| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37287
From: Steve Heiden Dear Chad, This is a good question. How many rings do you think the tree had on day one? What does the Bible say about tree rings? Absolutely nothing. The supernova SN1987A is the explosion of a star in the galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud (only visible in the southern hemisphere) that occurred about 168,000 years ago. I did not say that the supernova is that old. I said that the explosion occurred 168,000, because that is the time (in the past) in which it was directly observed to occur. Now if the universe did not exist 168,000 years ago, then that explosion could not have happened. What does the Bible say about SN1987A and when the explosion occurred? Absolutely nothing. So please help me out here. Your argument is what, exactly? The supernova SN1987A, which was directly observed (and the aftermath of the explosion is still being carefully observed by astronomers), does not exist, it never happened, because... I'd like to know what your "because" is, and what reason there is for denying the objective data of direct observation — you know, these direct observations of the distant past that many young earth creationists have been wrongly claiming for decades that we don't have even though we do.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Chad Seaton wrote: > God and Adam were walking in the cool of the day in the Garden. It > was a few days after Adam was made. God handed him a chaisaw and > commanded him to cut down a Redwood tree. Adam did as he was > commanded. HOW MANY RINGS DID THE REDWOOD TREE HAVE? > > How old is your supernova again? > What does the Bible say?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37426
From: Steve Heiden Dear David, I read through all of your comments dearly hoping that you would address the facts of trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh. As usual, I found that you failed to address the objective, physical data. The trilobite fossils, found in the geological strata of ancient oceans, and the frozen mammoth flesh, are the remains of animals that lived, and died, in the distant past, a past that did not in fact exist if your theory is correct. Now, the fossils and the frozen flesh show us that some animals lived and died. You claim that they did not live and die, and that God created things this way. That does in fact mean that God is a deceiver, if He did create the death remains of creatures that never really lived and died. This is a very dangerous implication of young earth creationism. I don't accept the apparent age argument for a second, because I believe that its theological implications are wrong. If you argue that apparent age is only because we assume the past existence of something that had to have been made complete in order to function properly, I am going to point out that the death remains of animals that never lived and died (and the impact craters of comets and asteroids that never existed) are totally irrelevant to the functioning of the planet. These features have absolutely nothing to do with imparting function to the planet for the habitation of human beings. These features are the marks left by ancient events that have occurred, not features of planetary function. If you can demonstrate that God created trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh in order to impart proper habitat functioning to our planet, this is how you will show that this criticism of the apparent age argument is incorrect. There is no other way to do it. I will be looking for those who espouse apparent age to present this demonstration in their next discussion entry.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #37424): > Al Maxey wrote, > > << Most people have enough > education these days to realize that such teaching falls into the > "flat earth"/"the sun revolves around the earth" category. > > Others, who won't go so far as to "pooh - pooh" all of science, > will simply say that God created the universe with the APPEARANCE > of age. In other words, God created an ILLUSION. He made it LOOK > LIKE it was old, when in fact it was not. > > Don't these people realize what they have just attributed to God? > They've just accused Him of DECEPTION. He made everything just > 6000 years ago, but made it APPEAR to be billions of years old. >> > > Any miracle could be miscontrued as God's attempt to deceive us. > Was Jesus a deceiver to do His miracles? Your same argument would > be used by an atheist AE (ancient earther) to say that God deceived > us by seeming to have given fossil evidence showing (to a > naturalist) that we all evolved from the apes and they evolved from > some one-celled life form and it was formed from non-livings > substances through purely natural means. Why are you (with your > theistic AE view) not also accusing God of being deceptive, since > the naturalist would tell us (wrongly) that the evidence points to > a natural origin of life, and that the general theory of evolution > accounts for our existence. Did God MEAN to deceive all those poor > naturalists? Or is it possible that their deception is due to > their being SELF-deceived? Why accuse God for their foolishness? > > Al, do you believe that God created the first man instantly and > fully mature? Or was that first man born from a souless baby ape > and a soul later added to him when he was mature? (Please answer > this, Al). If you believe the Bible account, he was created fully > mature. Was that a deception by God? I cannot see how it is any > "easier" to conceive of God's creating the earth, tree, humans, > etc. with "apparent age" than it is to conceive of there also being > apparent age (AA) in the cosmos. Why should it be any more > "acceptible" in our thinking, or why is it any less "deceptive" for > God to create a full-grown man, or topsoil, or balanced gases in > the atmosphere, or a riverbed, or whatever in this terrestrial > world, than it is with regard to astronomical bodies? The > principle is the same, which is that the whole system started out > "mid cycle", in such a way that it's appearance might cause one to > think it was older. If you can imagine meeting 5 minute-old Adam > appearing as a 30-year old man and if you can imagine cutting a > 5-minute old tree and finding rings...why couldn't you imagine you > and Adam taking a telescope and looking into the sky to view the > stars? What is the difference, except in magnitude of apparent > age? > > Why "blame" God, for man's unwillingness to "allow