| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/26913
From: Steve Heiden Dear Bill, I would have snipped things down, but these comments are now pretty embedded in context. --- In BereanSpirit, Bill Denton wrote [Jun 8, 2001 11:57 am; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/26834 ]: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve Heiden >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:46 AM > > (snip) >> --- In BereanSpirit, Bill Denton wrote [Jun 7, 2001 12:26 pm; >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/26757 ]: >>> I think anyone who argues young earth or old earth/universe is >>> up against unanswerables. >> >> This is a claim which I totally disagree with. This is >> equivalent to saying something like, "I think anyone who argues >> that disease is caused by evil spirits, or caused by >> microorganisms and degenerating body functions, is up against >> unanswerables." When we are dealing with empirical claims about >> the physical world around us, then the way to settle such claims >> is to actually take a look at the physical world about which the >> empirical claims are made. I will not say that this process of >> "taking a look at the physical world" is necessarily simple and >> easy, because it usually isn't, but at the same time it is quite >> false to say that, therefore, because of complexity, there is no >> way to settle empirical claims about the physical world so we >> should just give up since we are "up against unanswerables." Not >> only is it possible to settle such empirical claims, but it is >> the case that such claims are routinely settled by appropriate >> investigation. > > And, my point to you is that you are trying to determine and > understand supernatural processes through the use of natural > processes, and they are not the same. The "unanswerables" are > those issues that have to do with creative acts of God. We > cannot know them, cannot observe them, cannot test them, cannot > repeat them, etc. They are completely beyond the scope of > science. What you can do is examine all that exists and > understand how it works now, based on natural processes. The problem with the argument as you have presented it is that in fact we can and do observe the world that God has created. Regardless, of the actual act of origination of the world, one of the things that we observe following this origin is the remains of trilobites that lived and died in an ancient ocean which no longer exists. Your claim has an additional component to it beyond simply claiming that we cannot "determine and understand supernatural processes." The only ones here attempting to do this are proponents of a young earth. Old earth proponents simply point out that we do in fact observe the results of natural processes, such as trilobite fossils in ancient oceans. It is young earth proponents who claim that, well, no, these really aren't natural processes, this is the result of a supernatural process even though it "appears" to be the result of a natural process. Old earth proponents challenge this speculation by asking for the evidence. Young earth proponents do not provide any. (Except the argument was presented that "God told us" otherwise, but I believe this argument has now been abandoned.) Are we supposed to accept this claim made by young earth proponents without any evidence, and even though all of the evidence (as any proponent of apparent age acknowledges) shows the contrary? If those who argue for apparent age are correct, then it is the case that the very substance of this planet that we live on, and almost everything we observe of the universe around us, are nothing more than stage props set up by a Master Illusionist. The concept that is being 'smuggled' into the discussion is the idea that the evidence, all evidence, is meaningless, that the evidence itself in principle says and can say absolutely nothing about events following God's supernatural act of creation. It is the idea that there is no distinction between the supernatural act of creation and natural events that occur after the creation. I completely agree with you, and I believe I am correct in saying further that all of us discussing this here who accept that the earth is old completely agree with you, that science is limited, and that science is limited to examining the natural world, and that it cannot investigate a supernatural act of creation. The point is that when we are talking about things like trilobite fossils in ancient ocean sediment, we are in fact talking about the world that can be and is examined by science. We aren't talking about some kind of unexamined speculations about events prior to the creation of the world. We are talking about specific empirical information of the natural world itself, which can be examined by anyone and everyone who chooses to do so. When scientists examine frozen mammoths (we're talking about actual flesh, now, not mineralized remains such as with fossils), with the remains of their last meals in their stomachs, they know that, yes, they are examining the remains of animals who really did live and die. In claiming that the frozen flesh remains of mammoths do not show us that mammoths really lived and died, that they were just 'supernaturally created in place,' proponents of "The Full-Blown Theory" are claiming not only that science is