The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism (Part 8)

The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism
(Part 8)

[ 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 12/20/00. Table of contents coming soon.)

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
11/26/00 10:32 PM

Hi, David Brown.

Is fearing the truth "cowardice"? Perhaps. That is, of course, your word. What I do know for a fact is that so far you, among others, have argued for sweeping the data under the rug by claiming — without any evidence whatsoever — that the data is "not really real." If you really do not fear the truth, then why would you attempt to promote the view that the real world data is not real? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact — the fact — that the real world data does not support your position.

And why would you call mars-list a "peanut gallery"? This is, of course, a purposely public discussion. While I have no idea who all is following this particular discussion, I do know at least some who are. Knowing this, and knowing that there are some like Glen Young who explicitly promote the fallacious idea that the evidence is irrelevant, I am not about to let questions like "why continue your emphasis on the scientific end?" just slide by.

As I said, quite clearly and explicitly:

I already know that you yourself do not really believe this at least with regard to how you, as a member of the Church Of Christ, teach that other people should consider their own beliefs to be subject to the evidence.

You respond by claiming that

It is a hasty generalization based on your prejudiced views of others with whom you believe that I identify.

Wow! That is a completely incorrect characterization of the matter. Are you trying to pretend that you do not ask others to consider their own beliefs in a self-critical manner, and that you do not ask them to dig into the details and examine the truth in order to check on their own beliefs?

I was raised in the Church Of Christ, David, so I know that this is one of the important principles that is taught. If this is not a principle that you have been taught, then the Church Of Christ that I grew up in has indeed changed quite radically in the last 20 years. Frankly, I don't believe that, and I take offense at your pretensions that I am somehow misrepresenting your position in this respect. I am not some young blowhard who is "wet behind the ears" and doesn't know what he is talking about. Far from it, David. As a member of the church, I was one of those who talked to family, friends, and acquaintances who were "Christians" but not members of the Church Of Christ, or who were not Christians at all. I was one of those who asked them to study the relevant information, who asked them to be willing to examine the truth and consider the possibility that what they currently believed might be wrong. I took seriously this principle that I "preached" to others. And I am happy to tell you, David, that I was not a hypocrite about this. I maintained this same kind of principle with myself.

Since you stated that what you are proposing from science is not counter to biblical teaching, I merely asked you to move to that arena of discussion. Is that unreasonable?

I have indeed begun discussing aspects of biblical hermeneutics. At the same time I am not about to concede one millimeter to the fallacious viewpoint, espoused by many (but certainly not all) YECs, that the data from the real world about the real world is somehow irrelevant. That position, quite frankly, is completely unreasonable. It is an abandonment of reason altogether.

So when you come in injecting your question "why continue your emphasis on the scientific end?" I criticize it head on for being a terrible question. I don't care if you agree with the real world data about the real world, or not, David. If you disagree with the data, that is your business, not mine. I have simply pointed out to you what the data is, and clarified many of its details to you, in the face of the many YEC distortions and misrepresentations of it that abound in the Church Of Christ (among other religious groups). And those who have dug into the details of the relevant information know that I have, in fact, represented it in this dicussion accurately and truthfully. So I have absolutely nothing to apologize for on that score (or on any other score, that I'm aware of.)

The antiquity of the universe is a fact about the universe and the earth, because this is precisely what the data shows. Its factual status, based on the extensiveness and unequivocal nature of the data, is equivalent to the factual status of the idea that the earth revolves about the sun.

Let us say, just for the sake of discussion, that the Bible really does teach that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Then the Bible is wrong, because that is not the way the real world really is, biblical inerrancy is discredited, the Bible is not really inspired by God, and that's all she wrote. Of course, you claim that the Hindu scriptures, the Koran, and the like are all just human musings that also contain error, so then the Bible simply joins their ranks in containing some fallible human ideas. No big deal, right?

What I showed you in my previous post was that there are other paths that people have taken about this. I discussed the historical example of geocentrism very purposely, and I went through the various paths that people took in response to the discrediting of geocentrism, because all of that is highly relevant to the current discussion regarding the antiquity of the universe, and highly relevant to discussing biblical hermeneutics in the context of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I even titled the post "Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy" and I ended the post with a quote from Davis A. Young that was obviously relevant to biblical hermeneutics, in connection with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Do you espouse the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, or not? Was I discussing an aspect of biblical hermeneutics, or not?

