I've stated or not stated, this give you no right to try to poison me by claiming that I am involved in obfuscating my personal beliefs. This is false, and I ask you to retract your false claim.

Do not get me wrong. I do not at all pretend that you must engage in this discussion, nor am I under some false egomaniacal perception that you (and everyone else) should be reading my posts. I am simply saying that if you wish to represent what I have said, then obviously you should know what I have said. I discuss the antiquity issue and empirical and philosophical details related to that. Frankly and honestly, I do at times grow quite weary of the constant (and repetitive) ad hominem questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject. If we're talking about the details of the angular size of SN1987A's primary gas ring, and someone asks (for the fourth time) what church I'm a member of, I rightfully wonder about that person's interest in genuinely learning about the details relevant to the antiquity issue, since personal details about me have absolutely nothing to do with the issue, and knowing about me will not help in any way toward digging into the relevant details of the antiquity issue.

I have stated before, and no doubt I'll find it necessary to state again and again, the fact is that the antiquity issue is not about me, nor about my personal beliefs. It is about the truth regarding the reality of the antiquity of the universe, and of the earth.

I fully recognize that as list moderator, you have every prerogative to choose that I not discuss the antiquity issue in mars-list, to choose that forthright criticisms (such as mine) of both young earth creationism (which is your own belief) and the illogical nature of YEC rhetoric not be expressed. This is your prerogative, and I know this.

At the same time, I do not recognize that your status as list moderator grants you any special privilege to poison my discussion of the antiquity issue by engaging either in true ad hominem remarks or false ad hominem remarks.

Quite sincerely,
Todd

— 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

•••• David Arnold, 2/10/01 10:39 AM ••••
Subject: Why I Concurred With Removal of Subscriber and Why I've Changed My Mind!

David Arnold to Todd Greene et al MLers,

I spent considerable time before going to the FC Lectures composing two posts in which I gave reasons for concurring with Steve Willis that you, Todd, should be removed from Mars-List. These posts will not be sent to the list at this time. I remain of the judgment that you have violated the list rules in my perception of the vitriolic ways that you have used in responding to some MLers, especially to Jon Quinn. I will not go into the documentation of this, but I researched my "archives" of ML and conclude that my perception of your attitude is correct. I am sure, with your erudition, that you understand that the one primarily responsible for the perception of a reader is the one who has written.

After reading a few of your last posts, I have changed my mind and will recommend, through this post, that Steve not unsub you. The primary reason for this is that I believe you can ultimately benefit from the posts which are written by sincere brethren who are trying to point out to you your errors in judgment. I consider you a brother who needs help. I believe your present beliefs are dangerous for young Christians to hear, but I also believe that they can read adequate refutations of your teaching from sincere brethren on ML.

I continue to be bothered with your obfuscation of your current beliefs in your earlier posts. When I asked you about your church association and whether or not you believed that Adam and Eve were created, you failed to provide me, as well as the list, with this information. You have since made it clear that you have left the faith in Deity which you once held. It is my prayer that your being on ML will not be just to deal with your agenda of atheistic arguments, but that you will have your faith in Christ and His Father renewed. May the Lord bless all efforts to this end!

In sincerity and hope!
David Arnold

[ 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 ]