Hi, Glen.
In my 12/9/00 1:04 am post I stated that in this discussion your approach is "that science never really learns anything about the real world" and that you advocate a "'we don't really learn anything through science' position."
In your 12/9/00 9:34 pm post you disagree, stating that,
|
I don't think I am guilty of your claim. Maybe you can post me an example of something I wrote that gives you the right to make this statement. Obviously, science has learned enough about the real world to give us modern electronics, better medical procedures, better means of travel, and many other conveniences. My point is that science cannot definitively tell us the age of the universe nor the earth.
| |
Glen, I certainly don't want to misrepresent you, and I wrote what I wrote in my sincere belief that I am accurately representing the concepts that you have advocated. In both your 11/14/00 and 11/18/00 posts to mars-list regarding this topic, you presented the idea that science is too "dynamic" to learn anything about the real world with respect to anything associated with time. For example, you state that "Mr. Greene's position about the age of the earth is based upon empirical evidence and his understanding of such." Yes, all right. My position about the fact that the earth goes around the sun instead of the other way around is also based upon the empirical evidence and my understanding of such.
So what is the distinction between these two? You have not cited any manner of distinction. In fact, Glen they are the same. It is indeed true that in order to definitively establish something about the real world then you must examine the real world and gather the appropriate data and see what the data indicates. This is how we know that the earth goes around the sun, and this is also how we know that SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago. You state that "My point, Mr. Greene, is that you, nor I, nor anyone else can produce definitive data on the age of the earth through emperical evidence." And yet, Glen, that is precisely what astronomers have done, and it is the data on such an example of the fact that the universe is ancient that I have been presenting in this discussion. You, personally, have completely failed to address this data in any manner whatsoever, but have completely ignored it. You have done this under the rubric of <<imputed dialogue>> "We can't know anything through science, because science is too dynamic."
In fact, Glen, you have conceded your argument, and I thank you for doing so. Your argument was self-contradictory in the first place, and you have demonstrated this with your last post. We do indeed learn factual things about the real world through scientific investigation and examination of the real world. And I am glad that you agree with me on this point.
Since you agree with me that science really does work with respect to learning factual things about the real world, then what argument do you really have?
SN1987A is 168,000 light-years from earth, and astronomers have also observed that the speed of light of light has been uniform for billions of years, and that there is no 'highly relativistic distortion' (a la Humphreys cosmology), so that in observing SN1987A we really did observe a stellar explosion that occurred 168,000 years ago. Additionally, we have the observations of the "light echoes" where light from the explosion is observed having been deflected by at least two "sheets" of dust between SN1987A and the earth. So the data from the real world about the real world shows that a star exploded approximately 168,000 years ago, and the light-energy from this explosion passed through one sheet of dust roughly 500 years after that, and another sheet of dust roughly 700 years after that, and then reached earth about 13 years ago.
This is the data, Glen. But instead of addressing the data you go on and on about how we can't trust science. And yet here you are acknowledging that, yes, you agree that we can trust science. That science really does work.
So with regard to your position in particular, I am now at a loss, because it seems to me as if you are contradicting yourself.
In regard to your Question #2, which was
|
Was the creation of man a miraculous event that occured instantaneously?
| |
I wrote,
|
Question 2 - My answer: The evidence shows that the creation of humans was not an instantaneous event, but that humans have been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, and that very human-like forms (named Homo erectus, with the earliest forms named Homo ergaster) have been around for at least about 1.8 million years.
| |
And your response is,
|
Here is some more of the human imagination taking over.
| |
ROTFL! I notice that you make this statement after snipping out all of the references I provided, including some online links where you can take a look at the actual fossils for yourself.
I always find it highly amusing when YECs, who rely solely on their human speculations made in complete disregard of the data, then have the temerity to throw out this kind of rhetoric that non-YECs have a problem with their "human imagination taking over."
So you, Glen, have completely ignored the data that has been presented and discussed regarding SN1987A and a bit of other related information, and you completely ignore the data about Homo heidelbergensis (among many, many others) and then accuse non-YECs of having a problem with human imagination.
The data, Glen. Deal with the data. When you decide to actually deal with the details of the data, then you can begin to start posing legitimate questions about it and possible criticisms regarding the data. But you cannot credibly criticize me for being too "imaginative" while you are the one sweeping the data under the rug.
Indeed, I hope that you and others have noticed that this is one of the main thrusts of the general approach I have shown you from the very beginning of my discussion here in mars-list: that while YECs talk about not accepting human wisdom and human speculation over truth, it is the fact of the matter that YECs do not take their own advice but profusely engage in their own human speculations in while denying and rejecting the actual data from the real world about the real world.
