The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 6)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 6)

[ 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 6

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/14/00 9:10 AM

Hi, David (Willis).

Disdain? What gives you reason to impute this emotion to me?

I am criticizing your position because it is fallacious. I have pointed out and discussed empirical information and logical considerations relevant to this topic. If you perceive this as disdain, I'm sorry for that, but don't think for a second that I will not criticize what deserves to be criticized. That which is wrong is wrong, and I will not shrink from pointing it out. Matthew Maury did not discover ocean currents. That is a fact. Those who espouse otherwise are simply wrong, and their position can and should be criticized. The universe is not merely 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It is a fact that the universe has been around for billions of years. That is a fact. Those who espouse otherwise — in direct contradiction of all of the empirical evidence — are simply wrong, and their position can and should be criticized.

You made a lengthy post, and tried to portray my criticism of the fact that you have produced no evidence at all for your claims as merely "disdain," and yet in your entire post you made several conjectures and still never produced one shred of evidence for your fallible human speculations. You claim that I fail to grasp miraculous creation. No, in fact, I don't. "When did God create the universe?" is the question that we are discussing (and that I originally asked). I have pointed out that all of the data shows that the universe has been around far longer than merely 10,000 years. For clarity, I have focused on the specific example of SN1987A (while mentioning other relevant examples from time to time). Here you are now (again, without any evidence) trying to go back to the discredited YEC idea of lightspeed decay. Golly, Doug, we went all through that something like three weeks ago. What part of "the lightspeed decay slow motion effect is not observed anywhere in the universe" did you not understand? Do you have some evidence that you want us to consider that I have missed? If you don't have any evidence, then why are you trying to espouse an idea that the evidence that we do posses disproves? Why are you promoting error on this?

In fact, lightspeed is observed by astronomers to have been uniform for at least the last several billion years. So, yes, the star "Sk -69 202" existed up until the time when it exploded about 168,000 years ago. (The star probably still exists, but in a radically altered form, such as a pulsar.) Astronomers observed that star in its pre-supernova form prior to 1987. (And, by the way, yes, I do know these things, whether you know them or not.) Now here you, as an apparent age advocate, come along and claim that this star never existed. The data doesn't matter. The data doesn't mean anything. In other words, despite the fact that astronomers observed the existence of this star, you dismiss the observations. Even though the existence of this star is literally observed, you claim that it did not exist prior to, say, 10,000 years ago. Therefore, the star "Sk -69 202" never existed, and the explosion never really occurred, despite the fact that we have observed the star and we have observed the explosion. That is the YEC position. I don't like any more than, perhaps, you do, but the difference between us is that based on the data I, a former YEC, have rejected the disproved YEC position, whereas you have dismissed the data because you want to adhere to the YEC position.

D. Russell Humphreys is no help either. First of all, even if Humphreys' model was correct, it is not relevant in the relatively short distance scale we are talking about in the case of the Large Magellanic Cloud (where SN1987A is located), which out of all of the hundreds of millions of galaxies in the universe is the second closest galaxy to the earth. (Only the Sagittarius galaxy is closer.) Second, Humphreys' model, like the lightspeed decay idea, has been disproved. For example, his model predicts that the light from distant galaxies should be increasingly "blue-shifted" in proportion to their distance from earth. In fact, the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, in proportion to their distance from earth, which has been known for several decades, and Humphreys should never have promoted a model that is already contradicted by the empirical data before he even published it. (Of course, for the YEC community, this is par for the course. Moon dust, anyone? Short-term comets? Moon & Spencer shortcuts through space? Lewis Overthrust has no friction layer? On and on the list of discredited YEC stories go.)

Again, Doug, where is your data, where is your evidence, to support your claims? In fact, the data, the evidence, shows that God created the universe far longer than just 10,000 years ago.

Here are those two online references I've been giving you regarding light passing through material between the source and the earth:

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

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

This is the data. Now here you are proposing the "interpretation" that, no, this data is not real, because... well, because, why, Doug? Where is your evidence? What is the reason for proposing that this data is not "real." Do you have some new process you have evidence for that produces just this kind of data that appears to be one thing even though it is something else entirely? If you do, then please present it. I'm waiting for it, and I've been asking for it. In lieu of evidence, do you have an explanation of how this is done? You keep saying "God" as if the word "God" covers all fallacious human ideas. Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Can God do that which is not in his nature to do? Please don't try to make God responsible for your fallible and fallacious human speculations. It isn't fair to God, and it isn't fair to other people.

