The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 5)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 5)

[ 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 11/30/00. Table of contents coming soon.)

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/11/00 12:00 AM

Hi, Doug.

What limitations? You have pointed out no limitations.

In fact, you are implicitly "begging the question."

Where is your evidence that "the universe was suddenly and miraculously created about 10,000 years ago"? Where is your data? What is the evidence that "the stars/supernova were placed in distant space with light from them/it either already visible from or within 10,000 LY of earth"? I want to see your data.

In this discussion, you have produced no evidence at all for your assumption. This is a very serious and critical problem for YEC.

There is evidence that stars produce light. There is evidence that light travels at a finite speed, and that this speed is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second, and that this speed has been the same for billions of years. There is data showing how the light from SN1987A passed through gas and dust on its way from SN1987A to earth. You claim this did not really happen. Where is your evidence? Astronomers right now can observe Cepheid variable stars in a distant galaxy going through their luminosity cycles (energy pulsations) about 100 million years ago. You claim that those don't even really exist. Where is your evidence? There is data that shows the light from galactic cores having passed through dust clouds in the surrounding "bodies" of the galaxies (see http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/42/ for a nice example). You claim that the light did not travel through these dust clouds. Where is your evidence? There is a good example of two galaxies relatively near the earth where one is directly in front of the other one, and we can see how the light from the "rear" galaxy has been affected by having travelled through the galaxy between it and the earth (see http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/14/). You claim that the light did not travel through the intervening galaxy. Where is your evidence? You claim that the SN1987A progenitor star Sk -69 202 never existed. Where is your evidence? You claim that the stellar explosion called SN1987A never really took place. Where is your evidence? You claim that everything that astronomers observe beyond, say, a 10,000 light-year "bubble" around the earth is nothing more than an illusion. Where is your evidence?

I'm waiting for the evidence for your assumption. In over 20 years, no YEC has ever produced the evidence.

YEC is wrong, because the relevant information that we have acquired from the real world about the real world shows that YEC is wrong. In 1987 we observed a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy explode. The explosion produced the light (the energy) that was observed, because that is what produces that kind of observation. When you see the light of a solar prominence, it is because a solar prominence has produced the light. It's really as simple as that.

If you are unable to produce any evidence to the contrary, then you should simply state, "I have no evidence." That, after all, is the truth about YEC.

Whether or not the literalistic interpretation of Genesis is the correct interpretation of the text, the fact is that the universe is ancient because we literally observe events that took place in the universe in the distant past. If you wish to proclaim that these observations (the data) are merely illusions, you need to come up with something more than religious speculation in order to substantiate it. You need some evidence. The problem with advocating the apparent age argument is that in principle the concept abandons evidence altogether.

A parallel: Whether or not the literalistic interpretation of the Bible regarding geocentrism is the correct interpretation of the text, the fact is that the solar system (and the universe) is not geocentric. (Of course, if the literalistic interpretation of the Bible regarding geocentrism is the correct interpretation, then biblical inerrancy is disproved. Also, if the literalistic interpretation of the Bible regarding a young universe is the correct interpretation, the biblical inerrancy is disproved.)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

•••• Doug Clevenger, 11/10/00 9:51 PM ••••
You recently introduced the details of SN1987A, proclaiming it as proof that the earth is at least 368,000 light years old. I investigated your facts and asked you to comment on how the observation contradicts what would be observed had the stars/supernova been placed in distant space with light from them/it either already visible from or within 10,000 LY of earth.

Since then, you have sought to address yours and others' exegetical concerns about a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Unless I missed it, however, you have not addressed my question about precisely what SN1987A proves and what it cannot prove concerning the age of the universe.

Let's not jump the gun, Todd. You introduced the physical evidence, so let's stick with it a while to see what it actually does or does not prove.

While that might be interesting to explore the biblical text at some point, I'd appreciate it if you would first forthrightly deal with any limitations of SN1987A in disproving that the universe was suddenly and miraculously created about 10,000 years ago. Since your evidence of SN1987A was offered as a direct challenge to YEC, an answer to my question is essential to a fair evaluation of this evidence, and of your conclusions concerning it.