Of course I was discussing these matters. Biblical hermeneutics is now my focus, but I simply have not discussed it in isolation from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, because I know — and you know — that this doctrine is tied into this discussion as tightly as the circuitry in a Pentium 4 computer chip. So go back and re-read my first post titled "YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy," and respond to the substance of the discussion, please.

Thank you,
Todd S. Greene

•••• David Brown, 11/26/00 3:27 PM ••••
Todd Greene wrote (11/26/00 10:09 AM):

You asked me, "...why continue your emphasis on the scientific end?"

I must ask you, "Why not?" and "Why do you fear the truth?"

Todd — you need to take a course in how to win friends and influence people. Accusing them of cowardice does not qualify. Do you think that I would agree with you that I fear the truth? Are you playing to the peanut gallery?

The reason that I asked you this question is because if you can demonstrate from the bible that there is no conflict with the science that you are proposing, you will no longer get any argument from anyone. Since you stated that what you are proposing from science is not counter to biblical teaching, I merely asked you to move to that arena of discussion. Is that unreasonable? It has nothing to do with being afraid of the truth. You made assertions, I want you to follow through with them. Or did I misunderstand what you stated in this regard?

Indeed, I already know that you yourself do not really believe this at least with regard to how you, as a member of the Church Of Christ, teach that other people should consider their own beliefs to be subject to the evidence.

What evidence do you have for this statement? It is a hasty generalization based on your prejudiced views of others with whom you believe that I identify.

This is the subjectivism I have referred to earlier. If the evidence is to be disregarded and dismissed on the basis of your current human beliefs, then we might as well not be having this discussion at all.

I realize that I could be wrong and that is the reason that I am asking you to do this.

Further, you must consider the distinct possibility that the evidence about the real world might actually contradict what the Bible teaches.

Oh — I did not think that this is what you were saying. I am confused.

Perhaps you can clarify — dave

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
The Metaphorical Language Of Creation
11/27/00 11:30 PM

Hi, David Brown, and others following this topic.

Looks like David wishes to continue "putting words in my mouth" and mischaracterizing what I have said. (Indeed, I've never even mentioned anything whatsoever regarding church autonomy, simply because that topic has not been in any way relevant to our discussion. And now he's trying to paint me as being somehow confused about that. This is a shame that David wishes to continue along those lines. But isn't if funny that while he says he wants me to discuss one thing, he keeps bringing up these mischaracterizations that should be cleared up. Unfortunately, if I keep clearing up his mischaracterizations, he will have successfully led me astray from the substance of the discussion. Hmmm... Something's not right about that. So I will simply note here, for the record, that David chose to completely ignore the substantive points of my 11/26/00 10:09 am post entitled "YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy" regarding biblical hermeneutics and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. And now I further delve into hermeneutical considerations.)

[Editorial Note: At this point I simply posted to the mars-list my relatively new article The Metaphorical Language Of Creation. So instead of repeating that text here, just click on this link.]

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
11/29/00 7:30 AM

Hi, Jon.

I have already addressed your "explanation" (actually, your discredited speculations). So I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to — falsely — pretend that I have not.

Your first idea, warping of space and time, is precisely what the YEC-inspired Humphreys cosmological model is. The problem, as I have already pointed out in a previous post, is that this kind of cosmology has certain physical consequences which have been disproved as being the way the real world is. Among other things, Humphreys cosmology implies that the farther things are from earth in the universe, the more their light would be "blue-shifted" (their light shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum). Of course, anyone with even one semester of astronomy is aware of the fact that light from galaxies in the universe are more and more red-shifted the farther they are from earth, which is thus and obvious empirical disproof of Humphreys cosmology.

For further consideration of Humphreys cosmology, see "The Unravelling of Starlight and time at:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html

Your second idea, of which lightspeed decay is a form, is something I discussed in a number of posts. It is another YEC speculation that has been disproved. If relevant processes like light were indeed radically faster in the past (they would have to be more than a million times faster in order to shrink billions of years into only several thousand years), then one of the effects of this change that we would observe in the real world would be a "slow motion" effect where the processes under consideration would be observed to be occurring more slowly the farther in space that we were observing the process from. I gave some examples in previous posts of such an effect, such as the luminosity fluctuation cycles of Cepheid variable stars.

What you need to do, Jon, is actually dig into the details of the posts I have already made in which I specifically discussed exactly the kinds of ideas that you are referring to. You need to explain why my criticisms of your speculations are somehow wrong. But you have no right to try to pretend that I have not addressed your YEC ideas, because I already have, and I have explained in some ways why they are wrong.