limited but that science is completely meaningless, because the natural world itself is not real. Let's consider the Beresovka mammoth. This mammoth was eating near the edge of a small cliff on a hillside. He got too close to the edge, the ground gave way, the mammoth fell and was in turn partially buried by the small landslide that he had started. He suffered several broken bones in his fall. He died where he lay. When he was discovered and examined, he still had half-eaten food of leaves and grasses (with seeds still in them) in his mouth. Proponents of apparent age claim that science is absolutely meaningless. They argue that none of this happened. This mammoth never lived. This mammoth never stood near a cliff's edge on a hillside. This mammoth never took any bites from the vegetation there. The edge of the cliff where the mammoth stood never gave away. The mammoth never fell. None of his bones ever broke. A landslide never covered him with dirt. The mammoth never breathed a last breath. And he never died. None of these events ever took place. So far more than merely claiming that science is limited because it cannot examine a supernatural act of creation, proponents of apparent age claim that the natural world which has been created itself cannot be examined (or, equivalently, that you can examine it all you want, but your examinations of the natural world don't actually tell you anything about the natural world). >>> ...those who think scripture gives insight into the specific >>> workings of anything, are simply barking up the wrong tree >>> (with or without rings). >> >> I agree completely with this statement. >> > > I find it amusing that when I point out the limitations of > scripture, you agree, but when I point out the limitations of > science, you disagree. Seems to me science is more of a god to > you than the one revealed in scripture. Am I mistaken? If so, > why? You are seriously mistaken. "That dog won't hunt" and "Stop trying to pick my nose," if I recall your words correctly. <grin> >>> The "age" of the universe is important only because of what >>> appears to be the record. Maybe so. I get the idea it's a bit >>> older than yesterday, or even 10,000 years. On the other hand, >>> you've really got to be kidding me if you want me to believe we >>> can accurately measure in terms of billions of years. >> >> You specifically use the phrase "what appears to be the record." >> Well, wait a minute, either we have a record or we don't. We do >> in fact have a record of a very long Earth history. And with the >> universe, we can actually observe much of a very long history >> directly. This is the record. We don't have something that >> "appears to be the record." We actually have a record. > > You have a record. It is a legitimate record. It says what it > says. But, you cannot know one way or the other whether it > occurred naturally, or supernaturally. Now, you may have some > philosophical or theological bias that urges you to accept a > particular view, but you cannot know it for sure. You can claim > God is deceptive if he make it that way from the start, but that > doesn't prove a thing. Or you may claim that God took eons to > form and shape the earth with it's various biological/geological, > etc., evidence. But, you cannot know that one either. You may > say that evidence "appears" to say one thing or the other, but > since the creative act itself is completely beyond our view and > examination, you will have to answer the question on another > basis. To the contrary, the creative act is not completely beyond our view and examination. It is by examining the universe itself that we can see that it has an origin. Astronomers literally observe galaxies from times of about 10 billion years ago (the exact times being, of course, imprecise estimates). This is the natural world that we observe right now. It is the case that "God took eons to form and shape" the universe and the earth because that is in fact what we observe to be the case. Why do you claim that "the creative act itself is completely beyond our view and examination"? What is your basis for making this claim? What is your evidence? Is this something that "God told us," or is this an entirely human claim you are making without substantiation? >> You certainly have not discussed any specific information >> regarding, say, trilobite fossils that shows us that what we >> think is a record really is not but only "appears to be the >> record." If you have some relevant information by which it is >> observed that what appears to us to be a record of the past but >> is really not such a record, then please produce this >> information for our consideration and inspection. If you do not >> in fact possess such information, then all you have is >> unsupported speculation. Furthermore, since the relevant >> information that we do possess does show us a record of an >> ancient past, this make your unsupported speculation a disproved >> speculation. > > What I have said is that the only thing a scientist can do is > discuss what he/she observes, as it exists, and my personal > opinion is that regardless of the truth of "old" earth or "young" > earth, the scientist can only discuss these matters in terms of > natural processes, which necessarily means they must use terms > like "billions." It's because that's what "appears" to