The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 3)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 3)

[ 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 11/29/00. Table of contents coming soon.)

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A and Apparent Age
10/31/00 8:52 AM

Hi, Terence.

You wrote, "I hope you will so oblige and not resort to evasiveness."

I'm sorry you feel that I was being evasive. I was not. That is neither my practice, my style, nor my intent. (And then there's Jon who feels that I am "audacious." I just can't please everybody! ;-) )

I told you very explicitly that "I desire to take up discussion of the 'apparent age' concept. It needs to be discussed. Before I do that, I want to make sure that the relevant information regarding SN1987A is understood, and right now I'm not convinced that it is. Indeed, I'm still waiting for anyone to take serious notice of SN1987A and the relevant details."

I don't see how that is being evasive. If later on you find that I do not follow through on what I have told you, this would mean that, worse than being evasive, I was being downright dishonest.

I stated clearly that "at this point I will intimate the direction of my criticism of the 'apparent age' concept." What that meant, of course, was that I was going to give you a taste of my approach to the subject without actually digging into details on it.

I really do want to make sure that everyone (or, at least, most) understand the significance of an example from the real world like SN1987A. This is not evasion. It is simply the truth. The facts about the real world itself, if not understood, will completely cripple the discussion right at the beginning, as we in fact saw up until a couple of days ago.

I have saved your post, and I will address the issues you raise at the appropriate time.

I will, however, say this one small thing: I do not understand how asking you to ponder the difference between the two questions "How could God have done it?" and "How did God do it?" is somehow begging the question on "Is it reasonable...to be confined to a naturalistic explanation...for every phenonemon in the universe?" since God is in fact referred to in both of my questions. I have to say that you had me scratching my head over how that could be begging the question.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.

— Job 34.4

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

— Proverbs 18.15

•••• Terence Sheridan, 10/31/00 1:26 AM ••••
Subject: Re: SN1987A

Todd wrote:

You ask, "Is it reasonable...to be confined to a naturalistic explanation...for every phenonemon in the universe?" I claim that this question is actually irrelevant.

Is this not begging the question? In other words, are you not putting forth as an assumption the very thing you need to prove? Let me elaborate some more...

You write ...

The relevant point is - and I shall simply quote this from David Mathews, a member of the COC, who stated it very concisely (9/2/00, "Apparent vs. Actual Age"; http://www.egroups.com/group/CreationProcessAge):

I want to know if there are any objective standards by which one may ascertain that an object or entity possesses apparent rather than actual age. If there are any objective standards, please specify them and provide some example of their use in the real world.

I do not see how this concern is germane to my argument. "Apparent age" is a subjective concept that regards the observer as the deteminant of reality. I am not concerned with how matter/light appears to you, me, bro. Mathews or Boris Yeltsin. I am simply suggesting the miraculous inheres in my explanation of the origin of the universe. The objective standard I posit (as opposed to my own personal standard as an observer) for determining miraculous events is the Word of God. It precedes me and stands independant of me as a reference point.

Another way to approach this is to think about the distinction between these two questions: "How could God have done it?" "How did God do it?"

Logically, for the sake of a rebuttal against an affirmative, both are equally valid questions.

By the way, I have already shown you that this stellar explosion designated SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. At least, that is what all of the objective, empirical evidence shows. Therefore, SN1987A alone disproves the YEC contention that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old, since by SN1987A we already know that the universe has been around for at least 168,000 years. Please bear in mind that there are millions of galaxies in the universe, and that SN1987A, being in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy, is in a galaxy that is the second closest galaxy to the earth (the Sagittarius galaxy is the only one closer). Therefore, all other supernovae that we observe in other galaxies are stellar explosions that occurred even farther in the past, showing us that the universe has been around substantially longer than even this "measly" 168,000 years.

So you tell me: Did these stars never really exist before they exploded? Is this history that astronomers observe merely a cosmic mirage?

Did you pay careful attention to my hypothesis? I merely indicated that in the creation and arrangement of the universe, starlight time could have been less than constant, etc. and yet the whole process may have been stabilized by miraculous power. Is it an impossibility?