for" a fully > formed creation? It only appears older than it actually is _if_ one > assumes exclusively the uniformitarian approach to explaining how > things appear. Indeed, even the "apparent age" that one "sees" or > implies in what he sees in the sky depends on what the viewer has > assumed for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the > universe. For instance, if one has accepted a big bang > explanation, one would get one age...if an occillating universe, > another...if a "plasma universe", still another. Is this God's > fault that we have inferred an erroneous conclusion? When a > naturalist "dates" the earth, what he means is that _if_ the earth > was formed as a ball of lava flung out of an exploded star (or > whatever), then it _must_ have taken a certain amount of time to > cool, form a crust, oceans, soil, life, etc. Similarly, with > stars, galaxies, clusters, super-cluster complexi...if one has > already assumed that the only way a universe can be formed is by > means of a big bang from a singularity, and expanding at a rate > which has been calculated by us using a uniformitarian approach... > then yes, perhaps it may have an "apparent age" _to the > uniformitarian_. But what if the big bang theory is wrong (as even > many atheist scientists are beginning to conclude) and the age is > much less (or more) than what the scientists once thought? That > error is not because God has intended to deceive. The error is > brought on by the false assumptions being employed by the viewer > which causes an inference of age that is mistaken. The > "apparent-ness" of the age depends on the viewer's assumptions. In > fact, to the young earth creationist, the earth may _look just > exactly like a 10,000 year old fully formed created universe OUGHT > to look_! Couldn't one say that _any_ miraculous act of God could be > equally be considered to be an illusionist act?) > > Is it not a bit presumptuous of us to demand of God that any > creative act of His be done in a certain timetable and if it isn't, > we accuse him of being deceptive? Isn't it more accurate to say > that this non-correlation between AA and actual age is due to man's > ignorance or preconceptions? Would it be fair to charge God with > "deceptiveness" because the earth's surface appeared flat to man > for thousands of years? Whose fault was that misapprehension? Is > God a deceiver because for centuries man thought the sun was small > and moved across the sky, rather than large and orbited by the > earth? If one will dismiss from his mind the prejudiced ideas of > "what a 10,000 year old universe OUGHT to look like", he may > realize that the appearance of the universe is PRECISELY what one > would EXPECT a young, but fully-formed universe to look like. > > There are certain characteristics of the universe that would appear > exactly the same whether created 10,000 years ago "in mid cycle" or > as a result of a process that began 15 billion years ago at a > hypothetical Big Bang. To illustrate, a big rock in my yard could > have worked its way up through the soil over hundreds of years, or > a landscaper could have brought it in a pickup truck, and it could > look the same in either case. If you concede that landscapers > sometimes move rocks, then the presence of the rock is just as > consistent with either possible cause. If you rule out the > landscaper explanation, then the presence of the rock would seem to > indicate a long process of natural events. While the landscaper > explanation may not be "natural", it is still consistent with the > evidence, and may be what "really" happened. Once you have "ruled > in" the possibility of a supernatural creation event, then the > observable facts about our universe are consistent with that > explanation. Only by ruling it out, can one say they aren't. Why > would a theist like those on this list ever want to rule out any > supernatural explanation. We DO believe in the power of God to > create instantaneously if He wanted...don't we? If we do, then by > definition we should expect an instantly created mature universe to > appear older than it actually is.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37505
From: Steve Heiden Dear David, I know that some people think I'm just an old curmudgeon, for being such a stickler about the details. But young earth creationists mess up on these a lot, and I happen to believe that it is only proper to point out erroneous information and incorrect arguments, so I do it. I agree that you are not obliged to demonstrate anything at all. However, if you want to press arguments in support of what you are advocating, in this case trying to explicate young earth creationism from the fallacies that I and others have pointed out, then you are obliged to do so but only because it is an obligation that you have chosen to take on yourself in trying to prop up this falsified doctrine. You wrote (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37451): > Most of the fossils we have show evidence of a sudden > encapsulization of live creatures in rapidly deposited heavy > sediments, unlike what is seen in normal seasonal floods. Please cite the paleontological surveys that show this. In fact, this assessment of the paleontological record is incorrect. Besides this, David, what does it have to do with trilobite fossils, anyway? Weren't you aware that trilobites lived in the ocean? Living in the ocean, of course, trilobites didn't experience flooding. You wrote: > The mammoths are excellent examples of something catastrophic > occuring to bury them suddenly. No matter HOW much time you want > to allow, there is no good uniformitarian explanation for the > mammoths. Something happened suddenly which must have been global > in its scope. What in the world are you talking about? What misinformation pamphlet does this come from? Let's consider the Berezovka mammoth. This mammoth was grazing on a hillside. He fell from a low cliff (or he was standing close to the cliff and the ground gave out from under him), and landed at the bottom of the cliff, the weight of his body causing him to break several bones in the fall. The mammoth died where he lay, with the food he had been grazing on still in his mouth. This mammoth was not found in a flood terrain, and the mammoth did not die in a flood. I can't imagine what you are thinking, but it sure isn't based on the objective data. But I appreciate that you acknowledge that the idea of fossil trilobites and frozen mammoth flesh (death remains), if such creatures never in fact lived