| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37244
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, Yes, and since Element 1 is true (we know by direct observation that the universe has existed far longer than 6,000 years), this criticism of YEC regarding one of its dangerous implications is a correct criticism. Do you deny that we directly observe the universe to have existed far longer than 6,000 years? One example of this that I've been pointing out frequently (because information about it is so easily available) is the supernova SN1987A. Do you deny that SN1987A exists? Do you deny that astronomers observed this explosion of a star that occurred about 168,000 years ago? Here are those internet references again, that I provided in my "Some Fallacies of Young Earth Creationism" post on 10/24/01:
That the world has existed far longer than just 6,000 years is a directly observed objective fact about the world. Thus, I have already carefully substantiated "Element 1" of my criticism of YEC in regard to one of its dangerous implications. If as a young earth creationist you don't think that the occurrence of this star explosion is possible, then you're going to have to explain how it is that we have observed it. Either that, or you can do what I did many years ago and reject the doctrine of young earth creationism since the doctrine is incorrect. (Or you could, of course, take the "third path" that many people take and choose to become agnostic on the issue. I say this in deference to our "Messy Mom" BereanSpirit participant.)
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote (post #37238): > This is only true if Number one is true. > > Chad > > > --- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote: [snip] >> Let me try restating the elements of my criticism in a >> step-by-step manner, and see if this makes it any clearer. >> >> Element 1: The universe has been in existence far longer than >> just 6,000 years. (This is known by direct >> observation.)
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37289
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, The Bible does not, as you wrote, "show that the earth is young," because in fact the Bible doesn't discuss the age of the earth, nor does it discuss the age of the universe, nor does it discuss the age of humankind. (There is only a single verse in the Bible that comes close to even mentioning the age of the earth, Revelation 14:19, and even this is only in the Revised Standard Version, which refers to the "[vint]age of the earth.") The interpretation (and it can only be a fallible human interpretation since the Bible does not in fact discuss the subject) that the Bible teaches that the universe, the earth, and humankind did not exist prior to about 6,000 years ago is an interpretation that is based on flawed hermeneutics. (And, incidentally, hermeneutics, don't you know, is a fallible human enterprise.) I deny your proposition, and have been denying your proposition for quite some time. I've been discussing this very subject, in this current round of discussion, beginning with my very first post on it on 10/24/01, entitled "Some Fallacies of Young Earth Creationism," at I would further point out to you that there are young earth creationists in the Church of Christ who think that it is wrong to interpret the genealogies as being intended for use as a chronology, for example such preachers as Harry Osborne and Daniel King, Sr. I have already pointed out, for example, that Matthew used Hosea 11:1 in an allegorical fashion, and that it thus shouldn't surprise anyone to realize that there are actually other cases where the Bible uses the Bible in something other than a literal fashion. We should not be trying to treat the Bible as if it is a technical manual, since that is not what it is. Indeed, since that is not what it is, then to treat it that way is to treat the Bible incorrectly. Interpretations derived from that kind of approach are thus certainly subject to error. Yes, let God be true and every man a liar. For example, since when we observe God's World we directly observe that His World has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years, those who deny these direct observations of the antiquity of the universe are denying an aspect of this world that God has made. What God has done is true, and when people deny the reality of the world that God has made I have no duty to accept their incorrect beliefs, but my duty is in fact to reject the incorrect beliefs of humans because my responsibility is to accept the truth rather than adhering to the erroneous traditional creeds of men who, for example, deny that SN1987A is real even while we observe it directly. You write (post #37272): > Theories considered today by the evolutionist as fact are swiftly > changing as the days go by. The current age of the Earth set forth > by evolutionists today is about 4.5 Billion years. This is a false statement. This estimate of about 4.6 billion years (and it is in fact an approximate number) has been the same for about 40 years, so it is not "changing as the days go by" as you have misrepresented it. You continue: > A century ago > the number was much different, about 20 million years. First, this number is off, because 20 million years is substantially lower than what the general estimates of geologists were a hundred years ago. But second, and more importantly, you neglect to mention the one major discovery that caused the picture to change so substantially in the 20th century: It has to do with radioactivity, Chad, and the ability of geologists (and geophysicists), in acquiring this new information about reality, to more clearly understand the extent of earth history. Are you now denying that radioactivity is a process of nature, just as you have denied that the star explosion SN1987A ever happened? Third, do you deny that geological science has acquired a great deal more relevant geological data about the earth than was possessed a hundred years? Do you think that a field of science should