The difference between our positions is that I am arguing from the data, while you dismiss the data and say that we should accept these human speculations of yours despite the fact that the data contradicts it, and despite the fact that you have absolutely no evidence for your speculations.

What am I supposed to say? "Yes, Doug. Even though all of the data shows that the universe is ancient, I should accept your conjecture, even though you don't have even one scrap of evidence, merely because you find the idea that universe is ancient to be personally distasteful."

Your description of my position as a "subjective philosophical choice" is most inappropriate. Subjectivism is the approach that denies the real world, that denies that data of the real world about the real world is genuinely real. While this describes your YEC position, it certainly does not describe my non-YEC position. (And, indeed, since you acknowledge the subjectivism of the YEC position, why are still trying to "play the 'scientific' creationism card" with your espousal of such discredited ideas as lightspeed decay and Humphreys cosmology. This is inconsistent. Either the universe has apparent age or it does not. Or are you just trying to "hedge your bets" on this?)

I wrote:

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.

You responded:

I did not say that it implies any particular actual age. I simply said that it implies an actual age less than its apparent age. You agree don't you? That is the model. You may not accept the model, but that IS what it implies. Miracles often produce an effect of showing something which normally would take a longer time being done in a shorter one.

I still criticize your "model" for being ill-defined. You certainly have not explained any details whatsoever about your "model." Why do you believe that it is incumbent on me to accept a "model" which isn't, and to refrain from criticizing the fact that it lacks any definition? (Not to mention the fact that you have absolutely no evidence on which you base your "model" to begin with.) How do you know that the "apparent age" is not 14 billion years, and that the "real age" is not actually 781 billion years? You may not accept this model, but that is what the lack of definition, of meaning, in your "model" implies.

The only point on which I have agreed is that an instantaneously created entity might appear — at first glance, simply due to the fact of its existence — to have been around longer than it really has. This is the only aspect of the idea that makes any sense at all in the real world. Everything else you have promoted has had no connection with reality in any way. I have pointed out that if in fact we were to discover such an entity, we would find on closer inspection various details that would be rather odd by which we would realize that this entity, while "fully functional," did not actually possess a "history of development," the "marks of age." You have completely failed to ponder the very real distinction between "fully functional" and "bearing the marks of age."

I wrote:

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.

You responded:

We don't know that at all. I would not be surprised at all to find that Adam was created with a belly button or other "wear and tear". I doubt that his skin looked like a baby's, he may have been tanned. I would expect that trees were created with rings. Mountains had fissures. Soil was full of nutrients and ready to grow plants. Beaches had sand. The sky had light from stars.

Wow! Where is your evidence for this? I grant that these are your human YEC conjectures, but I'm still waiting for some evidence. Are you reading this stuff in the book of Hezekiah, because, I must admit, I just recently tried to look this up in Hezekiah, figuring I better check to see if there was something really important there that I was missing, and — wouldn't you know it — both of my copies of the Bible have this section missing. (I guess I'm going to have to write the publishers about misprints).

The fact is, Doug, that you are traveling far off in the land of pure speculation. What you are talking about has absolutely no connection with reality. You have absolutely no data or evidence (empirical or biblical) to substantiate a single bit of what you are claiming. But, then, of course, you are espousing the YEC apparent age concept, so this is precisely what we must expect.

I'm not going to comment further on your misrepresentation of what an "atheist naturalistic scientist" would claim. I did not "whiff the point." Your point is entirely wrong. But to start digging into that particular area of discussion would take us away from what is relevant to this discussion, so I'll simply have to leave it at that.

The YEC creed is just that: a fallible (and wrong) human religious creed. Hmmm... Now, once the telescope came along and had been around a little while, most of the geocentrists realized that the time had come for them to modify their (fallible and fallacious) position.

History writes itself again.

It is a practical fact that the truth regarding the antiquity of the universe is making tremendous inroads in the "Christian community," even among "evangelical Christians" who are the most biased against accepting the truth about the real world. The antiquity of the universe is not going to change any more than is the fact that the solar system is not geocentric. I would recommend to you, for the good of your own cause, that you work on bringing your views closer in line with reality, because when you tell people how much you respect truth while espousing a view that so absurdly contradicts obvious reality, you do tremendous damage to your own credibility.