be the > truth from natural processes. This doesn't bother me a bit, nor > does it establish the case for one side or the other. It is > merely the fact that I can see no other choices than that God > either created immediately, or he created over eons of time. > It's one or the other. But, the resultant creation, I believe, > would look exactly the same, for once created, it would have to > function as fully viable completed system. "Here lies the rub," Bill. This is the point which you (but not you only) have repeatedly made but have never once substantiated. Old earth proponents have explained this many times: Fossils of animals which never really lived and died, and geological strata of ancient ocean sediment from an ocean that never existed, go far beyond creating a world that functions as "a fully viable completed system". How are fossils of trilobites which never actually lived necessary to the functioning of a planet? You have never explained this. How is the frozen flesh of mammoths which never actually lived necessary to the functioning of this planet we live on? If apparent age proponents (of whom you are not a member, since your dog is not in this fight) are correct, then the only "function" these frozen mammoths perform is to lead us to think that these mammoths lived (and ate certain kinds of vegetation while they were alive) during some time in a past that did not in fact ever exist. What other function do you have in mind for fossils and frozen mammoths and the like? It is obvious that, assuming a "Full-Blown" creation just several thousand years ago, God would have to create, in place, a complex interacting system (such as plants and plant respiration, water cycles, ecosystems). No one here disputes this point. I believe everyone discussing this here agrees with you about this. But what does any of that have to do with creating a false history? The one does not in any way require the other. You have never explained this. >> I'm aware that you try to 'soften the blow' about this by saying >> that >> >>> About the only thing science has regularly shown to be true is >>> that it must frequently change it's mind. The "sure" scientist >>> of today is really no different from the "sure" scientist of >>> say 500 years ago. The new guys are always demonstrating the >>> need to rethink things. >> >> What? So we still think disease is caused by evil spirits? > > Actually, there is a growing number in the 'helping' professions > who are taking a new look at this, and believe this to be the > case. Not that I agree, I'm just telling you that what you > evidently think as unlearned is something that folks are > beginning to play with. Watch for this to develop in the future. Sorry, but I don't believe this claim for a second. Cite the medical literature with the studies by medical doctors showing that disease is caused by evil spirits. This claim is false. >> Is the earth >> shaped like a ball, and about 26,000 miles around, or are we >> about to learn that it's really shaped like a bowl? > > Actually, it's more egg-shaped, so yes, I'd suggest you update your > information base. Your equivocating semantics is noted. I further note that it is irrelevant to the point. >> Is weather a manifestation >> of divine emotions; or is it the result of very complex >> interactions of planetary motion, temperature gradients, >> atmospheric fluidity, solar radiation and earth's magnetic >> field, and so on? Do we ever really learn anything about the >> physical world, or is everything that we think we know totally >> up for grabs? > > It's pretty much up for grabs. Not that nothing we know now > counts for much, but every day people learn more. I think that's > your point, and it's mine. Because that's true, the sure > scientist of today is little different from the sure scientist of > 500 years ago. The problem is not so much his information, it's > his "sureness." You really think that if we have another 500 > years, the science of today won't look the science form 500 years > ago? Your equivocations are entertaining. But I will demonstrate that whatever point you are trying to make (whatever it might be) is irrelevant to the fact that we do learn true things about the world we live in. It is not true that everything is totally up for grabs. Answer the following question: Is Flagstaff, Arizona, more or less than one mile above sea level? Answer the following question: Does kelp grow in the Superstition Mountains east of Phoenix? And, not so incidentally, proponents of apparent age do not dispute that an ancient history is clearly observed by scientific examination of the world, they are claiming that the world is not old even though this is what the information shows us. This argument that, well, maybe science isn't right about the information that shows us an ancient history, is a different argument. It, too, is incorrect. If you really believe that the information that we have acquired by scientific examination of our world is incorrect, or that there are valid alternative explanations of this information which are consistent with the idea that the world has not existed for more than several thousand years, then please produce your corrections to the information that you believe is incorrect or produce your valid alternative explanation which takes all of this information into account. (Please be aware that claiming that 'the information itself is not real' does not constitute a valid alternative explanation in the context of your argument that 'we don't really have information which clearly shows us that the world is old.' That would simply be a shift back to your original argument of apparent age.) > (snip) >> >> Now, about those trilobite fossils... > > "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." > Regardless of your philosophical position on the age of the > earth, God made the trilobites. No deception. You'll just have > to take him at his word. > > Bill Yes, we agree on this much.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/27370