I think you are not taking into account the fact that ideas have consequences, and thus you are not considering and working out the consequences of your ideas with regard to what we would observe in the real world based on your speculations. It is one thing to speculate. It is another thing entirely to genuinely work out the detailed meanings of your speculations with regard to reality and objectively examining reality to see if there is any connection to these speculations, or whether in fact the real world data contradicts your speculative model.

Sincerely, and regards,
Todd

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 11/27/00 6:29 PM ••••
You wrote:

Todd, I have now posted twice an explanation which reconciles the data we observe (including, but not limited to SN1987) with a young earth. You have yet to disprove it, so how can you say what you do above until you have dealt with my explanation and shown it to be false?

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
11/29/00 10:14 PM

Hi, Jon.

Please do not neglect my final paragraph:

Actually, Jon, what sets Humphreys far apart from most YECs is that he actually worked out the details of YEC ideas in order to determine what should be observed in the real world. Since the YEC lightspeed decay idea was disproved, Humphreys worked out this other model, which is actually based on a form of relativity, for the purpose of trying to explain how the earth could have been around for only 6,000 years while billions of years of time passed in the universe. His model treats this as a relativistic effect (warping of spacetime). Mathematically, the model provides the necessary solution. The problem is that the model does not match what we actually observe in the real world, the "blue shift" problem being one of the most dramatic problems with his model.

When you ask, "Why, if God has miraculously created matter and miraculously acted upon it to bring about the present order, compressing millions of years of cosmic activity into the 6 days of creation, would He be required to leave behind a 'blue shift' instead of the 'red shift' which we now see?"

The answer is that the "blue-shifting" of light is what you would observe if you compressed "millions of years of cosmic activity into the six days of creation" due to the warping of spacetime involved. Based on this most recent post, I happen to believe that you are simply throwing out your speculations without any awareness of what you are saying. You are using words without meaning simply as a rhetorical maneuver to sound "scientific" without actually being scientific at all. You are the one who brought up your speculation regarding the warping of space and time. I simply pointed out that D. Russell Humphreys has actually worked out a mathematical model of the concept, for the very purpose of trying to rescue YEC in some way. Unfortunately for YEC, the model of what you are talking about implies a "blue shift" which is contradicted by the real world, and which is why the model is disproved. I'm sorry that your idea didn't pan out, but there it is.

So, yes, I did address the ideas in your post.

Again, for more information about Humphreys' model, see:

•	The Unravelling of Starlight and Time

	http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html

Regarding actually observed real world "warping" (aka, "gravitational lensing"), check out these online links:

•	Gravitational Lens Captures Image of Primeval Galaxy

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/10/A.html

	(this one is really cool!)

•	Hubble Opens its Eye on the Universe and Captures a Cosmic Magnifying Glass

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/08/pr-photos.html

	(click on the small image to see a larger version; the 300 dpi jpeg is best resolution, but can take several minutes to download with a 56K modem)

•	Hubble's Top Ten Gravitational Lenses

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/1999/18/index.html

•	Hubble Discovers New Class of Gravitational Lens

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/43.html

	(from the press release: "A gravitational lens is produced by the enormous gravitational field of a massive object which bends light to magnify, brighten and distort the image of a more distant object.")

•	CASTLES Gravitational Lenses Database

	http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/index.html

•	Technical articles about gravitational lensing

	http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/glp_homepage.html

Jon, if you now want to start talking about red-shift, then perhaps you should be aware that this is another one of the empirical evidences for the antiquity of the universe. You are perfectly welcome to use it in arguing that the universe had a beginning. In fact, I would agree with you. Just be aware that in using it, you are also arguing for an ancient universe.

The discussion has been regarding the fact that the idea that the universe has only been around for 6,000 years has been disproved empirically (of which I have provided ample evidence, explanation, and references), not whether or not the universe had a beginning.

And, of course, there is also that other matter that the literalistic interpretation of the Bible — that all of these YEC speculations come from in the first place — is wrong.

Regards,
Todd

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 11/29/00 1:25 PM ••••
Thank you for replying. You wrote:

I have already addressed your "explanation" (actually, your discredited speculations). So I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to — falsely — pretend that I have not.