Believe me, I make this last statement not as your critic but as an outside observer telling you how people perceive you. You have claimed that my expression of reasoned criticism of your position is "disdain." Yet I take the time to discuss this topic in detail with you. I tell you as an outside observer that non-YECs have so much disdain for your position that they consider it beneath their notice. These are the days of the Hubble Space Telescope. More and more, people feel that the YEC position is so completely absurd that they have no time to waste on talking to such people who so blatantly deny reality. I'm a former YEC, so I don't feel this way, but you should be aware that the vast majority of non-YECs who possess any education about astronomy or geology simply do not take the "young earth/young universe" position with any seriousness at all. They consider it in exactly the same terms as you consider geocentrism.

In support of your own more fundamental cause, I suggest to you that you examine the work of such writers as John T. Willis, Gleason Archer, John Sailhamer, Davis A. Young, John L. Wiester, John F. Haught, James W. Skehan, and Kenneth R. Miller.

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

•••• David Willis, 11/13/00 10:56 PM ••••
Todd Greene writes (11/12/00 8:32:51 AM CST):

First of all, I fail to see the relevance of your post. I've been asking you to produce your evidence.

This is twice now I've written to challenge you and you have been non-responsive showing nothing but disdain for me and your other opponents. I'm not much interested in continuing with you. We'll see how it goes with your reply to this post.

None of the apparent age advocates have presented any evidence for the apparent age concept.

You fail to grasp the point that a miracle defies the standard methodology of evidence evaluation by naturalisitic means. It just does. YOUR miracle does (having the universe created from nothing 14 BY ago) and so does every other miracle including having the universe created fully formed. IF God chose to instantly create a human (like He did Adam) and you met him 5 minutes later, what evidence would there be of that miracle that could be seen by observation? None. It is the nature of a miracle. Now you can "rule out" such a miracle from being allowed in your thinking if you like. Atheists do that. (I assume you don't). But that is only a philosophical predetermination.

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.

It is a subjective philosophical choice to include this YE model as one possible way that God could have produced our universe. The evidence will fit that model. It won't PROVE that model but it is consistent with it. Just as your evidence cannot prove yours. It is also a subjective philosophical choice to rule out this (YE) particular way that God could have brought about His creation.

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.

It can be checked by asking, "Could an all-powerful being produce a world with apparent age?" If so, then that is one of the possible explanations for what we observe.

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

My answer is similar to Dave Brown's. I don't know. YOU don't know either BTW. It may have existed (with faster SOL in the past, perhaps other YE explanations such as R. Humphries' view). It may have not (with only the information of its apparent existence being contained in the light beam created 10000 years ago). Either is consistent with a YEC view. The idea of a beam of light having information of an apparent event which never happened is not inconsistent with other similar conundrums associated with an instant mature creation. Would a created grain of sand contain information suggesting events that never took place? Would a mountain? Would the mountain have cracks or fissures? What about a riverbed? An atmosphere? An ocean? All of these contain "information" of apparent events which never happened...as much so as a beam of light with an exploding star in it does.

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?

I wasn't referring to these. I was NOT seeking a false prejudicial moniker to hang on the necks of such men. You need to be more careful slinging accusations and take a little more time to understand your opponent's argument before you begin to insult him. I know there are AE theists and I am assuming you are one...and I know these men to be theists also. I was talking about actual atheists who would find the views of these men AND your own to be just as void of evidence as you find YEC to be. You totally whiffed the point I was making. Here is my argument again. Try to get the point this time.

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.

You may THINK you have evidence supporting God's having created from nothing (and I would agree of course), but to an atheist naturalistic scientist, he would say you have no evidence (which he would recognize, that is) to support that anything can be created from nothing. He would say that you have to go outside of the realm of science to arrive at that conclusion. If you demand evidence (in naturalistic terms) for YEC, then you must produce your own evidence which would satisfy an atheist naturalist that God created from nothing. That miracle contradicts the naturalistic evidence too. Supernatural events always do.

(Go ahead and make your "God must be a deceiver then" argument...that is what always comes next.)

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.)

God could have done this...would you not agree? To admit to it being possible is not to say that it is plausible or the best explanation of the evidence. This possible explanation must be weighed along with other possible ones. It is no less possible to God than your view of creation or mine. But it is not equally plausible. This argument is useful perhaps to a full-fledged atheist, but for one who believes in God's power (as I assume you do) it is as damaging to your own view as it is to the YEC's. Time is immaterial to God.

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?