From: Steve Heiden Dear Bill, Please understand that while I firmly criticize what I perceive to be incorrect arguments, with regard to our salvation and fellowship in Christ, I hold this particular issue to be one over 'non-essentials.' I discuss this issue as a Christian who is interested in science; who is interested in the relationships between science and religion; who is convinced (based on the information I'm aware of) that the young earth position is as incorrect as the position of geocentrism that existed until a few centuries ago; and who has witnessed a great deal of misinformation routinely communicated in this area. Regardless of our disagreements on this topic, I believe that this discussion must continue and will continue at various times and in various venues, as we come together to try to 'work out' our Christian faith in this world that we live in. When I think a fellow Christian is making an argument that is incorrect, I should engage the matter to point out what I believe is incorrect, as part of engaging in the process of exploring ideas. I also expect him to 'press his case,' because I know that he believes he is correct, or he would not make his argument in the first place. After all, I could be the one possessing the incorrect ideas, and by engaging in the process of discussion, I will be able to improve my thinking, whereas without such a discussion such an opportunity may not arise. --- In BereanSpirit, Bill Denton wrote [Jun 11, 2001 10:23 pm; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/27210 ]: >> From: Steve Krogh >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:04 PM >> Subject: [BereanSpirit] Re: The Full-Grown Theory >> > > (snip) > >>> I've tried to say, more than once, that my "dog" ain't in this >>> age fight. There are inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and >>> assumptions galore in both camps. >> >> And what are these assumptions, lack of evidence and >> inconsistencies? > > Good grief! Where have you been. I've already mentioned several. > I just don't have time to repeat. Bill, I must agree completely with Steve K. You have mentioned the words "assumptions," "lack of evidence," and "inconsistencies" in your arguments against the old earth "camp," but the point is that so far you have failed to substantiate them. In other words, if you call a dog's tail a leg, that doesn't mean the dog has five legs, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. In fact, in regard to "lack of evidence" you have not been arguing that there is a lack of evidence but have been arguing (as devil's advocate) that the evidence does show an old earth but that we can't rely on the evidence. So your points here are contradictory. You've been trying to argue that we have merely "assumed" that things like trilobite fossils and frozen mammoths are examples of an ancient history of our planet. But these are not, in fact, properly described as "assumptions." To say the frozen flesh of a dead mammoth implies that a mammoth lived and died is not an "assumption," it is what the evidence actually shows. That is the nature of evidence. The assumptions are entirely by those who dispute that mammoths and trilobites ever lived. We all agree — including you, Bill — that critics of the earth being old have no scientific reason of any kind that indicates that mammoths and trilobites did not live and die. But even more importantly, these critics do not have any biblical statements indicating that mammoths and trilobites never lived and died. We cannot say that "God told us" about this idea of the young earth "camp" regarding 'apparent age.' It is not in the Bible. So good grief, Bill! Where have you been? We've pointed out the emptiness of these criticisms. Several times zero is still zero! >> If Adam was fully grown when created, did he have scars, skin >> with the texture of a 20 year-old? Childhood memories? We could >> speculate about Adam all we want, but it is really pointless, he >> is not around for us to examine. The cosmos is. > > You're right, it's pointless. Seems I have said that. It's also > pointless to look at the cosmos to try to determine and second > guess creation. What do you have now? Trees with rings. Anyone > ever see one with rings? Did Adam have scars? Don't know about > that one, then again, I know plenty of people sans scars. Was > his skin the texture of a 20 year old? I believe it was, if he > was created as a 20 year old. Please watch where you're aiming that gun. The target is way over there. Obviously, God did not create Adam with a bad scar on his left leg where he fell down a small cliff when he was a child and wounded his leg on some sharp rocks