remain in a state of infancy and never improve its areas of understanding with the body of relevant data that it acquires at any later time? Do we say that medical science today is just as poor as it was a hundred and fifty years ago, or do we more honestly acknowledge that science gains a great deal of improvements and refinements over time? Fourth, are you going to specifically deal with the specific data about the star explosion SN1987A, or are you going to continue to dismiss it as not really having happened by talking about things that are completely irrelevant to it, like talking about geologists not knowing about radioactivity in the past and thus not using it in their age estimates? (By the way, now that they do know about radioactivity, and since this is a factual process about the world, which way did the age estimate go, Chad, up or down?) Did you know that when the planet Pluto was first discovered by astronomers, it was at first estimated to be about fourteen times larger than it actually is? But as more observations were made, and more relevant data was acquired, and more analysis was carried out, astronomers refined their estimates and found that Pluto was much smaller than initially estimated. Please tell us, Chad, does this mean that the planet Pluto doesn't really exist? Or does it mean that at first astronomers didn't have hardly any data about it, and now they have a great deal of relevant data that conclusively shows the size of Pluto? Did you know that Pluto's moon, Charon, was not even discovered until the 1970s? Does this mean that Pluto's moon doesn't really exist, since scientists didn't know about it prior to that time? Let's hash out the details of the philosophy you are proclaiming on this, because I think I have demonstrated some distinct problems with the implications you have been making about scientific discovery and scientific observation. Did you know that the Large Magellanic Cloud is, other than our own galaxy, the most studied galaxy in the universe? Did you know that SN1987A is the most extensively studied supernova in all history? Did you know that it is one of the most extensively studied stars in all history? Did you know that before SN1987A ever happened, astronomers already knew from a great deal of other direct observations of the Large Magellanic Cloud that they were observing things in that galaxy from about 150,000 and more years ago, and that the observation of SN1987A in regard to having occurred about 168,000 years ago simply corroborated what astronomers already knew? These are the kinds of details that need to be dealt with, instead of trying to blithely dismiss them.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37745
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, I hate to butt in, but please get on with your debate of the issue that you said you were going to debate. Our authority is whatever the truth is. Our authority is whatever objective information is relevant, whether the biblical text (God's Word) or the physical world (God's World). I predicted the approach you would take, and explained what was wrong with it, before you expressed this approach in your post here, in my October 24th post on this subject. Here is an edited version of what I already explained about this popular attempt by young earth creationists to arbitrarily ignore some of the relevant objective data: If we go outside and look the sky, and the sky is blue, then that is the truth, and the authority for this is the objective data of the sky being blue as discovered by conducting the proper investigation. If we want to know the mineral composition of a rock, we might use a hammer, and a microscope, and a chemical analysis of the rock or perhaps even use a mass spectrometer on it, to thoroughly investigate its composition. In cases like these the biblical text is irrelevant to our analysis and results. The objective data about God's World is what it is. It is independent of the Bible, and can be and is examined independently of the biblical text. God's World is an independent creation from God's Word, and people learn many, many things about God's World regardless of anything they know about God's Word (and even if they are completely ignorant of God's Word). This is why it's called objective data, because it doesn't depend on any one person's fallible knowledge and personal biases. Objective information about the physical world can be and is objectively examined independently of examining the biblical text. You can check on the validity of information about the physical world by careful, objective examination of the physical world. This is because truth cannot contradict truth and because truth is truth regardless of personal bias. God's Word and God's World are consistent, because truth cannot contradict truth and God is not the author of error. God's World does not tell us everything, and God's Word does not tell us everything. God's World doesn't tell us about the proper way to deal with sin. It doesn't tell us about things like salvation. It doesn't tell us about the power of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Conversely, where does the Bible tell us how to build houses, bridges, refrigerators, boats, or computers? Where does the Bible tell us how to perform open heart surgery? Where does the Bible tell us about the Han dynasty of Chinese history? Where does the Bible tell us about supernovae like SN1987A, or about galactic structure, or about Cepheid variable stars, or about the moons of Jupiter? In fact, the Bible tells us nothing of these things. We learn about these other factual characteristics about our world by careful objective investigation of the world itself. The Bible does not teach us that the earth orbits the sun. This fact about the physical world is known only by independent, objective examination of God's World. The concept that "the only way to know for sure if what we believe about the world is true is to compare what we believe to the Bible" is a totally false idea. Truth is truth, regardless of where we find it. God's World is what it is, and when we examine it and genuinely learn something about it, that is just as much truth as anything else. What we learn about the world may certainly be a more mundane aspect of truth than what we learn about the Word, but this does not mean that it is not true, and no one should make the false claim that it does.