I think you have misunderstood me. I'm thinking you have not answered my point, though I accept your word for it that you think you have. See below:

Todd wrote:

Your first idea, warping of space and time, is precisely what the YEC- inspired Humphreys cosmological model is. The problem, as I have already pointed out in a previous post, is that this kind of cosmology has certain physical consequences which have been disproved as being the way the real world is. Among other things, Humphreys cosmology implies that the farther things are from earth in the universe, the more their light would be "blue-shifted" (their light shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum). Of course, anyone with even one semester of astronomy is aware of the fact that light from galaxies in the universe are more and more red-shifted the farther they are from earth, which is thus and obvious empirical disproof of Humphreys cosmology.

Todd, I was not appealing to Humphreys. I was suggesting miraculous, creative works of God wherein He provided for the results today, including the "red shifted" light of stars. Why, if God has miraculously created matter and miraculously acted upon it to bring about the present order, compressing millions of years of cosmic activity into the 6 days of creation, would He be required to leave behind a "blue shift" instead of the "red shift" which we now see?

I believe you are being rather arbitrary in saying that if God miraculously acted in creation as I have suggested, that He would have had to leave behind "blue shifts" instead of "red shifts, The "red shift" shows that our universe is expanding, and therefore we can extrapolate that it had a beginning. It does not disprove a miraculous beginning.

Jon

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/3/00 10:35 AM

Hi, Jon.

I, too, wish you could have ended differently.

Wow! Your selective editing of my post was most highly biased. You snipped out all of my online references to spacetime warping that we are talking about, and then in the face of this you had the temerity to claim that "it has never been observed."

Golly, Jon, I have to thank you for demonstrating - yet again - one of the critical problems that is so endemic to the YEC community. Your lack of knowledge of modern discoveries (and, in this particular case, discoveries regarding relatively that have been common scientific knowledge for quite a few decades) is appalling. I'm sorry to be so knowingly harsh, but this is ridiculous! You have no right to promote error-based-on-purely-human-ignorance as being part of God's Word or "the way that any good Christian should believe."

I can understand why this might be your last post on the topic, because you have frankly demonstrated that you do not understand the topic. Your awareness of relativity is apparently somewhere back in the 19 century - before relativity was understood and empirically confirmed. I believe that if every YEC in the COC were to take a college-level course in astronomy, and demonstrate their understanding of the material by getting a good grade, this kind of YEC-inspired nonsense about astronomy would vanish overnight. If you can't learn the material, then you shouldn't be attempting to address the topic.

I gave you several online references specifically for the purpose of making it easy for you (at the click of a button) to look at some specific examples of where such warping has been observed. And you chose to completely ignore these references. This is indeed is why YECs garner such disrespect in the scientific community. It is because there are so many YECs that are so bent on believing YEC that they have complete disregard for what has actually been observed about the real world.

"Don't bother me with the evidence. My mind is already made up."

This attitude is so incredibly shameful that I am always astounded when I encounter such blatant examples of it. Whatever happened to "We have nothing to fear from the truth"?

So I close this post by merely repeating for you exactly what was in my previous post to you, which contained those references that you have so completely ignored. (Oh, by the way, the "red shifting" of light, that you yourself acknowledged is observed in the real world, is another relativistic effect. I guess you just didn't realize that, either.) Please stop promoting your blatant error that "it has never been observed."

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
The Metaphorical Language Of Creation

Regarding actually observed real world "warping" (aka, "gravitational lensing"), check out these online links:

•	Gravitational Lens Captures Image of Primeval Galaxy

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/96/10/A.html

	(this one is really cool!)

•	Hubble Opens its Eye on the Universe and Captures a Cosmic Magnifying Glass

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/08/pr-photos.html

	(click on the small image to see a larger version; the 300 dpi jpeg is best resolution, but can take several minutes to download with a 56K modem)

•	Hubble's Top Ten Gravitational Lenses

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/1999/18/index.html

•	Hubble Discovers New Class of Gravitational Lens

	http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/95/43.html

	(from the press release: "A gravitational lens is produced by the enormous gravitational field of a massive object which bends light to magnify, brighten and distort the image of a more distant object.")

•	CASTLES Gravitational Lenses Database

	http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/index.html

•	Technical articles about gravitational lensing

	http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/glp_homepage.html

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/2/00 9:14 PM ••••
I expect this will be my last post on the topic. Thanks for the discussion. I wish it could have ended differently.