You state that,
|
The relevance in my question goes to show the inaccuracy in measuring time [as we know it] by emperical evidence. Time [as we count time in this existance] itself was a product of the miraculous creation of God. Time itself is no older than the creation.
| |
And did you notice that I agreed with you, Glen? Since time itself a product of the creation of the universe, it is obviously no "older" than the universe because time itself is a component of the universe. But note that not at all have I discussed the origin of the universe or the age of the universe. I have simply discussed the observed fact that the universe (and time, as a component of the universe) has been around for at least 168,000 years. Have you ever studied any astronomy? Do you understand the nature of what you are stating? Are you aware that SN1987A occurred in our "next door neighbor" galaxy, in cosmic terms? Compared to the vast tapestry of the hundreds of millions of galaxies that are observed scattered across the universe, SN1987A is in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, the second closed galaxy to the earth.
The data, Glen. Deal with the data from the real world about the real world. What do we actually see? At least the Big Bang concept is based on data about the real world. Even if the Big Bang model is totally wrong, this would have no influence regarding the recent past, because the recent past, the region of the universe closest to the earth, is what we know the most about - because it is the closest to the earth. We know the most about the LMC galaxy, because it is the second closest galaxy to the earth and unlike the Sagittarius galaxy, which is the closest to the earth, it is not obscured by the dust of our own galaxy. It works the other way, what we know based on the most direct information is what influences what we think about the less direction information. In this case, what we know about the recent past, from the observational data, is what controls how we try to model the most distant past - such as the origin of the universe. And wondering about the nature of time 14 billion years ago and whether or not it was much different than it is now has little to do with the fact that we have actually observed the fact that the universe existed 168,000 years ago.
Try dealing with the data rather than with your humanly-devised YEC speculations.
If your argument is the subjectivist argument (re: the apparent age concept), then this is a different argument altogether. It is not that time didn't exist, it is an epistemological argument that the data is meaningless, and that the data should have no bearing on whether or not anything we believe about the real world is correct. In other words, science doesn't really work, because the data from the real world about the real world doesn't really tell us anything about the real world. But you have already agreed that science does work, and that we really do learn things about the real world by engaging the objectivist, rather than the subjectivist, epistemology.
You state,
|
In another post, I made mention that Mr. Greene began arguing that Christians should look upon this as one of those disagreements that does not break fellowship. By his answers to my questions, I think you can see why this cannot be the case. His ancient universe, old earth philosophy has led him to deny the miraculous creation and the creation of man in the image of God. Who will say that a faithful Christian can believe such damnable doctrine? Not I!
| |
You stated in your previous post that "Excess verbiage and forays into side issues are the tools of those who do not want others to know their true position." The postscript of my reponse to that post contained a very long acronym, which meant this: I believe you are trying forays into side issues to cover up the fact that young earth creationists are completely unable to handle the real world falsification of the young universe idea.
I fully agree with you that biological evolution requires a long period of time. (And it nice to see a YEC honestly concede this point. There are an awful lot of creationists who refuse to acknowledge that biological evolution can occur at all.) Unfortunately for the YEC position, in its severe prejudice against the concept of biological evolution, it is a fact that the data regarding the antiquity of the universe and of the earth is quite distinct from evolution. Indeed, this is precisely why there are so many "evangelical Christians" who advocate the "old earth creationist" position, because they have been able to bring themselves to acknowledge the astronomical evidence of the antiquity of the universe and the geological evidence of the antiquity of the earth, but they do not accept the paleontological and biological evidence for evolution.
I was of the opinion at that time that your purpose in bringing up evolution with your questions was for the purpose of generating a foray into that side issue, so that you could try to cover over the stiff evidence from astronomy and geology with the cloak of prejudice against evolution. It's a standard YEC strategy, and to tell you the truth, Glen, I have been surprised, and actually was thinking good thoughts about the fact that mars-list correspondents were not engaging in that particular rhetorical tactic.
And to help you out, I tell you straight out that it is certainly not old earth creationism that led me "to deny the miraculous creation and the creation of man in the image of God." (And, along with Daniel King, Sr. and Harry Osborne, I now see you joining the ranks of the exclusivist YECs in referring to the antiquity issue alone as a "damnable heresy.")
So please tell us what genetics and fossils have to do with SN1987A, or with, say, the Manicouagan Crater in Quebec, Canada. If you cannot, then rest assurred that I shall be (openly) wondering about your "foray into side issues."
Regards,
Todd
•••• Glen Young, 12/9/00 9:34 PM ••••
Glen Young here responding to Todd S. Greene's [12/9/00 1:04 AM] post.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
pretending that science never really learns anything about the real world - your specialty;
| |
I don't think I am guilty of your claim. Maybe you can post me an example of something I wrote that gives you the right to make this statement. Obviously, science has learned enough about the real world to give us modern electronics, better medical procedures, better means of travel, and many other conveniences. My point is that science cannot definitively tell us the age of the universe nor the earth. The Bible can and does!