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37449): > --- In BereanSpirit, David Mathews wrote: > Hello Chad, > > ...And I will attach two more propositions: > > The Third Proposition: The Earth is billions of years old. > > Affirm: David Mathews > Deny: > > The Fourth Proposition: The Earth is less than 10,000 years old. > > Affirm: > Deny: David Mathews > > If you accept these two propositions we will have a debate. If > these propositions are not acceptable to you and you would like to > present alternatives, I would consider them. > > Best Regards, > David Mathews > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Chad Here: > > The last two that you propose are just too vague. Sorry. What will > we use for our standard of authority? Narrow it up a little please. > > Chad
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37746
From: Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37540 ): [snip] > 2. The only reason for an old age is to give evolution time to > work. [snip] Dear Chad, I'm responding to your post here just to correct this one particular error. This error happens to be one that is stated very frequently by young earth creationists, and since it is such a popular error I thought it should be addressed and cleared up. The antiquity of the earth was realized first in the science of geology, and by the beginning of the 19th century, the idea of a 6,000-year-old earth had already been abandoned due to geological studies. Darwin's Origin Of Species was not published until 1859. Also, though astronomy has made its greatest advances in understanding of the universe in the 20th century, due to great advances in the technologies used in astronomical instrumentation (with a telescope in earth orbit being one beautiful example of this), astronomers of the 19th century already clearly understood that the universe had been in existence far longer than 6,000 years. And, anyway, by the nature of it, the antiquity of the universe is known through astronomical investigation, and has absolutely nothing to do with biology or with the fossil record (or with anything on earth, for that matter). The antiquity of the earth was realized through geological investigation of the earth before there was any consideration of biological evolution. Indeed, there is an interesting and relevant story to what happened between the field of geology and the field of biological evolution at the latter part of the 19th century through the early part of the 20th century. Remember that this was before the discovery of radioactive decay. Estimates had been made of the age of the earth, based on geological considerations, that ranged from 100 million years up to hundreds of millions of years. The highly influential physicist William Thomson, more commonly known as Lord Kelvin, came along, and based on heat loss calculations began to argue in 1863 that the planet was about 100 million years old. But as the years went by, he kept refining his model, and his calculations for the age of the earth kept getting lower and lower until 1897 when he was estimating an age of 20 million years, far lower than geologists thought was possible according to their geological investigations. (Charles Darwin, by the way, with geological training, and not just based on his biological studies, was estimating 300 million years or greater.) What is interesting about this story is that Thomson's model was a decent method for estimating the planet's age. The critical problem was that he was totally unaware of a significant contribution to the planet's heat, namely, the energy contributed by radioactivity. The reason he was unaware of it, and thus did not include it in his calculations, is simply because radioactivity was not discovered until 1896, studies of it didn't begin until 1898, and it's relevance to geology was not realized for another nine years after that. Kelvin died in 1907. Another scientist, Bertram Boltwood in this very same year discovered the radioactive decay of uranium to lead, and geologist Arthur Holmes took this information and began the work of melding physics and geology together to determine the age of the earth, and realized even at the beginning of his studies along these lines that Kelvin's estimate was thus far too short. So it turned out that geology (and the fossil record) and biology (in the context of biological evolution) were both in the right direction, and the physicists were wrong simply because they didn't know about the energy of radioactivity. The general calculation model was a correct type of way to do the estimate, but they were missing a very crucial piece of information. Once the process of radioactivity was discovered, the physicists (now geophysicists) not only realized that the (imprecise) estimates based on geology and biology were in the right direction but that the 19th century geologists and biologists had been substantially underestimating the age. Here are some internet references regarding this that are informative: http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-54/iss-10/p74a.html So, Chad, I hope that it is now clear to you that the reason for the antiquity of the universe is based on astronomical discoveries (not on evolution), and the reason for the antiquity of the earth is based on discoveries in physical (radioactive processes) and geological (radioactive elements in geological strata). The idea that "The only reason for an old age is to give evolution time to work" is a false idea. I hope you will see fit to remove it from your argumentation.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38230