Can you tell us plainly Todd, how SN1987A disproves a literal interpretation of creation such as is recorded in Gen.1:16-17?

Can you tell us plainly Todd, do you have any means of objectively distinguishing between observations that would follow my assumptions and observations that would follow your assumptions?

[snip older post]

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/11/00 11:32 AM

Hi, Doug.

The fact remains that the data from before 1987 shows that a star existed (Sk -69 202), which then blew up, and the light from this explosion reached the earth in 1987. Your claim is that this data is false. Your claim is that the star never existed. Your claim is that the stellar explosion never occurred. You make these claims in spite of the fact that we observed the star and observed the explosion. You have absolutely no evidence at all for your claims. Yet without any evidence whatsoever you simply arbitrarily choose to sweep all of the data under the rug.

Stars produce light, and that light travels from the stars to elsewhere, including here to the earth. And we can literally see how the light has travelled from the source through intervening gas and dust on its way to the earth. (Did you take a look at http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/42/ and http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/14/ to see the examples I referred you to?) Your claim is that the light did not travel through the gas and dust, in spite of the fact that we can see that it travelled through the gas and dust. And you make this claim without producing a shred of evidence.

I claim that the star Sk -69 202 existed. Why? Because we saw it, and we still have the photo plates from before our 1987 observation of its explosion. I claim that the star exploded. Why? Because we saw it (and today we are still observing the aftereffects of the explosion). This is not an "assumption about creation." This is the actual data.

It is you, and other YECs, who have made your assumptions about creation, and you dismiss all of the data that is contrary to your assumptions in whatever manner you see fit. Please tell me you aren't making your comments on this subject and expecting us to believe your fallible human assumptions on this without producing one shred of evidence. No question is an objective question if it cannot produce any evidence at all in regard to it. Your unwillingness or inability to produce one shred of evidence for your claims speaks volumes about the fallacy of the YEC position.

You state that "You and I both know that your observations from the physical world do not contradict a literal creation model." This is incorrect. I happen to know very well that the observations of the physical world do directly contradict the YEC model. I'm the one who embraces the objective data, while you deny it. The data shows an existing star. Your position claims that the star never existed and ignores the data that shows that the star did exist. The data shows light that light from distant stars has travelled through distant regions between those stars and us. I accept that data. Your position claims that the light did not travel through those distant regions, and ignores this data that shows that it did.

Where is the evidence for these claims that are contradicted by the data? I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

•••• Doug Clevenger, 11/11/00 12:52 AM ••••
Todd wrote:

What limitations? You have pointed out no limitations.

In fact, you are implicitly "begging the question."

In this discussion, you have produced no evidence at all for your assumption. This is a very serious and critical problem for YEC.

Todd please tell me you came to this list with more than this. You, after all, are in the affirmative here. You proclaim that SN1987A proves something about the age of the universe. I have not yet undertaken to prove anything to you. You offered evidence, and interpreted in view of your own model. I asked how that same objective evidence would fit into an alternate model — a model that I predefined as including a literal interpretation of creation. That's a fair and objective question. Your unwillingness to directly answer speaks volumes.

You and I both know that your observations from the physical world do not contradict a literal creation model.

If you want to question the legitimacy of the creation model, we can do that. But, that's really another question entirely than a discussion of what SN1987A can and cannot prove.

Why not admit that your explanation of the physical evidence includes your assumptions about creation?

Enjoying the discussion.

Doug Clevenger

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/11/00 12:36 PM

Hi, Doug.

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

This question requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no."

Thanks,
Todd

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/12/00 9:30 AM

Hi, David Willis.

First of all, I fail to see the relevance of your post. I've been asking you to produce your evidence. None of the apparent age advocates have presented any evidence for the apparent age concept. It seems as if, so far, apparent age advocates are actually arguing that they have no evidence and don't need to present any evidence — which makes the apparent age argument a completely subjective position. If there is no possible way by which to check your idea — if it is "uncheckable" — then it is pure subjectivism. I stand by the objective principle that you must present some way by which your proposed idea can be checked. You must produce some evidence. We must be able to examine something by which we can determine in some way whether or not your proposed idea matches the real world itself.