You wrote:

Todd, your problem is that you're trying to put an infinite God into a finite box. One simply cannot subject God to natural laws, that is the whole point. Its like saying, "Jesus did not walk on water because studies of gravity preclude that possibility in the real world." Your whole point is mute if this one single thing is true: "God is real."

Besides that, the thing you are stressing as "real world" (i.e. the warping of spacetime) is hardly "real world" in the sense that it has ever been observed. Consider your last sentence above. It sounds as if you think that someone has "actually observed in the 'real world', the 'blue shift' problem" whenever we see the warping of spacetime.

Again, whether a "blue shift " effect would occur from a natual bending of spacetime I cannot say, for it has never been observed in the "real world" though you seem to think it has. But in talking of miraculous creation, we are not talking about bending spacetime through natural means anyway. Jesus did not walk on water through natural means, and it would be quite useless to theorize about natural laws which may have permitted or not permitted Him to do that. I really wish you could see this.

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: YEC - Truth, Evidence, and Biblical Inerrancy
12/4/00 11:17 PM

Hi, Jon.

Look, I have tried to be politely rational about it. I have tried to be direct about it, stating the matter straightforwardly (though it is revealing that you describe this as merely an "insult"). The fact is, you have offered nothing more that your purely human imagination. Now, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against human imagination in general, and I have nothing against your imagination in particular.

I have simply pointed out that YECs have no right to pretend that their purely human imagination is anything other than that. This is not an insult, and it is not intended to be an insult. It is a straightforward statement of the truth.

However, Jon, you did write this much: "I said that the warping of vast amounts of time into a small period of time had not been observed."

I thank you for acknowledging that you do, in fact, agree with me on this point. That is what I was saying all along. We do not observe the warping of vast amounts of time into a small period of time, just as you state. We do observe a vast amount of time (such as, for example, the 168,000 years of time between the SN1987A explosion and now). So I'm glad that you now agree with me that you have absolutely no empirical data to back up the purely human speculations that you offered on this earlier.

This discussion, at least as far as I have been involved in it here since October, has been about the evidence. Terence asked about my position, and I began to present it. Several others jumped into the discussion. It turned out that I did indeed accurately portray the empirical evidence, and it also turned out that the two standard YEC criticisms making the rounds in YEC circles on this (lightspeed decay and Humphreys cosmology) are discredited concepts.

The discussion then moved to the apparent age concept. Some attempted to portray this concept as "just another interpretation of the data." But I explained in detail how the concept actually required in accordance with its own meaning that the data was not real, and I explained how this was not really "an interpretation" of the data but was really a denial of the data. In conjunction with that we were also treated to several purely human speculations based on the apparent age concept - such as the idea that Adam was created with a navel, despite the fact that the apparent age concept has absolutely nothing to say about that, and the Bible doesn't either. So even the apparent age advocates were demonstrating how ill-defined their own apparent age concept was. I further pointed out how the apparent age concept - in being a purely human speculation - was not a concept that was taught in the Bible. Not one apparent age advocate was able to cite the biblical verses that taught the apparent age concept.

Hmmm... What's the pattern, Jon? The pattern, in all of these cases, is that YECs are relying on their purely human "wisdom" to come up with all of these bad ideas, yet at the same time they are preaching that you must accept their beliefs in YEC or you are not pleasing to God.

In short, it turns out that YECs in the Church Of Christ have committed precisely the sin that they condemn those in denominations of committing: Setting up human creeds which are then made requirements of who is and who is not a "good Christian."

It all seems rather hypocritical to me.

The fact is, and I say this from my perspective as a skeptic now, whether God created the universe miraculously, or whether the universe developed in some fantastically mysterious fashion without benefit of supernatural intelligence, is irrelevant to the fact that we know that this all occurred at some time in the very remote past, billions of years ago, because we in fact directly observe today that the universe existed hundreds of thousands, hundreds of millions, and, yes, even billions of years ago, in that we literally observe events that occurred in these distant times in the past. This is the empirical data.

In conjunction with this is the fact that the Bible is not a science text, is not intended to be a science text, and in particular the creation account itself is filled with metaphorical language that is misinterpreted if it is interpreted in a literalistic fashion.

The problem, then, in this particular discussion, Jon, is not with "God's miracle" or even "God's Word." It is with those fallible human beings who deny the miracle of the real world that we actually see before us, and who substitute their own fallible and false human beliefs for reality itself, and who pretend to be so righteous in doing it that they portray all criticism of their human errors as criticism of God Himself. They completely fail to understand how much they have come to worship their own human "wisdom" as if it was the Word of God instead of merely the word of men.