The evidence is consistent with God having created the universe fully formed. It is not any more consistent with your 14 byo gradually formed one. You could as readily say that the evidence supports better the idea that Adam had to be first an embryo, then a baby, a toddler, a lad, a teen and then finally a man because all men we observe TODAY go through those steps. But that rules out a supernatural event being the cause of bringing Adam into existence. That is a philosophical choice. It is not what the evidence demands.

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A
11/14/00 9:37 AM

Hi, Wayne.

I just write simply to thank you for your adamant promotion of error and your adamant refusal to acknowledge the historical fact that ocean currents were discovered before Matthew Maury was even born. I like to point out examples of people like you to others in order to unequivocally demonstrate my point that the typical YEC attitude is one of "obstinance in error" and "lack of responsibility in correcting error." So many times, people try to contradict me on this point, and I just whip out my quotes that I save from people like you in order to prove it. You demonstrate this attitude so very, very well.

I have quotes from a YEC early this year who adamantly denied that the universe was any bigger than 6,000 light-years from earth, and denied that astronomers had observed more than "several hundred galaxies at most" in the entire universe (because, of course, you can't have millions of galaxies in a universe that's only 12,000 light-years across). Like the YECs in mars-list, this YEC dismissed all of the data at every turn, and tried to pretend that criticism of his fallacious YEC ideas was criticism of God Himself.

Hmmm... A parallel.

We aren't arguing about any "internal evidence of the scripture." You YECs have offered nothing more than your fallible (and wrong) human speculations. Indeed, that's all there is to the YEC position. That's all right. At least you're one step beyond Martin Luther, who taught that the Bible teaches a "celestial sphere" which Christians should not reject because, after all, it's the Word of God (stars in the firmament, you know).

You really ought to read Davis A. Young. He adheres to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, just like you do. Through his discussion, you might be able to better understand the distinction between the Word of God and your fallible human ideas regarding that Word. Don't try to make God responsible for your purely human errors.

Thanks again,
Todd

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

— Proverbs 12:17

•••• Wayne Goforth, 11/14/00 9:09 AM ••••
As I said before, so say I again now...contact Mr Maury Morris, he said he would be glad to correct you and give you the evidence you so honestly seek for. Todd, since you seem to love the books of poetry so much as you quote it at the bottom of your posts, perhaps you should consider Psalm 14:1. As for your question of the stars, I will stick to the internal evidence of the scripture.

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: SN1987A - Apparent Age Concept
11/18/00 11:05 AM

Hi, everyone interested in this topic.

First, regarding his 11/14/00 9:13 am post, I wish to say to Jon Quinn: That was extremely unfair of you to claim that you had answered the question

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."

Your post on 11/2/00 did not address this question at all. You made some general comments on this topic that we are discussing, but you did not address this question, and you could not tell from your 11/2/00 post how you would have answered this question.

Terence asks "What is Todd going to do?" and then proceeds to claim in some very odd fashion that I am arguing in a "circular" manner, simply "assuming" my claim. Terence, especially, likes to throw these words at me, in spite of the fact that he knows that I'm the only one providing the data that shows what I've been saying all along, and despite the fact that neither he nor any other apparent age advocate (AAA) has produced one shred of evidence of any kind (empirical or biblical) whatsoever.

What is one of my particular claims, one which I have focused on very carefully over the last few days? Yes, it is that question, again:

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

I answer, unequivocally, "Yes." And the reason I answer in the affirmative has nothing to do with "assuming" the star existed and then "interpreting" or dismissing the data however I feel like doing in order to adhere to my position regardless of the data. I don't need to do this, because my position is that we must have evidence for whatever view that we wish to take — especially if we are going to go about holding up our veneration of truth as a banner — and the evidence, the data, regarding SN1987A and the progenitor star is very extensive and very unequivocal.

If the data showed that the universe was young, then I would be a YEC today — indeed, I would never have rejected YEC as I did 20 years ago. I rejected the YE component of YEC because the data itself shows that the universe has been around far, far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years, and this data is not at all sparse and unclear but is very, very extensive and obvious. You know, like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around.

I tell you that the progenitor star "Sk -69 202" existed, because astronomers have observed it. Did the star ever exist? Yes. Why? Because we literally observed the star sitting there in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, before it blew up.

Now here comes the apparent age advocate claiming, <<imputed dialogue>>:

"Well, no, this star did not ever really exist."

"Oh? Why do you say that."