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, Yes, please tell us what you think the Bible teaches on this issue. I've been asking people where the water above the firmament is, and so far I haven't got a response. (See Gen. 1:6-7; also see Gen. 1:16- 17.) Would you please provide your explanation of this? Please give us the plain, literal meaning. By the way, Chad, the Jews that Jack P. Lewis (and Bobby) is referring to knew Hebrew, since that was their native language. The fact that you don't care how the Jews might have understood the scripture that was written to them in their language is rather revealing about your position as a young earth creationist interpreter, don't you think? Your comment tends to support the argument I've been making that the biblical hermeneutics used by young earth creationists is quite flawed. It's similar to the biblical hermeneutics used by the geocentrists, in fact. Just something to think about. Finally, in answer to your question, Jack Lewis was not crucified for me. And neither were you.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote: > --- In BereanSpirit, Bobby Valentine wrote: >> I learned a great deal from the article he wrote on the Days of >> Creation and though I have my own views it remains more clear to >> me that the neither the Jews nor church has ever had an official >> interpretation of that passage. We should not be dogmatic. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > So the Jews did not know, and in your opinion (because Jack said > so), neither does the church of our Lord God. > > What does the Bible say? This should be enough for a follower of > Christ. Can we be dogmatic on what the Bible does say? > > Was Jack Lewis crucified for you?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38260
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, I've been discussing several aspects of this subject since a lengthy post of mine on Oct. 24th with the heading of "Some Fallacies of Young Earth Creationism." Not yet have I "turned down" anyone who has brought up relevant points of the subject for discussion, including you. Please don't imply otherwise. In addition to this, I believe it was David Mathews who was discussing 'points of discussion' with you, and it was you who turned him down. Feel free to correct my assessment on this, with some details, should you think it is incorrect. I wrote that you were not crucified for me. You replied that "nor did I claim to be," as if there was something odd about me stating that you weren't. Please try not to so diligently miss the point, Chad. I know that you realize that Jack Lewis did not claim to be crucified for you, either, but did this prevent you from writing that "Jack Lewis was not crucified for me"? These semantic misdirections coming from your keyboard are rather tiresome. You blithely dismissed Jack Lewis' discussion of Jewish interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Then you turn around and ask, "What does the Bible say?" as if that is not exactly what Lewis was discussing. This is a false premise, Chad. When you ask me, "When did I ever say this?", I think you and I both know that you were implying that we should not pay attention to Lewis' discussion of the Jews understanding of the biblical text in this regard, because you don't want people to consider information that contradicts your interpretation of the biblical text. In fact, Genesis was written in Hebrew, because it was initially written for the Israelites. Since the Israelites were the original audience for what is being conveyed by the creation account of Genesis, it would behoove us to pay attention to the kinds of issues and concerns of these Israelites to whom Genesis (and the entire Pentateuch) was addressed. Thus, Jewish interpretation of this is relevant, and should be examined, if only to understand how they interpreted their own native language and to try to understand why they came up with the interpretations that they did. If, once you examine the detailed information, you decide to reject any and all of what they had to say, based on additional detailed information you know of that indicates why they may have been wrong, then by all means go right ahead and do so. What I strongly criticize about your approach, Chad, and shall continue to criticize, is that you use semantic games to dismiss anything and everything that may disagree with your fallible personal belief, simply because you disagree with it, without knowing anything at all about the relevant, detailed information, without knowing what any of the details are and certainly without understanding them. This is a wrong approach toward investigating any issue, not just this one. Lastly, I know that Jesus, as referenced in Mark 10:6-9, is discussing marriage, and he uses the Genesis story, as it is written, to make a point regarding marriage. Jesus is not discussing the kind of literature that the creation account in Genesis is, nor is he telling us anything about the age of the universe and the earth. Jesus' reference to the creation account in Mark 10 doesn't imply anything about the specific nature of that account with respect to whether or not it is technically accurate scientific language or something else, because even if the Genesis account is entirely metaphorical (with absolutely no historical referent of any kind) this would not in any way preclude Jesus from using the account as it is written to make the point that he made regarding marriage. Biblical authors, and Jesus, use biblical passages in a variety of ways. The fact is that the Bible uses the Bible in many ways other than 'literal.' I want you to know that I'm still waiting for your citation of scriptures that talk about tree rings, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of the literal meaning of the water above the firmament. Did you ever take a look at any of those several internet references about the supernova SN1987A that I have given you in previous posts? And did you ever read the discussion by Paul Marston and Roger Forster regarding biblical hermeutics and the creation account in Genesis?