Second, there is an outstanding question on the table which I have been asking, yet which the apparent age advocates (at least all of whom have posted to mars-list) have danced around. I have asked this question in a variety of ways, but it's really been pretty much the same question. Its most recent form was this:

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

This question requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no."

This is a very straightforward question. There are no tricks or traps here. I would like someone to step forward and answer this very simple question.

Third, there are a some flaws in your statements.

Flaw #1: You write (11/11/00 12:50 PM) that,

The data also suggests that matter/energy is never created from nothing... agreed, Todd?

Not agreed. The data does not suggest this. You should check out vacuum fluctuations in the context of quantum mechanics.

Flaw #2: Your terminology is prejudicial, and false. You write about "atheistic scientists" and "atheistic naturalistic assumptions." Oh? Is Hill Roberts atheistic? Is Davis A. Young atheistic? Is Kenneth R. Miller atheistic? You need to eliminate the prejudicial rhetoric from your vocabulary, because it is misrepresentative and thus false. I've been through this before, and shown the fallacy of such rhetoric. If you disagree with the data, then, fine, state that you disagree with the data, but don't pretend that anyone who disagrees with your human opinion is thereby an atheist or expressing atheistic ideas.

Flaw #3: You state that "The 'instantly created fully formed' creation model by definition IMPLIES that actual age must be less than apparent age." First of all, what do you think it implies? I'll even use your own conjecture to show you the point: Detailed examination of Adam, at his creation, would reveal some rather odd things about him. Even though an adult, his body would not show the normal "wear and tear" that we see with any adult, such as, for example, with his teeth or skin. And the trees! They would be very unusual. We would have mature trees, yet they would have no growth rings.

If you are proposing to remove your idea from the objective world completely by claiming, <<imputed dialogue>> "There is absolutely no possible way, even in principle, by which to check out my proposed idea," then what you have done is retreated to complete subjectivism. An equivalent argument (which is probably familiar to many) is that all of reality popped into existence only yesterday. Everything, including the memories in your brain, were created "in place." Yes, okay, what an amusing idea, but what does this have to do with reality? How can you check it? Where is the evidence? (Do you see it? Such a concept has left the realm of reality, and thus the realm of evidence, altogether.)

Additionally, the "instantly created fully formed" idea implies absolutely nothing about what the actual age is nor about what the apparent age will appear to be. The "instantly created fully formed" universe could just as easily have popped into existence about 2 billion years ago, and all of the evidence of events prior to that are merely "apparent" rather than real. What part of the "instantly created fully formed" concept implies a "real" age of 6,000 years and an "apparent" age of 14 billion years? Your use of the word "IMPLIES" is completely incorrect. The concept doesn't IMPLY anything.

So the apparent age concept has at least two irremediable problems: The idea retreats to pure subjectivism. The idea is ambiguously defined.

The other question, again, is not "How can God do it?" because God can do anything, including create a universe 14 billion years ago and endow it with a fantastic potential for developing extraordinarily intricate complexities. The question is "How did God do it?" What does the universe itself show you? What is the evidence?

And that leads me right back to asking my question again:

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

Please answer the question.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.

— Psalm 19.1-4a

•••• David Willis, 11/11/00 12:50 PM ••••
Todd writes (11/11/00 10:34:52 AM):

The fact remains that the data shows that a star existed before 1987 (Sk -69 202), which then blew up in 1987. Your claim is that this data is false. Your claim is that the star never existed. Your claim is that the stellar explosion never occurred. You make these claims in spite of the fact that we observed the star and observed the explosion. You have absolutely no evidence at all for your claims. Yet without any evidence whatsoever you simply arbitrarily choose to sweep all of the data under the rug.

The data also suggests that matter/energy is never created from nothing — agreed, Todd? And yet (I assume, with you being an AE creationist) you believe that it was — without ANY "scientific" evidence of that. You would fall under the same ridicule from atheistic scientists as that which you wish to dish out to the YEC's.