However, the "burden of proof" is not upon me. The burden, the responsibility, is upon every genuine truth-seeker to dig into the relevant details for himself to see what is and is not so.

Well, actually, I beg to differ. You came on the list with the rather confident assertion that SN1987A proved an old universe. I understand that this is not a formal debate; however, how could you ever successfully prove your position with SN1987A if you shirk your reponsibilities as one who has put himself in the affirmative? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have presented your view not as a possible explanation but as the ONLY explanation an intellectually person can espouse. Therefore, you must deal with my rebuttals. You grew up in a Christian household; therefore, you know that the miraculous is a part of my worldview. You must deal with this lest our discussion reach an impasse. As a Christian, I will not arbitrarily limit myself to a naturalistic explanation for all phenonmena in the universe. To demand that I must without successfully tackling my epistemological presuppositions (simply because one supposes the miraculous is "irrelevant") is to be guilty of petitio principii.

Having been raised in the COC, I know that you know this, and I know that you teach and preach this principle. So I know that I am certainly not "springing" anything new on you. Those who genuinely believe in truth-seeking and who have an interest in this topic and believe it should be dealt with seriously then have their own responsibilities in this matter. The most that I can do is simply to act as a "catalyst" in regard to your thinking on this issue. Hence, this is a discussion, and that is how I approach it and treat it. I expect every single person here in this forum who chooses to add his words to the discussion to do so in full recognition of his own responsibilities with regard to truth-seeking. As an example of what I'm referring to, I would point to Jerome Barry's 10/28/00 post in which he spoke up on the side of truth and pointed out that the "matter can only travel about 5 mps" "criticism" raised in regard to SN1987A was entirely incorrect. I expect every single person here to act just as responsibly as that, if they are going to participate in the discussion at all.

I appreciate your sentiments. That is why I eagerly look forward to a cogent response from you to my observations. I hope you will so oblige and not resort to evasiveness.

Terence Sheridan

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
SN1987A - Is It Apparently Time?
11/1/00 9:39 PM

Hi, Doug.

As you have well noted, while SN1987A is a very beautiful example, it is simply one particular way by which to bring the issues into focus. The discussion would be same (as I have also stated) whether we are talking about the Andromeda galaxy or other astronomical entities in the universe (there's an awful lot of stuff out there, with all of those millions of galaxies and all). It is the fact that astronomers observe the distant past of the universe today. This is no "uniformitarian conjecture about the past," because astronomers directly observe the antiquity of the universe right now.

If I had begun my discussion by talking about, say, geology, then I would have had to break away from that to discuss astronomy anyway in order to demonstrate this critical point. So I purposely choose to begin discussion of this particular topic with an example in the context of astronomy.

Second, the astronomy perspective against YEC does lead directly to discussion of the "apparent age" concept, and YECs time and time again use the "apparent age" concept as their ultimate fallback position. What I will show regarding it is... uh... okay, you almost got me. I'm getting there.

There is one outstanding significant issue so far the way the discussion has unfolded here on mars-list: The discredited lightspeed decay idea. I wish to make sure this one is at least somewhat resolved.

My justification for this is two aspects of YEC argumentation which are at odds with each other (a point which Robert Baty himself appropriately emphasizes at times). The one is the YEC perspective that tries to pretend that YEC is a scientific, rather than just a religious belief. The other is the YEC perspective that says science is irrelevant, because what we observe about the real world is not "real" but only "apparent." These approaches contradict one another. The problem is that, while we can appropriately say that these represent two differing "camps" within the YEC community, it is also true that there are a very many individual YECs who espouse both views without realizing that they are inherently contradictory.