in the fall, because Adam was never a child. A scar would be the mark of an event which never actually occurred. There is a substantial difference between a genuinely apparent age due to the creation of everything necessary for functioning, and a genuine age as shown by the remains of actual historical events — such as trilobite fossils in the geological strata of ancient ocean sediments, and frozen mammoths, and comet and asteroid craters. This distinction has been pointed out several times in this discussion. The other, related, point is that discussions of Adam are purely philosophical, due to the fact that we cannot in fact examine Adam. We can examine the cosmos, and the earth. This is a very critical point. Does frozen mammoth flesh come from a mammoth that was at one time alive? The difference between hypothesizing over Adam having a navel or not and frozen mammoth flesh is that we actually possess this mammoth flesh and it has actually been examined. By the way, Bill, what is your answer to that question: Does frozen mammoth flesh come from a mammoth that was at one time alive? You have failed to explain why God, in addition to creating a functional planet, would create the marks of historical events which never occurred. It is entirely legitimate to respond (as you have done) that you don't know why God would have done that. However, the point is that God did not do that because we actually observe that that is not what He did. If you wish to claim that God did do that, then you have to explain your evidence. If you have no evidence, then you can't argue that you don't know why God would have done something, when you don't know that God did what you claim (God doesn't tell you this in the Bible) and you have no evidence (from God's creation) at all for even speculating about God having done things in this way that you propose. Why is it pointless to look at the cosmos, or at the earth? Do you have evidence to substantiate the argument that the actual evidence, which everyone can observe, is pointless? Does God tell us in the Bible that it is pointless to examine the cosmos and the earth? Or is this an argument that can't be substantiated? When we look out at the cosmos and see a star explode, and we observe that due to the circumstances of the explosion we're looking at that the explosion took place millions (or even billions) of years in the past, it seems to me that the only people who would argue that we should discount the actual evidence, having witnessed it directly, are those who hold a position that is contradicted by the evidence. (Of course, I must admit, if trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh are not really the remains of creatures that lived long ago, then what're a few star explosions now and then?) It is not uncommon to encounter a reluctance to abandon a position that is contradicted by the evidence when to do so would force one to also abandon some related ideas which are held dearly. But what is the substantiation, what is the evidence, for this 'philosophical' argument based on the 'philosophy' that the evidence is not 'real'? Talk about an idea that contains self-contradiction! It must be recognized that there is a difference between a functional planet, and a functional planet that also has the marks of a long extensive history. In light of this, if it can then be explained why God would create the frozen flesh of fake mammoths and the mineralized remains of fake trilobites, then perhaps the argument that it is pointless to examine the evidence would make more sense. But you certainly can't say 'I have no explanation' and then proceed to call this a legitimate criticism against the old earth "camp." You acknowledge that you have no evidence, because you acknowledge that the evidence (including such things as trilobites and mammoths) indicates an old earth. You acknowledge that God did not tell us that He created a fake history. And you admit that you have no explanation for why God would create a fake history. So the fact is that the "assumptions, lack of evidence and inconsistencies" are roasting their marshmallows around the fire in the young earth "camp." (Of course, as you've told us many times, your dog isn't warming himself by that fire!) > (snip) >> >> So there is really no basis for your conclusion. YOu are just >> averaging historical claims of age. You might want to include in >> your averaging the steady state and oscillating cosmologies. That >> would make the average age 1/2-infinite which would still be >> infinite. As for agendas, I am not aware of any in Geology, >> Astronomy, Cosmology, Physics, etc. it is just a method based on >> evidence. That's how science works. > > No, in this you're very wrong. People have agendas. They come > from their philosophical and theological leanings, of which every > single person has some. They have nothing to do, necessarily, > with science. You believe scientists are totally objective, > without the behind-the-scenes belief systems. Congratulations. > I believe no such thing. Those philosophical/theological > leanings influence how scientists look at things, how they > perceive the world to "be," and what it all means. My conclusion > is based on the fact that evidence is always "colored" by those > leanings, thus I trust them to be far less objective than you > obviously do. Everyone