YOUR model of a "instantly created infant universe which gradually developed over billions of years into a mature one" is also inconsistent with data which is evaluated with only atheistic naturalistic assumptions. The "instantly created fully formed" creation model by definition IMPLIES that actual age must be less than apparent age. Deal with it. If one "rules in" the possibility of an all-powerful God having instantly created a mature universe with apparent age, then the data fits it just as well.

I may examine the topsoil in my front yard and proclaim that my yard must have been there for thousands of years, but fail to "rule in" the possibility that it got there one year ago when a dumptruck put it there — and my conclusion would be wrong. The data of apparent age is not inconsistent with instantly created young earth — it is precisely what the model would predict. It is only an arbitrary philosophic construct about what is "ruled in" or "ruled out" that will predetermine what the data seems to support.

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/12/00 10:37 AM

Hi, Jon.

"Adam was created as a mature man."

That is merely your conjecture based on your assumption. Where is your evidence? Where is your data? Presenting a conjecture based on your own assumption as if that was somehow "evidence" for your assumption, while never really producing any evidence for your claim is precisely what "begging the question" means. Your testimony based on your fallible human interpretation of an ancient text from at least 2,500 years ago couched in metaphorical language in a foreign language and from the context of a foreign culture hardly constitutes "eyewitness testimony."

In fact, Jon, the only eyewitness testimony that has been presented so far in this particular discussion is the information I have presented to you in this discussion regarding such things as SN1987A. Every single person in this forum can go out and witness these things with their own eyes. You can't get any clearer than that.

By the way, my question is still on the table:

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

This question requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no."

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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, 11/12/00 10:22 AM ••••
It was said:

None of the apparent age advocates have presented any evidence for the apparent age concept. It seems as if, so far, apparent age advocates are actually arguing that they have no evidence and don't need to present any evidence — which makes the apparent

I think evidence has been presented.

For example, it has been pointed out that Adam was created as a mature man. That is evidence. It is not subjective. No one has taken a young earth position based on "no evidence."

In fact, it's the only eyewitness testimony I am aware of.

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/12/00 4:37 PM

Hi, David.

I'm pleased that you think I have not answered your question. Indeed, it is because you've been ignoring my question that you don't know that I answered your question several days ago. In fact, I'm the one who brought it up to begin with. I asked you to think about the difference between "How can God do it?" and "How did God do it?" and to ponder how you would be able to determine this. The only way to determine what God did is to examine that which He created, gather the relevant data together, and figure out what it means. Over the last several days we have examined some of the relevant data, specifically in regard to SN1987A, and how this stellar explosion occurred approximately 168,000 years ago.

So here is my question again. Why are you apparent age advocates so leery of answering this very simple "yes" or "no" question? What is it about this question that frightens you? Could it have something to do with the fact that the truth contradicts your position, and you don't want it to be too obvious?

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

David, did this star ever exist? Or did this star never exist? Tell us what you believe, and then present the data that backs up your belief. So far, I'm the only one in this discussion on the particular topic who has presented any evidence whatsoever. You guys are arguing by waving your hands in the air and putting forth purely imaginative ideas from your own human minds. Where is your data? Where is your evidence? I'm still waiting to see one shred.

I have stated all along that this star "Sk -69 202" did exist, and then it blew up, and that is what all of the relevant data shows, and I have presented some of this relevant data to you, and we have discussed various implications of it, since there was some confusion about the data and what it implied. Prior to 1987, astronomers observed this star in the sky (in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy), and then in 1987 astronomers observed the star explode. Due to its location in the LMC, this even occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. I'm arguing from the data, the evidence. What are you arguing from, besides your own fallible (and wrong) human imagination?

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

— Proverbs 12:17

•••• David Brown, 11/12/00 3:52 PM ••••
Why should anyone answer your simple questions when you will not answer mine? Did you not get it?

If not, let me rephrase it in your own words...

Second, there is an outstanding question on the table which I have been asking, yet which the ????? advocates (at least all of whom have posted to mars-list) have danced around. I have asked this question in a variety of ways, but it's really been pretty much the same question. Its most recent form was this:

Is there anything in the evidence that you have seen that would disallow the possibility of God creating the universe in a few days and making the distant stars visible by creating the light rays to them already in place?