Anyway, I always first focus my attention on the scientific aspects of the discussion, and I always use SN1987A as a catalyst because it is such a nice, clear example by which to bring the relevant issues into focus. I have found no better one. I want to make sure that, despite all of the YEC confusion (and I will say this, because my description is the truth about the state of affairs: the confusion as a result of the very prevalent obfuscating material that very many YECs continue to promote in YEC circles), it is understood that YEC is not scientific. SN1987A is approximately 168,000 light-years from the earth. This piece of knowledge is as certain as knowing that Pluto exists. Additionally, astronomers have in fact observed that the speed of light is uniform going back into the distant past of the universe, because if the speed of light had been radically faster in the past, this would cause definite, obvious effects on observations that astronomers make of the universe (such as, but not only, the "slow motion" effect). The fact that none of these effects are observed proved that lightspeed could not have been radically faster in the past. Therefore, being approximately 168,000 light-years from the earth also means that SN1987A is a star that exploded about 168,000 years ago for which the light from the explosion reached earth only 13 years ago. This piece of knowledge is as certain as knowing that geocentrism is wrong.

I wish to discuss the "apparent age" concept, but I don't want people trying to "back up" based on confusion about whether or not science has really disproved YEC. The empirical evidence contradicts YEC, so when we are talking about observing the real world and the evidence that we find when we look at it (which is what "empirical evidence" refers to), this is the scientific perspective, and YEC is not scientific. "Scientific creationism" is a misnomer.

The "apparent age" concept is a completely different - and nonscientific - argument. I hope this fact is clear to those who are advocating it. (Of course, if it isn't clear, then I shall prove it in discussing its implications.) In other words, once you start advocating the "apparent age" concept, then you are directly implying that you grant that the objective information that we possess about the real world from the real world itself does indeed show that it is ancient. The "apparent age" concept grants what the objective information shows - and then claims that the objective information is, somehow, irrelevant - while in fact providing no objective basis whatsoever for determining why this is so.

If it is pretty clear to most of those interested in this topic that SN1987A occurred 168,000 years - according to all of the objective evidence - then I am prepared to continue on with discussion of the "apparent age" concept in the context of this topic.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

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

Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.

— Job 34.4

•••• Doug Clevenger, 11/1/00 1:51 PM ••••
Subject: Re: SN1987A and Apparent Age

You wrote:

Todd, I am not sure what indication of "serious notice" you are looking for. I reviewed your website and to my knowledge all of your posts, and have appreciated your straightforward approach in laying out the facts about what has been observed, along with the inferences you have drawn from such facts.

As a non-bible believing adolescent, I long ago took serious notice of my observation of "old light" from Andromeda. I was in junior high school at the time and grappled with the idea that I could be seeing light older than the bible claims the universe could be. As I am today a 44 year-old bible-believer, it follows that I resolved the discrepancy satisfactorily to my own mind.

While the SN1987A is a fascinating observation, and the reverse parallax measurement of its distance distinguishes it, I am still hoping that you are prepared to show how the case it presents against YEC is any more compelling than "old light" from Andromeda was to a teenage boy.

How is the SN1987A more than an interesting, relatively newer variation on a thematic challenge to the scriptures which has been answered many times before?

I have taken notice of the details to the best of my ability. Having said that, I make no pretensions to being an astronomer or scientist of any kind, or of even being especially intelligent. So, if your case has already been made and I just didn't grasp it, please try explaining it again. If it has not, then please do make it. What can SN1987A prove to a 44 year-old man that Andromeda could not prove to a teenage boy?

You have my attention and my integrity,
Doug Clevenger

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Apparent Age - A Critical Consideration
11/2/00 12:24 PM

Hi, Terence.

Here I repeat my earlier question (which is actually copied from a COC member who stated it), which no one advocating the "apparent age" concept has even attempted to address. This is a critical epistemological question. You should ponder it very carefully:

— David Mathews (9/2/00, "Apparent vs. Actual Age";
http://www.egroups.com/group/CreationProcessAge)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - A Couple More Clarifications
11/2/00 12:38 PM

Hi, Terence.

First, I need to clear up this misunderstanding about my discussion. Three times you've implied that I have "begged the question," regarding "being confined to a naturalistic explanation." The truth of the matter is that I have neither stated nor assumed such a "confinement" — meaning that I haven't begged the question since I haven't even made or implied the claim — and this is why the question is irrelevant. It is irrelevent to my discussion because I am not making the claim and I am not basing my discussion implicitly on the claim.