"Because it's the Word of God that the universe itself did not exist that long ago."

"It is? Where does it say that?"

"In Genesis 1."

"Really? Genesis really tells us 'The universe did not exist 168,000 years ago'? That's fascinating! I've read Genesis 1 dozens of times and I've never noticed that verse before. Wow, can you show me where that verse is?"

"Uh... No, you misunderstand, it doesn't say that specifically. That is simply an inference based on what it says."

"It is? Genesis 1 talks about the age of the universe? That's fascinating! I've read Genesis 1 dozens of times and... Look, you and I both know that 'the age of the universe' is not in Genesis 1. Is this another one of your 'inferences'?"

"Well, yes it is, but it's a pretty airtight inference, since we know that..."

"Wait a second! Since you 'know'? Where is your data? You show me some data that backs up what you are claiming, and then we'll talk about what you 'know' and don't know, and what inferences are justified based on the data. Talking about inferences based on your assumptions is circular."

So the fact remains that in claiming that the universe is ancient, I'm the only who has produced any data whatsoever that is consistent with my position:

1.	The data shows that the progenitor star (Sk -69 202) did exist before its explosion 168,000 years ago.

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

2.	The data shows that the star exploded about 168,000 years ago.

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

3.	The data shows that energy from the stellar explosion hit the primary gas ring that was around this star, which then was caused to "glow," while light then headed for earth (from the primary gas ring.

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

4.	The data shows that the light passed through sheets of dust between SN1987A and the earth.

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

Apparent age advocates dismiss this data. In correspondence with their fallible (and wrong) human belief in this fallible (and wrong) humanly- derived apparent age concept, they teach that (1) the progenitor star never existed, (2) the stellar explosion never occurred, (3) the energy from the explosion (in the form of light energy) never hit the primary gas ring, (4) the primary gas ring never "reflected" this energy impact, (5) the light never passed through any dust any less than 6,000 light- years from the earth on its way from SN1987A to the earth. So, despite the fact that the data does indeed show all of these things, apparent age advocates deny all of this data.

And all the while they never produce one shred of evidence.

I have stated all along that apparent age advocates were not genuinely presenting "just another interpretation" of the data but really were just pretending that the data is not real. Saying "the data is not real" is not "an interpretation of the data." The AAAs can pretend all they want with rhetoric on this, but dismissing the data is not just another interpretation of the data. Terence, in particular, has tried to pretend that this data is nothing more than the "conclusions" of (biased) astronomers. No, Terence, this is the data, as anyone in this discussion forum, and anyone anywhere else, can see for himself. This is the data. The progenitor star was observed. The existence of the progenitor star is not an extrapolation from the data. The existence of the progenitor star is the data itself, data that we possess.

I would further point out that the apparent age advocates have run away from the "light echo" data (which shows the light passing through layers of dust on its way from SN1987A to earth, no closer than about 167,000 light-years from earth). They have also run away from the two other examples I have presented of data by which we literally observe that light has "travelled the distance" instead of merely being "created in transit." The data itself shows that this light has travelled through gas and dust on its way from the light source to the earth.

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/42/
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/14/

This is the data. As I have been saying all along, apparent age advocates deny the data. They are not merely "interpreting the data differently," because, in fact, they teach that the data is not real. This is not "just another interpretation" of the data but is a dismissal of the data.

Now, I agree with apparent age advocates that in order to be consistent with the apparent age concept you must dismiss the data as not being real. I have never disputed that point. What I have disputed is the wrong portrayal of this as "just another interpretation of the data," because that is not what it is. If you accept the data, then you must reject the apparent age concept. If you wish to accept the apparent age concept, then you must reject the data. It's that simple.

Since the data from the real world about the real world shows that the universe is ancient, and since SN1987A in particular shows that the universe has been around for at least 168,000, I state that the YE component of YEC is thereby disproved — because of the data.

Terence (and others) has occasionally attempted to misportray this as an argument over the origin of the universe, but, in fact, I have never discussed empirical information related to the origin of the universe. For this discussion, the actual age of the universe is completely irrelevant. The reason is because YECs claim that the universe has not existed for more than, say, 10,000 years. Hence, I merely need to produce the evidence by which we know that it has been around longer than 10,000 years in order to disprove the YEC claim. And that I have done.