This question requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no."

This is a very straightforward question. There are no tricks or traps here. I would like someone to step forward and answer this very simple question.

Thanks — dave

PS — I know that this question made it out to the list because someone e-mailed me about it and stated that you would not answer it. So far, they are right.

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/13/00 1:12 PM

Hi, David.

If you are "coming late to the discussion," and you were simply unaware that I had already addressed the question you asked, then it is unfair of you to have tried to mischaracterize me as refusing to answer your question. I would appreciate you stating a correction of your mischaracterization to the forum.

And, indeed, I answered the question again in my response to your post. While you can say "God can do anything?", that question is irrelevant since we are not talking about what God can do but about what God did in fact do, and the way you can find out what God did is by examining what He made. SN1987A is the name of the supernova that astronomers observed in 1987. Due to its distance from the earth, we know that this stellar explosion occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. The "progenitor star," the star that exploded, was previously observed by astronomers and catalogued as star "Sk -69 202" (the "Sk" comes from the name of the astronomer who had it catalogued, Nick Sanduleak). This star existed prior to 168,000 years ago, then about 168,000 years ago it exploded. The apparent age concept used by YECs ignores this data, because YECs say that the star "Sk -69 202" never existed because, they claim, the universe was only created 6,000 (or, maybe, as much as 10,000) years ago.

In other words, apparent age advocates claim that despite the data by which we literally observed the existence of this star, it did not actually ever exist.

The data shows that the star existed.

Apparent age YECs say that the star did not exist, and then try to rhetorically portray this as "just another interpretation of the data."

Well, in fact, it is not "just another interpretation of the data." It is a direct denial of the data. And that is why the YEC position is wrong. You can't legitimately claim to be a truth-seeker while you are engaged in the business of denying facts about the real world.

It's really that simple.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

•••• David Brown, 11/12/00 5:09 PM ••••
There is a David Willis on this list and I believe you have us confused. Fact is, I came in here very late on this and began reading about a week ago when my time finally permitted. At that point I had this question, and that is why I raised it.

In the interim someone e-mailed me and stated that you would refuse to answer it. To this point they were right. If you want me to answer any questions, fine. But I am not taking any opposing position. I really do not know exactly what your position is, since I have not been reading from the very beginning, so in order for me to be intelligent at this point I would have to ask you several questions or review the archives, which are immense — I know this just from the time it took me to delete all of the stuff that I did not read.

Believe me, all I want to know is what the question asked. If you cannot or will not answer it, that provides valuable information to me.

As far as the star is concerned, my answer is: "I don't know." This is not my scholarly endeavor of study, and I do not believe that the average Joe has to be a scientist to learn, understand and do God's will. I will accept an "I don't know" from you as well, if, in fact, you do not know.

Thanks.

Dave Brown
http://www.thinkonthesethings.org

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/14/00 6:11 AM

Hi, Jon.

First, and foremost, I thank you for answering the question.

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

Todd, I talked of this a week or two ago. I believe the answer is "yes" for the reasons I gave then.

If you already answered this question, then I sincerely apologize for missing your answer. I certainly wish I had noticed your comment, because I would have then responded to this sooner. I say this, because this is a critical answer in the discussion about the apparent age concept. Let's note that the only reason we know that this star catalogued as "Sk -69 202" ever existed, is because of the data: the observations prior to the observation of the explosion in 1987. We know this star existed because we observed it.

However, you must note then that, as I've been pointing out all along, the idea that the universe has not been around longer than, say, 10,000 years is disproved by this observation. You see, this star "Sk -69 202" has not been around for 168,000 years. (Technically, if it still exists, then it is in a radically altered form, such as a pulsar.) So when you acknowledge that this star did exist prior to its explosion, you are acknowledging that the universe was around at least 168,000 years ago, because obviously the star cannot have existed if the universe has not been around for more than 10,000 years.