I pointed this out to you, first implicitly, by asking you to ponder the difference between the two questions

How could God have done it?
How did God do it?

then explicitly, by pointing out to you that since both of these questions (that I asked you think about) actually grant to you, for the sake of discussion, your assumption that God created the universe. Thus, quite obviously I have not "confined" you to any naturalistic assumption. I'm sorry that this point has not been clear.

Second, you state:

> I think a point needs to be made. The real debate is not over what
> SN1987A "shows." SN1987A is neutral data that only becomes
> information in an interpretive construct. The real debate is over
> which metaphysical system is superior.

I strongly disagree with you. It is a fact that among YECs there exists serious confusion over what SN1987A shows, over what the objective information really is. We have seen this fact demonstrated right here in this forum. And I've "been around the block" on this particular matter of SN1987A in a number of other discussion forums dominated by YECs. A great many YECs promote critical errors regarding the data itself, which is why I immediately begin with and focus on that aspect of the discussion. (In one discussion forum, also "sponsored" by COC members, I was astounded by one YEC who even completely refused to acknowledge that anything in the universe was more than 6,000 light-years from the earth and refused to accept that astronomers had even observed more than "several hundred galaxies at most"!) Please do not minimize this aspect of the discussion regarding the empirical details, Terence. Indeed, as we shall see in discussing the epistemological issues surrounding the "apparent age" concept, the details are really quite important.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

P.S.: I would launch into discussing the "apparent age" concept in earnest at this point, but I'm hot and heavy on a programming project right now (I'm up to almost 7,000 lines of code), and I can't devote the time to it right at the moment, which is why I'm going slow with simply making a few clarifications during this time.

•••• Terence Sheridan, 10/31/00 11:46 PM ••••
Subject: Re: SN1987A

Todd wrote:

Hi, Terence.

You wrote, "I hope you will so oblige and not resort to evasiveness."

I did not say you were being evasive. I said that I hoped you would not be evasive.

You put forth two statements (I am quoting from your post):

1.	You ask, "Is it reasonable...to be confined to a naturalistic explanation...for every phenonemon in the universe?" I claim that this question is actually irrelevant.
2.	The relevant point is ... <snip> ... Another way to approach this is to think about the distinction between these two questions: "How could God have done it?" "How did God do it?"

My comment about "begging the question" was addressed specifically to #1. You say it is irrelevant but that's what I am wanting to you address - why it is so. I will wait till you are ready to tackle this and related issues.

Cordially,
Terence Sheridan

•••• Terence Sheridan, 11/2/00 2:51 AM ••••
Subject: Re: SN1987A

Todd wrote:

Hi, Doug.

If you are meaning 168,000 years then you still merely have the force of an assertion.

The other is the YEC perspective that says science is irrelevant, because what we observe about the real world is not "real" but only "apparent."

This is a prejudicial remark and insinuates that YECs are out of touch with reality.

These approaches contradict one another. The problem is that, while we can appropriately say that these represent two differing "camps" within the YEC community, it is also true that there are a very many individual YECs who espouse both views without realizing that they are inherently contradictory.

The fallacy of reductionism is committed here. There is no contradiction in realizing the epistemological limits of science and relying on other venues of knowledge to affirm faith. As it is, I get two contradictory messages from skeptics. They seem to suggest that we must limit ourselves to only that which can verified or falsified via scientific empiricism. What are to we make then of multiverses, speculations about abiogenesis, etc.? I know evolutionism is not under discussion, but my point is that I do not believe skeptics have any moral high-ground here.

SN1987A is approximately 168,000 light-years from the earth. This piece of knowledge is as certain as knowing that Pluto exists. Additionally, astronomers have in fact observed that the speed of light is uniform going back into the distant past of the universe, because if the speed of light had been radically faster in the past, this would cause definite, obvious effects on observations that astronomers make of the universe (such as, but not only, the "slow motion" effect). The fact that none of these effects are observed proved that lightspeed could not have been radically faster in the past. Therefore, being approximately 168,000 light-years from the earth also means that SN1987A is a star that exploded about 168,000 years ago for which the light from the explosion reached earth only 13 years ago. This piece of knowledge is as certain as knowing that geocentrism is wrong.