runs on some kind of "faith" to one > degree or another. It is a valid and viable factor in any field > or endeavor, and scientists are not devoid of these leanings. > > Bill In an earlier post (msg #26913), I discussed the fallacies that are inherent in this kind of argument. You earlier claimed that we can't really learn anything about the natural world, that everything is "pretty much up for grabs." I responded by saying "I will demonstrate that...we do learn true things about the world we live in. It is not true that everything is totally up for grabs." I then asked you two questions: Answer the following question: Is Flagstaff, Arizona, more or less than one mile above sea level? Answer the following question: Does kelp grow in the Superstition Mountains east of Phoenix? You did not respond to these questions previously. Please respond. The fact of the matter is that we do know very many definite things about the natural world. We learn about them so well, in fact, that we are able to use this knowledge for our own benefit in order to make things like computers, nuclear power plants, space shuttles, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging devices, and genome maps. While it is certainly true that people have philosophical and/or theological leanings and "agendas," (no one here has argued that "scientists are totally objective," as you imply here), it is also just as certainly true that is possible to learn about genuine aspects of the physical world in spite of our biases and agendas. Thus, if you believe that a particular idea about the physical world is incorrect, and if you believe that the reason it is incorrect is because the evidence does not actually support it (and that we only think the evidence supports it because of personal bias), then you still have the burden of 'making your case' which requires you to deal with the evidence and show how the evidence has been misinterpreted due to bias. You have not even attempted to do this. All you have done is claim the possibility of bias, but you have not even taken the first step to show that that is actually the case with respect to the evidence which shows us a long history for the earth. Bill, please tell us, do trilobite fossils really exist? Does frozen mammoth flesh really exist? Or do you instead advocate that such evidence as that is merely the figment of the biased imaginations of scientists? However, as I also pointed out in that previous post (msg #26913), this particular line of argumentation is not really even relevant to the "Full-Grown Theory." You have already acknowledged that the evidence indicates that the earth is old and indicates that the universe is old. In fact, this acknowledgment is fundamental to the entire argument of apparent age. If we did not observe that the earth has a long history, we would not even be talking about this argument that the history is only apparent. No one here has been arguing about whether or not we observe the evidence of a long history. No one disputes that a long history is what the evidence shows. The apparent age argument from the young earth "camp" is not that the evidence doesn't exist or that we are mistaken about the evidence. The argument is that the evidence is not real, that for example such things as trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh do not really come from creatures that really lived.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/27434
From: Steve Heiden Dear J. Paul, Any geology book of at least the last hundred years that discusses historical geology would support what I've stated, except for plate tectonics which was only conclusively demonstrated in the 1960s, and absolute dating (as opposed to relative dating) by radiometric techniques which became firmly established in the 1950s and early 1960s (in other words, geologists knew the earth was very old but didn't really know how old until radiometric dating came along). But here are some good references I can give you regarding the geological considerations:
For trilobites in particular, I would refer you to this very informative and excellent website: http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm Here are a couple of good references for mammoths:
This is a reference about the Lake Missoula flood: Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Flood And here's a good book on the Black Sea flood: Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event The National Geographic website also has some recent material on the Black Sea flood at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/. Regarding astronomical considerations, just pick up any recent astronomy book. Of course, on the internet there is also NASA's very nice Hubble Space Telescope website at http://www.stsci.edu/. The Anglo-Australian Observatory also has a nice website at http://www.aao.gov.au/ . By the way, I have no educational emphasis. Professionally, I work as a computer programmer in data processing in business services.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, James P. DuBois wrote [Jun 14, 2001 10:08 am; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/27375 ]: > J. Paul here to Steve Heiden. Thanks for your very informative > post. What is your educational emphasis? Geology? What books > would you recommend in support of what you included in the post?
|