The AAAs know that they cannot show that I have present incorrect data. They know that the data I have presented does show that an ancient universe, so the only route they have available to them — short of rejecting YEC — is to dismiss the data by claiming that it is not real. They claim that the data is only "an appearance" (an illusion), but what they fail to take into account is that in the real world, when we talk about something indicating something "apparently" while in actuality what we think it indicates is not genuine, it is because we have other data by which we have reason to believe that what we thought the first data indicated is not correct. The problem is that AAAs have no such additional data. They argue that all of the existing data is "apparent" rather than real, yet they have absolutely no evidence that indicates this. In several of my posts I have pleaded with AAAs here to present any evidence which would support this idea that the existing data actually is being misinterpreted. They have completely failed to do this.

Those who wish to believe that the data itself is not real certainly have every right to believe whatever it is they wish to believe, not being confined to the restrictions of what we observe about the real world itself. I concede this to them without argument. But I will not concede their mischaracterization of the discussion as merely an argument between two different yet equally valid "interpretations" of the evidence, because that is not what it is.

I further point out, as I have pointed out before, that the apparent age advocates have not only dismissed the empirical data and failed to present one shred of empirical evidence themselves, they have also failed to present biblical evidence for the apparent age concept. I have repeatedly pointed out that the apparent age concept (and specific elements of this apparent age concept that AAAs have proposed, such as light-in-transit) is not taught anywhere in the Bible. (Note to Steve Willis: Yes, the book of Hezekiah was a common humorous reference to "imputed to but not in the Bible" when I was a member of the COC.)

In short, we have fallible human beings with their fallible speculations attempting to "save" their YEC creed by coming up with some manner by which to continue to believe it rather than accepting the data that they know contradicts their creed.

Since all of the AAAs acknowledge (implicitly or otherwise) that the empirical data obviously contradicts the YE component of the YEC, I think it is time to address "the other side of the coin" — the biblical "data" — and it is to this aspect of the discussion that I shall now turn my focus.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

See "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe"

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

— Proverbs 12:17

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 11/14/00 9:13 AM ••••
You wrote:

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 will be happy to provide below the full text of my answer below. In it, you will see what I believe is an answer that addresses both the YE view, as related in Genesis, as well as the apparent age of a much older earth (and universe). It explains how we could view something in 1987 that has the appearance of taking place over 100,000 years ago even though the universe is not that old.

Please also note that, while this is my preferred view at the moment, I must agree with others who say they do not know for sure. I do not know for sure either. I just know that there are viable views for a young universe and SE1987 together.

The following is the text from my post made on November 2, 2000.

I appreciate Hal and Howard and Doug and others who have discussed the apparent maturity of Adam at the moment of creation and have drawn the parallel to the creation of a mature universe.

I would like to offer another possibility, that may work with the apparent age idea, or work independently of it.

If we take the term "day" in Genesis as something equivilant to the period of time it would take for the earth to rotate once(and I know of no compelling reason not to do so), that still does not mean God could not have bent or warped time or speeded up processes during that period of time. For example, not only could He have created the universe with apparent age, He could have also, after speaking the matter into existence and then miraculously forming it into heavenly bodies, accelerated natural processes so a billion year's worth of interstellar activity took place in a 24 hour period. If God can "stop the sun" for a day to give a military victory to His people, then He could certainly speed it up for a day as well. He can make things happen as quickly or as slowly as suits His purpose. Remember, He is all powerful.

The bottom line is that there are ways to reconcile light reaching us that has apparently been travelling for millions of years and the Genesis account of creation for those who accept the omnipotence of God.

The nature of light does not really give the believer a problem other than we have to admit we do not know which Biblically compatible explanation among several might be the correct one.

One thing I have never heard explained though, to any degree of satisfaction, is how the universe began apart from God. I am not talking about the "Big Bang"... that is only an explanation of things beinning to really heating up... where did the things come from to begin with? That is a much greater problem for the non believer than the speed of light and distances are for the believer.

Thanks,

Jon

•••• Terence Sheridan, 11/15/00 2:21 AM ••••
As I have said about Todd Greene.....

Now, Todd, you alleged a great many things in this post, but only the things that you alleged from the beginning, namely that SN1987A proves an old universe; that your interpretation of the "data" is "objective," etc. I'm afraid you have not dealt with my objections; you have only restated in different words that very things to which I was objecting. To wit, here is how I think you are proceeding in this dicussion...