BTW, if I have failed to answer a question you directed to me personally, I appologize. Submit it again and I will take a shot.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
Complexity is the bane of the simple. "[I]ntelligent and truthful answers can/will be brief and to the point" is a good example of what a good propagandist would say. For example, the book of Revelation is not simple, and working to understand it is not a simple task.
| |
You undoubtly did not get my point. Along with the part you pulled out, I also wrote, "Excess verbiage and forays into side issues are the tools of those who do not want others to know their true position. Maybe you can understand this, complexity is the tool of the propagandist who hides his true teaching.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
I notice that in these discussions where we dig into the details of the data, such as the when we were discussing details regarding SN1987A, and more recently, in discussing radiometric dating and radioactive processes in general, you have completely avoided the discussion. Is it, perhaps, because the data from and about the real world itself does not support your YEC position?
| |
No. That is your human imagination working overtime.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
I know that YECs typically demonstrate having a good deal of trouble grasping the details of some of the more complex ideas - but so does everyone else, so this is no excuse for being sloppy, careless, or intentionally ignorant, or poisoning the discussion by making statements like "[I]ntelligent and truthful answers can/will be brief and to the point." Yes, they certainly can - if you're talking about simple rather than more complex issues.
| |
This is why I love the Bible. Even us intentionally ignorant YECs can understand its simple issues. Oh yes, and even its more complex issues as well.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
You never did respond in any way whatsoever to my 11/18/00 12:54 pm post addressed specifically to you. You completely ignored my entire post and everything in it. Why did you do that? There were several questions in there for you.
| |
I cannot say because I don't remember receiving it. Did you send it to Mars-list or to me personally? Either way, send it to me and I will take a shot.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
But, here, try just this one question, which has an answer that completely destroys the <<descriptive label>> "we don't really learn anything through science" position that you have been advocating: Do we know whether or not the earth revolves around the sun?
| |
Yes. I thought you knew this one.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
Question 1 - My answer: For earth, no. For the universe, yes or no, depending on what you mean by "miraculous" event. The evidence seems to indicate that the universe came into existence in an instantaneous event, but its initial form was quite different than the universe we observe today.
| |
I take it that you have a skepticism about God speaking the universe into existence. I also take it that you believe the earth came about by natural processes. See what happens when your human imagination takes over. You start believing that the Truth is a metaphor.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
Question 2 - My answer: The evidence shows that the creation of humans was not an instantaneous event, but that humans have been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, and that very human-like forms (named Homo erectus, with the earliest forms named Homo ergaster) have been around for at least about 1.8 million years.
| |
Here is some more of the human imagination taking over. Do you believe that man was created in the image of God? Do you accept that this means that God breathed into man a spirit (breath of life) like unto His? When did God do this? While man was more animal (Homo ergaster) than human? Maybe it was when he first climbed from the slime!
Mr. Greene writes,
|
Question 3 - My answer: If the Big Bang model is correct - and I believe that it is at least relatively close to being at least the right general picture, then the answer is yes. However, you must also note that that was something like about 14 billion years ago, and it has absolutely no relevance to something so relatively recent as the stellar explosion SN1987A approximately 168,000 years ago. So I don't understand the relevance of your question.
| |
The relevance in my question goes to show the inaccuracy in measuring time [as we know it] by emperical evidence. Time [as we count time in this existance] itself was a product of the miraculous creation of God. Time itself is no older than the creation.
Things change over time. This is the basis for determining the age of something by radiometric dating. If a certain change is recorded in a sample, then it is said that a certain length of time has elapsed. What is missing in this equation is that time is no older than the sample. It is like being sent to a room where a brunson burner is burning and told to calculate how long it has been burning. We have a sample [emperical evidence], an observable action [decay], and the ability to measure time as we observe. Now, calculate the equation using whatever dating process you think accurate. There is no method known to man be it mathmatical or scientific by which you could come to an accurate conclusion.
Mr. Greene writes,
|
Question 4 - My answer: Yes. And this is a whole giant discussion in itself.
| |
It tells us that you are an evolutionist. Therefore, you need great amounts of time to promote your philosophy about origins.
In another post, I made mention that Mr. Greene began arguing that Christians should look upon this as one of those disagreements that does not break fellowship. By his answers to my questions, I think you can see why this cannot be the case. His ancient universe, old earth philosophy has led him to deny the miraculous creation and the creation of man in the image of God. Who will say that a faithful Christian can believe such damnable doctrine? Not I!
I will continue to pray for Mr. Greene. I ask that you do the same.
|