Point of order: I like to warn Todd and others not to be so hasty in pigeonholing controversies about Creation in the same class as geocentrism and flat-earth beliefs. The latter two concern disputes about present-day phenomena. As for creation, the truth of the matter is that we were not around when the universe began or when life was formed. We might get the impression that when we look at SN1987A, we looking at something that is in the past. Yes and NO. We must keep in mind that SN1987A, our eyeballs, and the light passing in between occur in PRESENT TIME. Granted, all else being equal, one may assume that emanations from SN1987A occurred over a hundred thousand years ago. But the catch is just that: was all else equal? If I do not know for certain that all else was equal, why should I even assume an "appearance of age"? I wait for Todd to address that matter (viz., the problem of the miraculous).

With all due respect, your language is laden with presuppositions. Objective information does not so much "show" anything as there is a human interpretion of neutral data. When Joe Schmoe looks at a layer of rocks, he does not see "age", he sees rocks. When he looks up in the heavens he sees no discernable difference between the light from the stars and the lights from an airplane passing overhead. "Apparent age" is irrelevant to his experience. To another individual, with a different set of presuppositions, the interpretation of the experience is different. I repeat what I have said:

"Apparent age" is a subjective concept that regards the observer as the deteminant of reality. I am not concerned with how matter/light appears to you, me, bro. Mathews or Boris Yeltsin. I am simply suggesting the miraculous inheres in my explanation of the origin of the universe. The objective standard I posit (as opposed to my own personal standard as an observer) for determining miraculous events is the Word of God. It precedes me and stands independant of me as a reference point.

I think a point needs to be made. The real debate is not over what SN1987A "shows". SN1987A is neutral data that only become information in an interpretive contruct. The real debate is over which metaphysical system is superior.

Todd Greene needs to make his case accordingly.

Terence Sheridan

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Lightspeed Decay; Moon Dust
11/2/00 5:21 PM

Hi, David Willis and Steve Willis.

You first, David:

I have already discussed how the lightspeed decay idea has been disproved. Since I had already dealt with the relevant details by responding to other people who were raising the issue as you were, I didn't think I needed to address you specifically.

Please see my following posts to mars-list, where I discuss lightspeed decay:

10/28/00 10:45 AM, "Re: SN1987A"
10/29/00 5:37 PM, "Re: SN1987A"
10/30/00 11:40 PM, "Re: SN1987A"
11/1/00 9:42 PM, "SN1987A - Is It Apparently Time?"

If you believe there is some additional relevant details that have been overlooked, of course, please discuss them. Thanks

Now, Steve, on the "moon dust," I wish to state to you that the details are, of course, important. The point is that YECs, even when they began with this "moon dust shows a young moon" argument almost 30 years ago were using information that was already outdated and had been shown by further study to be wrong. (What YECs failed to mentioned is that the astronomer had stated specifically that this was something like a "first pass" stab at the matter.)

There is also a clear distinction that must be recognized between "regolith" and "dust" from meteorites and the like, among other things. The fact remains that YECs promoted the "moon dust" issue as being evidence for a young moon even though it did nothing of the sort. The wrongness of the argument was shown to be wrong more than 20 years ago, and nothing has changed about that since then. The amount of "cosmic dust" on the moon is precisely within the boundaries expected by the moon (and earth) being about 4-1/2 billion years old.

When NASA was first putting people on the moon, they were certainly concerned about the nature of the surface that would be landed, as they should have been. They had good information that indicated "cosmic dust" accumulation would not be a problem. But they also had other things to worry about, such as the consistency of the regolith.

But let's be clear: What NASA, and astronomers in general, knew or didn't know in the early/middle 1960s is not relevant to the fact that the YEC "moon dust indicates a young moon" idea is just plain wrong. There is nothing dishonest or evasive about stating that fact very explicitly. You really should check out the online references below.

From my 10/26/00 4:56 AM post:

I would suggest you examine details about "regolith," and the NASA satellite LDEF (Long Duration Exposure Facility). It is absolutely incredible that this concept, which has been a discredited YEC argument now for something over 20 years still lives on in YEC circles. When you take this into account, it helps you to understand why outside of YEC circles there is so little respect for young earth creationism. It is because there are so many of these cases of erroneous ideas that YECs obstinately refuse to abandon.

http://www.csis.org.uk/Articles/Papers/Paper1/paper1.htm
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/moondust.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

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

Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.