This is the data. This is not merely "an interpretation of the data." If you espouse the idea that the star never existed, then you are implying that the data itself has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

Here is another example (which I've previously pointed out). Did you ever take a look at the two online references I provided for you:

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

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

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that as light travels through interstellar (and intergalactic) space it is affected by the gas and dust that it travels through. You can think of this a light showing increasing "wear and tear" the more it travels. Even more, if light leaves a star, then passes through a cloud of gas and dust on its way from that star to the earth, then we will see the gas and dust because of the fact that the light passed through it (and was affected by it).

To deny that the light has passed through the gas and dust is to deny the data, because the data itself is "light passing through gas and dust." The interpretation of the data is not whether or not it passed through something on its way from the light source to the earth. The interpretation that comes in is when you try to analyze the data in such a way as to try determine just how much gas and dust it travelled through, how may times, and what kinds of gas and dust this was. That is where the interpretation comes. "The light travelled through some gas and dust" is not an interpretation. That is the straight data.

If you choose to dismiss the data, if you choose to claim that the data is meaningless, please go right ahead and do so. Just don't try to pretend that you are merely "interpreting the data" in another way. That is rhetorical dishonesty, and I would have to accuse you of having joined the Gore camp in trying to "win a debate" by making up your facts instead of taking the truth as it is. Like Terence has done, you attempt to portray this as merely a disagreement over "interpreting the data" (implying that you apparent age advocates are simply following a "different interpretation" of the data). As I have explained here, claiming that the data is meaningless is not an "interpretation" of the data. It is a rejection of the data.

I was absolutely correct that you still have not provided any evidence. What you have provided is your conjecture based on your interpretation based on your assumptions regarding the biblical text. In other words, despite the manner in which many YECs portray the YEC discussion, non-YECs are not arguing about the Word of God. YECs are simply fallible human beings arguing in defense of their fallible human conjectures built on the foundation of their fallible religious creed, and non-YECs are simply criticizing this fallible human idea.

You and I both know that in this discussion regarding SN1987A and other aspects of astronomy in regard to what we observe about the real world itself I have been talking about "evidence" in the context of "empirical evidence" as in "what is the data we have from looking at the real world." You can play semantics, but, in fact, Doug Clevenger understood this distinction clearly and he is even the one who stated in his 11/10/00 9:51 pm post:

...you have sought to address yours and others' exegetical concerns about a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Unless I missed it, however, you have not addressed my question about precisely what SN1987A proves and what it cannot prove concerning the age of the universe.

Let's not jump the gun, Todd. You introduced the physical evidence, so let's stick with it a while to see what it actually does or does not prove.

So I hope that you and Doug can get together on the approach here, because I think it is entirely unfair for me to address one apparent age advocate in the context of the terms he specifically states and then have another apparent age advocate step in and try to criticize my words because I am doing just that. It is unfair to "talk out of two sides of your mouth" like that.

The fact remains that no apparent age advocate here has offered one shred of evidence for the apparent age position, which is that the universe was created 10,000 years ago or less yet "appears" to be far older. The only argument that even has any meaning that has even been proposed is this idea of "fully functional." I have already pointed out to you that being fully functional does not imply having the signs of age. I did so even using your own conjecture regarding Adam being created instantaneously as a fully functional male human being. Assuming this (and it is entirely an assumption on your part), you still have a fully functional human being that appears very odd in the respect that he does not have the signs of age. His teeth and skin have absolutely no wear and tear on them, as you would observe with any human being who was born and had lived a number of years. One of the most unusual things about this assumed Adam would be that he would have no navel since he would never have had an umbilical cord. I pointed out to you that "fully functional" trees being created instantaneously would appear very unusual in the respect that they would have no growth rings. These are just a couple of examples. Here's another example: What do impact craters have to do with a "fully functional" earth? Answer: Impact craters have absolutely nothing to do with the instantaneous creation of a "fully functional" earth. Impact craters are more pieces of data that show genuine antiquity.