That's called the sin, and the downfall, of pride.

I'm not listening? Hmmm... I'm not the one who denies all of the evidence and when presented with it pretends that none of it is real.

Here are the lessons that should be taken from this: Contrary to the divisive, exclusivist attitude promoted by a certain YEC contingent in the COC (such as by the signatories of the recent "Open Letter"), this issue is not a matter that justifies exclusivism because it really is a matter of fallible human beings who have developed a particular religious creed. (And this creed happens to have been disproved empirically, which is the same manner by which the geocentrism creed was disproved.) COC members should take their own principles to heart about speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. They should respect truth - you know, like they claim to. They should be willing to consider that their traditional creed is just as fallible as the traditional creed of geocentrism.

And, by the way, as an "outsider," I can also say this to you, something that probably no COC member would tell you: It doesn't matter what you believe. Those of us who are familiar with the relevant data know what it is. We know that the universe is ancient, because we directly observe its age. We know that the earth is ancient, because we directly observe the marks of antiquity such as massive impact craters, which take far, far longer than just 6,000 years to erode, lithify, and re-erode. The YEC generation is being obsoleted, just as 350 years ago, the last generation of geocentrism believers was obsoleted. As one beautiful example of everything else in astronomy, SN1987A exists, it has been discovered and examined, and it is now part of our body of empirical knowledge about the real world. There is no turning back. You, personally, certainly have the right to choose to turn your back on the truth. But the world will move on and is moving on, with or without you. You may choose to increasingly marginalize yourself, or if you really wish to make the core of your message continuingly relevant, you will learn to cast aside these fallacious YEC ideas - just as many Christians have already done.

I recommend for your reading and consideration:

• Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History
by Nahum M. Sarna
(If you look at no other book in this list, at least read this one.)

• reason, science, and faith
by Roger Forster & Paul Marston
http://www.reason-science-faith.co.uk/

• Christianity and the Age of the Earth
by Davis A. Young

• Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller

• God After Darwin
by John F. Haught

• Three Views on Creation and Evolution
edited by J. P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds

Sincerely, regards, and I wish you well.

Todd S. Greene

•••• Jon W. Quinn, 12/4/00 4:06 PM ••••
Todd,

Just to clarify a few things:

The websites you directed me to referred to the bending of light subject to gravitational influences. When I referred to the warping of spacetime, I was referring to God's miraculous creative power and His being able to squeeze whatever He wanted to squeeze into a 24 hour period.

You are not suggesting that the wonderful pictures of space either confirms nor denies God's miraculous work in creation, are you?

You are good at insults, Todd. But you are the one ignoring the point I was making.

I did not ignore them. I visited the sites you suggested. There were references to the bending of light. I guess I missed the observations of a timewarp. Would you consult your references again and find where anything similar to my position was addressed? Where was it proven that God did not create the universe some 900 years before Adam's death, as the Bible says?

"Don't bother me with the evidence. My mind is already made up."

This attitude is so incredibly shameful that I am always astounded when I encounter such blatant examples of it. Whatever happened to "We have nothing to fear from the truth"?

I know you put that remark in quotes as if I said it. I never did. Shame on you! ANYONE STILL READING: Please understand that the quote Todd attributed to me above is one he just made up and nothing I actually said. He mad up the quote, and then put quotation marks around it as if I had said it, and then smashed it.

I never said that the redshift had never been observed. I said that the warping of vast amounts of time into a small period of time had not been observed.

At any rate, I do not want to continue in this, not because of my ignorance or fear of you, as you seem to think, but because you are not listening. You accuse me falsely to bolster your case, you are insulting and arrogant and lack fairmindedness at all. This latest post is proof. Why didn't you at least ask me if I had looked at those sites before your ranting that I would not even bother to check them out? Well, I did, your accusation is wrong, and proves your lack of honesty in dealing with this. I expect that I am finished.

Jon

[ TOP ]

Part 8

From:
Subject:
Date:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Obstinacy in Error and Prejudicial Propaganda
12/5/00 9:15 PM

Hi, Jack.

Thank you for further demonstrating the title of this post.

You know and I know that YEC propaganda is full of the attempt to portray this entire discussion as if it is "atheists versus theists," as if the antiquity of the universe and the earth are nothing more than part of a "vast atheistic conspiracy" (shades of Hillary Rodham Clinton!). As a result of the prevalence of this prejudicial propaganda, I do indeed make it a point to mention people such as Hugh Ross - for the specific reason that he is anything but an atheist. You know full well that you have taken my comments out of context. But, then, that's par for the YEC course!