— Job 34.4

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Apparent Age - A Critical Consideration
11/3/00 8:36 AM

Hi, Terence.

Just to be clear, I copy David Mathews' question here to keep it at the forefront:

From your "Origins of Universe" post (and, please note, I have not discussed the origin of the universe at all in any of my posts; there appears to be some confusion about this), it appears to me that your answer is something like the following (I'm drawing out the implications; this is not a quote):

There are no objective standards by which one may ascertain that an object or entity posses apparent rather than actual age. In other words, if the "age" is only apparent rather than actual, it is completely impossible to tell the difference.

Please tell me if this is an incorrect interpretation of your response to the question. Oh, by the way, this consideration is highly relevant to the discussion.

Along with this, I must response to two statements you made.

You stated, "When Joe Schmoe looks at a layer of rocks, he does not see 'age,' he sees rocks." Yes, okay, so what? I couldn't care less about what Joe Schmoe sees or doesn't see. I care what people who know what they're talking about see based on their experience and expertise with handling the relevant details — namely, geologists. By the way, fossils are rocks and have become part of the matrix of rock. Now this could be a launch point into geological considerations, but I'm going to stay with the point, being that when a geologist (an experienced professional) looks at a layer of rocks, he does see age.

You also stated, "When he looks up in the heavens he sees no discernable difference between the light from the stars and the lights from an airplane passing overhead." Again, I don't care what Joe Schmoe see or fails to see. The professional experts (astronomers) do see discernable differences, and it is the discernable differences that we are discussing.

You are trying to make the disagreement into simply "a different interpretation of the evidence." I am here to clarify that it is not merely a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a dismissal of the evidence, and that is precisely why young earth creationism is not scientific, and, moreover, completely subjective due to its abandonment of objective determinations.

I do see from your last paragraph that you appear to accept that the apparent age argument is a nonscientific position. Indeed, the argument implies "I accept that the relevant data implies antiquity, but the data is not real." I appreciate your acknowledgement of this implication.

I believe you may quibble with my portrayal of this as "the data is not real," but, see Terence, I've been down this particular road before, and though for you this may remain to be seen, there are details about the light itself — ones that Joe Schmoe simply wouldn't have "seen," I grant you — which further demonstrates antiquity. Of course, in order to maintain the apparent age concept, you will be forced to continue to dismiss this data.

You stated, "You must deal effectively with my belief in revelation and an open universe (where God operates) if you are to prove anything." (Hmmm. Who's begging the question?) I'm the one who's saying, "Look, here is the data. The data shows us that the universe has been around for much, much longer than just 10,000 years or less (your 'hypothesis')." Indeed, it is YECs who work hard trying to dispute the data itself. (Please don't tell me you haven't noticed. ;-) )

Then you come along and say, "Well, yes, if you wanted to believe that the universe is ancient, all of the data is consistent with that, but the data itself is only apparent rather than real, and, in fact, there really are no objective standards by which one can determine the difference between an apparent age and an actual age. In other words, the data is meaningless."

First, I have to admit to you that I will never agree with the idea that the data is meaningless.

Second, in no case have I even discussed your belief in revelation in anything I have said in posts to mars-list. I have not argued against God. I have not argued against the Bible. I have not argued against believing that the Bible is inspired by God. I have not even argued against believing that the Bible is inerrant. (Yet I have read a number of posts here in mars-list over the last few days in which the writers assume that this is what I am doing, even though their assumption has been completely wrong. This is called "prejudgment," otherwise known as prejudice.) Indeed, I have gone out of my way to specifically refer you to a number of people who agree with your position in all of these areas who yet accept that the universe (and earth) are ancient, because they have learned that this is the truth about the real world.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

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

Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.

— Job 34.4

•••• Terence Sheridan, 11/2/00 11:36 PM ••••
Subject: Origins of Universe (Metaphysical Assumptions)

Todd wrote:

Hi, Terence.