1.	Astronomers KNOW through objective means that light has traveled at a constant rate for eons from SN1987A, because...

2.	It was a natural phenonemon that conformed to our understanding of how the universe works, because...

3.	Miracles couldn't have made a young universe with the resultant light data that we see, because...

4.	Because that means it would appear to have age, and hence would imaginary, as opposed to real, because...

5.	What astronomers have concluded is real data, because...

6.	Go back to #1

Again, I find your reasoning to be circular.

What is Todd going to do? Is he going to say that since we cannot produce scientific evidence of instantaneous creation that it therefore did not happen? He has committed the fallacy of "Shifting the Burden of Proof." He clearly came on this list saying we were wrong, that the universe was old, yada, yada, yada. For this to be true, the universe would have to be created in a non-miraculous, naturalistic manner. Was Todd around when the universe was created in order to determine if it was non-miraculous or not? No. So he has to ASSUME it was created non-miraculously In the same fashion, an atheist ASSUMES that since he can't put God in a test tube, that He doesn't exist. That's the bottom line, folks! We're making an assumption. Todd is making an assumption. Todd can prove that light travels at certain speed. Todd CANNOT prove that creation of the universe was non-miraculous. Like the atheist, it's a matter of what Todd chooses to believe.

Todd has also commited the fallacy of "Blinding with Science." Here, the debater attempts to present his propositions as those derived from scientific date when, in fact, they are derived more from personal bias. If Todd wants to hem and haw here, let him PROVE right here and now that the creation was non-miraculous and therefore light speed and matter were left to natural laws. He won't. He'll just talk some more about SN1987A. Around and around in circles he'll go, making prejudicial insinuations that we are stupid, dishonest, etc.

Sincerely,

Terence Sheridan

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - A False Hidden Assumption
11/18/00 12:54 PM

Hi, Glen.

You are promoting a viewpoint that I have already discussed and explained the incorrectness of. Since you state that you just recently joined the discussion, I refer you to my 11/5/00 8:36 am post to mars-list. (In particular, note the highly relevant excerpt from an article by Davis A. Young, which I copy again here, below.)

Yes, you "met me" before in that discussion forum where every single YEC absolutely refused to acknowledge that the Moon & Spencer "shortcut through space" conjecture was discredited long ago and also completely refused to acknowledge both that astronomers did have an explanation for short-term comets (the Kuiper Belt) and that the existence of this Kuiper Belt has been empirically verified since 1992. [Editorial note: This previous discussion forum that I was involved in is none other than the LUR List, for which the discussion Glen Young is referring to is now archived (exclusively) right here on this website, since the LUR List forum has, since then, removed their archive from public access. (It's always more fun to promote your errors internally without having to deal with the criticism such promotion of error can generate.) See LUR List Discussion on Creationism.] Perhaps you would care to tell us now whether or not you are willing to acknowledge the truth regarding these matters. It is the obstinate promotion of error that is one of the very sad legacies of the YEC creed in the COC. (After all, we have a COC preacher, Wayne Goforth, right here in this forum who adamantly refuses to acknowledge the existence of ocean current surveyors James Cook and Alexander von Humboldt before ocean current surveyor Matthew Maury was born.) YECs would do well to correct their own errors before attempting to promote themselves as "teachers of truth" against those whom they call "false teachers."

Be careful when you try to represent my viewpoint. You did a terrible job of it in the other discussion forum, and you are beginning poorly here. I have never attempted to promote any idea about 'Christians can believe in a Carl Sagan type of creation.' You misrepresent me. I have not talked about the actual creation, either in terms of the creation itself or in terms of when it occurred (other than the fact that the data shows that it did not occur merely 10,000 years ago). I have not discussed that in this forum, and I did not discuss it in the other forum last year. And since you were a participant in that discussion last year in that other forum, you should be well aware of this fact, and of the fact that I pointed out this incorrect representation of my discussion in quite some detail at that time, repeatedly. The relevant evidence regarding the origin of the universe is "fuzzy" at this time, though it is less fuzzy than it was, say, 30 years ago. Was it 10 billion years ago? 13 billion years ago? 15 billion years ago? I don't know. The relevant information is simply not that precise for this very, very distant (in time) event. But this has nothing to do with the fact that right now we have directly observed a stellar explosion that occurred approximately 168,000 years ago, and since it occurred 168,000 years ago, the universe has obviously "been around" longer than just 10,000 years.

I did not promote any "Christians can believe in a Carl Sagan type of creation" idea in the other discussion forum, and I have not promoted any such idea here. Do not misrepresent me.