I am fully aware that you, as a member of the COC, do not consider Hugh Ross to be a Christian. You don't consider Henry Morris to be a Christian either, but that doesn't prevent you from using his material, now, does it (such as the discredited YEC moon dust idea)?

It is also a fact that I discuss YEC with many people who are not members of the COC but who are members of other denominations, who consider themselves Christians, and to whom the COC view on this would be quite foreign, and to which in the context of the discussion regarding YEC issues the whole matter is completely irrelevant.

The fact is that these people I refer to - such as Davis A. Young, John Sailhamer, Alan Hayward, Howard J. Van Till, Kenneth R. Mill, John F. Haught, and so on - believe in God, they believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God who died on the cross for their sins, and they believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and these are the relevant things in the context of the YEC discussion with regard to disproving the YEC prejudicial propaganda about the antiquity of the universe/earth and biological evolution being nothing more than atheistic conspiracies. Anyone who claims such a thing is lying. That is the truth. I have and will continue to state this truth. And you have no right to misportray this in the manner of simply engaging in further YEC rhetorical maneuvering.

So I hope everyone here judges how you have taken my words completely out of context, and then attempted to use this mischaracterization against me. Thank you again for the demonstration.

I would say that there are at least a couple of you who have learned some lessons from Al Gore very effectively over the last few months - except for the fact that you are YECs, so I know better. ;-)

Sincerely,
Todd

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

— Proverbs 12:17

•••• Jack Wirtz, 12/5/00 3:55 PM ••••

there are people like Hugh Ross (astrophysics),...just as a few examples, who are quite dedicated Christians (and who, by the way, are also strong advocates of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy)

Todd Greene identifies Dr. Hugh Ross a "dedicated Christian".

Let us look at Dr. Ross's statements of belief:

"Finally I realized that Christ is a gentle man. . . .Thus at 1:06 in the morning, that night, I signed my name on the back of my Gideon Bible to the decision statement to receive Christ as my Lord and Savior."

(MY SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH by Hugh Ross)

From Hugh Ross's THE FINGERPRINT OF GOD:

1. The universe came into being as the result of a "big bang" billions of years ago.

2. Creationist are equated with "flat-earth" theorist and "fundamentalist".

3. "Six day creation is implausable" because he (Ross) wouldn't have done it that way.

4. Life emerged from the primeval swamp, through the guidance of God (theistic evolution-jw) and evolved up to a "large brained", "tool using", "bi-ped, pre-man" before God created man.

5. Six days are "metaphoric" for the billions of years that it took God to create and that since that time, God has continued to rest (Deism-jw) until the "end time".

6. That there are U.F.O.'s piloted by Exterestial's who are spiritual and will land some day and ask, "Has Jesus been here yet?".

Hugh Ross, like John Clayton, was unable to accept the Bible until such time as he (they-jw) were able to understand the Bible within their understanding of science.

Judge for yourself, from the evidence of Ross's own words Todd's judgement of Christianity.

[Editorial note to those who are unfamiliar with the Church Of Christ: The COC does not consider anyone not a member of the COC to be a Christian. The reasons for this are based on biblical doctrine regarding baptism and the remission of sins, the details of which I am not going to get into here (it's outside the scope of YEC discussion). However, as you see here, I clarify that in the context of YEC and the YEC-promoted propagandistic fallacy that universe/earth antiquity and biological evolution are a vast atheistic conspiracy, what is relevant is that a great many YEC critics believe in the biblical God, believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and many (though not all) of these, such as Hugh Ross, believe in the same doctrine of biblical inerrancy that is advocated in the COC. Thus, my statement that "Ross is a dedicated Christian" makes sense to Christians outside of the COC, which is the context of the discussion where my statement about Hugh Ross is taken from. Knowing how COC members believe (having been a COC member years ago), I would not intentionally have used this particular phrase "Hugh Ross is a dedicated Christian," but would have simply focused on the relevant point that Hugh Ross is part of the "evangelical Christian" community, which holds to those three primary beliefs that are in common with COC members, and which demonstrates that Hugh Ross and other YEC critics are obviously not atheists or led by atheistic beliefs - in contrast to the prevalent YEC propaganda.]

[ 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 ]