Hi, Todd. I repeat my earlier answer. You should ponder it very carefully:

I also said...

Let me add to this....

Suppose we trade places and I posit irreducible complexity for the origins of life. I say the data suggests intellegent design. You object to this, and I thus categorize your objections as the "apparent design" theory. I then ask you by what objective standard can we differentiate between that which only appears to be designed and that which is. The bottom line is that I am assuming the hallmarks of design and you are not. The same can be said for age. When you use the loaded them "apparent age" you are implicitly suggesting that everyone is agreed that matter and light shows age. I made no such concession. This seems to be the pattern of your thinking:

1.	Light has traveled constantly for eons now.
2.	Hence SN1987A proves an old universe.
3.	Terry's [that's me] comments do not migitate against the proof, because the miraculous is irrelevant.
4.	It is irrelevant because it deals with "apparent age," and there is no objective pattern in distinguishing between phenomena of apparent age and actual age.
5.	Terry's comments deal with "apparent age" because they contradict observable data.
6.	And what we observe is that light has traveled constantly for eons now.

Is this an accurate description of your line of reasoning? That's the way it looks to me, and I dare say it looks rather circular. I wrote...

I think a point needs to be made. The real debate is not over what SN1987A "shows." SN1987A is neutral data that only becomes information in an interpretive construct. The real debate is over which metaphysical system is superior.

To which you replied...

I strongly disagree with you.

Sorry, but I rebuff your objection. Granted, you are entitled in making sure that if anyone advances a "scientific" argument, that it must be plausible within the epistemological confines of science. But ultimately, interpretations of data rest on metaphysical assumptions. Unless you are willing to deal forthrightly with your belief in a naturalistic closed universe, you will hit a brick wall with your contention about SN1987A, etc. You must deal effectively with my belief in revelation and an open universe (where God operates) if you are to prove anything.

Terence Sheridan

[ TOP ]

Part 3

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Apparent Age - A Critical Consideration
11/3/00 12:54 PM

Hi, Terence, and everyone else following this particular discussion.

First off, I wish to apologize for making a false implication due to ambiguity in how I wrote what I wrote. In my post this morning "Re: Apparent Age - A Critical Consideration" I wrote the following:

Terence, you did not make these statements, and I know that you did not write these statements, and I did not mean for anyone to think that you wrote these actual words. Occasionally in my writing I use a "dialogue style" where I put the ideas I'm discussing in the form of a dialogue, and dialogue, of course, has quotation marks around it. In the paragraph prior to the above paragraph, I had written:

I'm the one who's saying, "Look, here is the data. The data shows us that the universe has been around for much, much longer than just 10,000 years or less (your 'hypothesis')."

Using the dialogue style, I was describing an implication of your arguments in the style of a dialogue, and I did not intend the quotation marks to mean I was literally quoting your words. So right up front I apologize for any misunderstanding about this. I promise to make my use of the "dialogue style" in the future obvious, should I use it again, so that there will be no mistaking the difference between an actual quote and an imputed dialogue. (In fact, I will "tag" it unambiguously as dialogue style.)

Second, in talking about "A Critical Consideration" with regard to how it might be possible to objectively determine the difference between real age and apparent age, I have completely neglected to keep with it my example question taken from our specific subject. Call it temporary amnesia, if you will! A few days ago, when I first cited David Mathews' question

I immediately followed it with:

So you tell me: Did these stars never really exist before they exploded? Is this history that astronomers observe merely a cosmic mirage?

So in conjunction with the general question as stated by David Mathews, in the context of the specific example (from the real world) of SN1987A you have to address the question: Did the observed star catalogued as "Sk -69 202" ever really exist? Did this stellar explosion called SN1987A that astronomers observed in 1987 ever really occur? Or is the star and the explosion event simply a mirage?

In the future, I will be more careful about keeping the specific question associated with the general question.

And just to "keep the fires of epistemological considerations burning" I'll throw on another log: ;-)

If God really did create the universe, say, 12 to 15 billion years ago (I don't think anyone here will suggest that God could not have done this), then what would we observe differently about SN1987A than what astronomers do in fact observe today?

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

[ 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 ]