In your post, you advocate the false subjectivist idea that the real world itself is, somehow, meaningless, or that we cannot learn anything about this real world. You directly ignore all of the fallacies I showed you about this subjectivist viewpoint in the previous discussion forum. Do you believe that the sun revolves about the earth? Do you believe that we do not know whether the sun revolves about the earth, or vice versa? This is really the only question that I need to ask you, because if you acknowledge that we do know that the earth revolves about the sun (instead of the other way around), then you in fact have conceded my point that we can and do — by careful, systematic, iterative, objective examination of the real world (science) — genuinely learn things about the real world. The real world itself — apart from our fallible human understanding of it — is just as much "T"ruth as anything else, and this is a consideration you have completely ignored in your discussion.

If you wish to say that "The scientific method is inherently flawed, causing the interpretation of empirical evidence to be flawed" merely because of the fact that it is fallible human beings who are engaged in trying to understand the data, then, in fact, you have condemned your own position, because you cannot remove "the human element" from your YEC interpretation of the biblical "data" any more than you can remove human fallibility from examination of the real world.

In further fact, interpretation of the biblical "data" has been and is far more "dynamic" than science (as Davis A. Young points out). Your intended criticism of science strikes far more appropriately at your own YEC interpretation of the Bible.

You further misrepresent my position and presentation in this manner:

Where have I ever said we should "keep this discussion out of the realm of" the biblical text? I have never said that. This is a false representation of anything I have said. In fact, Glen, Doug Clevenger not too many days ago specifically requested that I not yet go into exegetical concerns (because I had made some comments relevant to that area of the discussion), but stay with discussion the empirical aspects for the time being. Do not misrepresent me.

I shall look forward to your dealing with the points that Davis A. Young has made, and to your answering my question as to whether or not we know that the earth revolves about the sun.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

[Editorial note: At this point I reposted, for Glen Young's benefit, the same "Is Interpretation of the Bible Unproblematic?" excerpt from Davis A. Young's article that I had quoted in my 11/5/2000 8:37 AM post. So just click on this link if you want to reference it again.

•••• Glen Young, 11/14/00 12:21 PM ••••
When the mail from Mars-list begins to come in what do I see, Mr. Todd Greene arguing his 'Christians can believe in a Carl Sagan type of creation' theory. I have encountered Mr. Greene on another list. I do not mean to jump in and do not know all that has been written. However, I would like to introduce some thinking points.

Mr. Greene continually argues from empirical evidences to prove his points. A discussion of the age of the earth can not be determined by empirical evidences for the following reasons. 1) Scientific knowledge is dynamic [for the voters in Florida that means what is considered scientific truth today may be rejected as false tomorrow, it changes!]. 2) The creation cannot be reproduced in a laboratory [nothing can be proven without replicating it under controlled circumstances, hence it remains a theory!]. 3) The word of God is Truth with a capital 'T', man's conclusions through scientific process is truth with a lower case 't' [God's word does not change, it is not dynamic, therefore the only way we can know the age of the earth or any other 'T'ruth is from that word of God. Man can speculate and come to a conclusion he thinks is 'T'ruth but it is only 't'ruth with a lower case 't' because of his limitations!] Does this mean we cannot know certain things from empirical evidences. NO! The earth declares the existence of God with all His power and glory. However, we cannot know that God truly exists except from His revelation.

What these points do is focus on the real issue. The revealed 'T'ruth from God concerning the age of the earth is the real issue, not man's interpretation of empirical evidences. Mr. Greene argues as if he knows all the factors surrounding his empirical evidence [SN1987A, exploding star]. He has formulated a theory that has not been proved and cannot be proved. He cannot say that the scientific methods we use in observing the universe produce absolute 'T'ruth regarding all we see. The scientific method is inherently flawed causing the interpretation of empirical evidence to be flawed. Does Mr. Greene believe that a method based upon the finite knowledge of man supercedes the infinite knowledge of God? Whether he believes this or not, this is the way he argues. To him it doesn't matter what the Bible says, only what he sees with his eyes and further how he interprets what he sees.

There is a big difference in what Mr. Greene wants to do and what needs to be done. Namely, keep this discussion in the realm of 'whose interpretation of empirical evidences is correct' and out of the realm of 'what saith the scripture'. Remember, scientific 't'ruth is dynamic. God's word is the whole 'T'ruth, nothing but the 'T'ruth, and will always be the 'T'ruth.

[ 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 ]