Chapter 8 - Interpreting Genesis Today
Sincerely, [Psalm 33:6-9] --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote (post #38236): [Steve Heiden wrote:] >> ...The fact that you don't care how the Jews might have understood >> the scripture that was written to them in their language is rather >> revealing about your position as a young earth creationist >> interpreter, don't you think? ... > > Chad here: When did I ever say this??? You confuse me with some one > else. I merely restated with a certain amount of disbelief what > Bobby said. Please reread what I actually wrote. > > >> Finally, in answer to your question, Jack Lewis was not crucified >> for me. >> >> And neither were you. >> >> Sincerely, >> Steve Heiden > > Chad here again: You are correct, I was not, not did I claim to be. > Jesus most certainly was, so follow Him. Hear His words: > > "But from the beginning of the creation, God `made them male and > female.' `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother > and be joined to his wife, `and the two shall become one flesh'; so > then they are no longer two, but one flesh. "Therefore what God has > joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:6-9)
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38272
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, Yes, I completely agree with you, "If you want to debate the issue, like real men and not jump around on frivolous endless e-mail rides then let's work something out. Otherwise, quit trying to pick a fight. I was addressing my comments to Bobby." Semantic games and rhetorical bluster can be fun at times, but they rarely lend themselves to serious consideration of issues being discussed. And Bobby's comments were addressed to J. Paul, not to you, and your comments to Bobby were indeed quite frivolous. That's exactly what I've been pointing out to you. If you don't like the gruel, then don't be serving it. By the way, I had my coffee before I typed a word. My attitude is fine, thank you for your concern. I'm certainly not angry or upset with you, Chad. I'm merely forthrightly stating criticisms of the approach you've been practicing. That approach has all kinds of problems, and thus the legitimate criticisms of it need to be stated for explicit awareness. I still want to see your citation of scriptures that talk about tree rings, I want to read your explanation of the literal meaning of the water above the firmament, I would like to know if you ever examined any of those several internet references about the supernova SN1987A that I have given you in a number of previous posts, and I would like to know if you ever read the discussion by Paul Marston and Roger Forster regarding biblical hermeutics and the creation account in Genesis. These things aren't frivolous. The fact that you describe such serious considerations as these as "frivolous" again reveals the kind of problems of your approach, which seems to be, 'I will believe whatever it is I want to believe. Please don't bother me with any critical facts.' I've been discussing the relevant details of several aspects of this issue, so please don't try to imply that my discussion has been nothing more than a "frivolous e-mail ride." Unlike you, in discussing this issue I have provided quite detailed explanations of several concepts and have provided a number of references for people to follow up on with respect to my claims and arguments. Why don't you address the critical points I've raised and explain just how frivolous they are? If they are so frivolous, then this should be an easy task for you, Chad.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote (post #38266): > *sigh* > > Someone sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Talk to me when > you get a better attitude. :-) > > The debate positions were never agreed upon. There. Is that better? > > If you want to debate the issue, like real men and not jump around > on frivolous endless e-mail rides then let's work something out. > Otherwise, quit trying to pick a fight. I was addressing my comments > to Bobby. > > Chad > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The First Proposition: The Bible teaches that the Earth is less > that 10,000 years old and that man has lived on the Earth from the > beginning. > > Affirm: Chad Seaton > Deny: > > > The Second Proposition: The Bible is silent as to the age of the > Earth and how long man has lived on the Earth. > > Affirm: > Deny: Chad Seaton
|