But in reference to the biblical text itself rather than the empirical evidence, you say that Genesis 1 and 2 are your evidence. Your evidence for what? The apparent age concept? I have already pointed out to you that the apparent age concept is not taught anywhere in the Bible. I state to you that the only place that I'm aware of where the apparent age concept might be stated is in the book of Hezekiah, since in all of my reading and studying of the Bible I've never happened to read that particular book yet. So other than in Hezekiah, I know for a fact that "light created in transit" from the stars is not taught anywhere. I know for a fact that "the universe is less than 10,000 years old" is not taught there. I know for a fact that "the universe was created with apparent age" is not taught anywhere. I know for a fact that "the stars that blow up never really existed" is not taught anywhere in the Bible. All of these concepts are fallible (and wrong) human speculations that you human apparent age advocates have imposed on the biblical text based on your own fallible (and wrong) human interpretations of the biblical text.

Neither you nor any other apparent age advocate has offered one shred of empirical evidence for this apparent age concept. This is a fact, and thus I shall continue to state this where it is appropriate to do so. It was Terence who several days ago accused me of "begging the question," and I have simply shown since then that (1) I have done nothing of the sort, especially since I'm the only one even bringing up the evidence (indeed, I'm the only one who even accepts that the evidence has any meaning), and (2) it is apparent age advocates themselves who dismiss the data that we possess, never produce any evidence for their own position, and yet take their own assumption for granted at every turn.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 11/12/00 4:07 PM ••••
I had pointed to Adam as evidence that God could create something with apparent age. You had said that none of the "apparent age advocates have presented any evidence for the apparent age concept. It seems as if, so far, apparent age advocates are actually arguing that they have no evidence and don't need to present any evidence — "

I was merely saying evidence had been offered. It may be that the evidence is not acceptable to you for one reason or another, but it has been offered.

The data I was using was Genesis 1 and 2.

Your testimony based on your
fallible human interpretation of an ancient text from at least 2,500 years ago couched in metaphorical language in a foreign language and from the context of a foreign culture hardly constitutes "eyewitness testimony."

The text I am basing my testimony on has been translated into English. I did not have to depend on my understanding of that language to understand the text. It is true that I am using my fallible human interpretation, but isn't that true for all of us? You are using your fallible human interpretation to interpret data, are you not? The text I referred to is inspired of God, and transcends human culture. I doubt that culture really keeps one from understanding what the text says about the creation of Adam.

By the way, my question is still on the table:

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

This question requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no."

Todd, I talked of this a week or two ago. I believe the answer is "yes" for the reasons I gave then.

Jon

[ TOP ]

Part 5

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/14/00 6:21 AM

Hi, Wayne.

I will remind everyone that you are the one who specifically promoted the error that no one had discovered ocean currents before Matthew Maury, and that you also completely refused to acknowledge the historical facts that James Cook and Alexander von Humboldt were ocean explorers who mapped ocean currents before Matthew Maury was even born when these facts were pointed out to you. Sorry to mix metaphors, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

So please keep telling us about casting pearls and lacking common ground. I would agree with you this far: Those who refuse to accept the data, those who dismiss the data (or who pretend — without any evidence whatsoever — that the data is, somehow, not real) are hard put to find common ground with those who rely on the data and the evidence. But, then, those who refuse to accept the facts should be considered with some skepticism when they claim to be truth-seekers.

And, even worse, Wayne, there are some "exclusivists" like you who reject the facts and espouse their fallible and fallacious human ideas while proclaiming that anyone who disagrees with them is a "false teacher." Yet here you are a member of a church that proclaims than human creeds are not supposed to be the arbiters of truth. I detect a disjunction.

If you have no facts, no data, no evidence to offer, then it's not pearls you are casting.

By the way, perhaps you would like to answer my question. There seems to be some disagreement among YEC advocates regarding the correct answer:

Did the star "Sk -69 202" that exploded, which explosion we observed in 1987 and call SN1987A, ever exist?

And how do you know?

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

•••• Wayne Goforth, 11/12/00 1:06 PM ••••
Wayne G to Jon and Doug... Considering Jesus said not to cast your pearls, don't you think it is time we all take our pearl necklaces back and go on? We can only have meaningful discussions when we have a common ground, so far, I see none.

[ 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 ]