and died, would be a very deceptive — so deceptive, that you yourself believe that these remains must be the remains of creatures that really did live and die. With this acknowledgment, David, you are accepting that the criticism that Al Maxey and I have expressed regarding the apparent age argument is a legitimate criticism. In regard to fossils you don't argue the apparent age concept, but instead argue for the flood geology based on the fallible human wisdom of George McCready Price and Henry Morris. This is indeed a relevant subject, but I shall leave it alone at the moment and stick with the point that features of the world like fossils render the apparent age concept a moot point, because we aren't talking about any being with supernatural power, but we are talking about God for whom such deception is inconsistent with His nature. No one here questions God's power. But the fact that God has the power to do absolutely anything does not at all mean that He will do anything because to do anything that is evil would not be consistent with God's nature. With Satan, perhaps, but not with God. So at the moment I shall stick with your apparent age argument. Apparently, you think that the supernova SN1987A is somehow fundamentally different from fossils in such a way that you think fossils are not apparent age, but star explosions are, that if God created in the earth's crust the fossils of creatures that never lived and died, this would be deceptive (but, as you argue, since fossils are from a global flood about 4,000 years ago, then that's not what God did), but God creating the image of the explosion of a star in outer space that never really happened is not deceptive. This is confusing to me, David. Have you taken a look at any of the internet references I've provided you with on this? In case you missed them, here they are again:
Astronomers right now are observing the aftermath of this explosion. They are watching the blast wave of the explosion hitting the primary gas ring that surrounds the star at a distance of about two-thirds of a light-year. As the blast wave hits this gas, it interacts with the gas, heating it up, which releases energy, so as astronomers watch events unfold they are seeing this gas ring being lit up from being hit by the blast wave. But since SN1987A is so far away, in the galaxy named Large Magellanic Cloud, what we are observing now happened about 168,000 years ago, and we are just now seeing it. Yet here you are telling us that none of that happened, that all of that is merely an illusion, that it's not real. The explosion of the star never happened. So there really wasn't any blast wave. Since there wasn't a blast wave, of course, then this blast wave never really hit a surrounding gas ring. Yet astronomers are watching this happen right now. I don't know about you, David, but to me this is even more deceptive than fossils, the fact that here we are directly observing this blast wave as its hitting the gas ring and interacting with it, but you're telling us that this never happened. Do you have any objective data to substantiate this opinion, or are you arguing that all of this objective data data is wrong even though you have no objective data to support your claim? You can't get away from the fact that no matter how you look at it, the apparent age concept puts God in the position of being a deceptive God, and this is a fundamental theological flaw in the apparent age argument. It's just another fallible human speculation that has been devised as an attempt to support the fallible human interpretation called young earth creationism. With all of these flaws that sprout profusely from a flawed doctrine, I suggest that young earth creationists take a look at some legitimate options.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #37451): > David Willis here replying to Steve Heiden, > > Date: 10/29/01 > From: Steve Heiden > Subject: Re: Does Apparent Age mean God is a Deceiver? > > >>Dear David, > > I read through all of your comments dearly hoping that you would > address the facts of trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh. As > usual, I found that you failed to address the objective, physical > data.>> > > I had not read all the posts on this topic before I posted, and > frankly do not feel obliged to comment on every argument or topic > that has been foregoing as a prequalification to comment on some > particular point of the thread. I was not attempting to address > every piece of "objective, physical data." I've spent literally > hundreds and hundreds of hours on this subject debating atheist and > theist AE's and I realize how time consuming this topic can be, so > I won't enter into it with a promise to address every point that > any AE wants to make. If that is one of Al's rules, to respond to > every point of every opponent, (which I find he applies very > generously to those who agree with him and less so for those who > don't), then I will opt to not participate in this thread further. > My point was a very narrow one and that was to address the idea > that if one asserts the truthfulness of some instantaneous miracle > of creation, even many of the miracles of Jesus, which by > definition involves "apparent age" or "apparent events which did > not take place" then one is accusing God of deception. It is not a > valid sequitor. > > >>The trilobite fossils, found in the geological strata of ancient > oceans, and the frozen mammoth flesh, are the remains of animals > that lived, and died, in the distant past, a past that did not in > fact exist if your theory is correct. > > Now, the fossils and the frozen flesh show us that some animals > lived and died. You claim that they did not live and die, and that > God created things this way.>> > > I did not claim that at all. Every person who would affirm the > validity of the concept of AA would not say that God placed the > bodies of creatures which never lived into the strata. I do not > assert that AA explains every piece of data which is used by AE's > to support AE. AA would be part of the explanation, but not what I > would use to explain frozen mammoths or fossils. I believe it is > most likely that these animals did live after the creation accounts > of Gen. 1 and were buried catastrophically in the flood of Noah or > perhaps some post flood catastrophes or even pre-flood catastrophes > of which we have no record. Most of the fossils we have show > evidence of a sudden encapsulization of live creatures in rapidly > deposited heavy sediments, unlike what is seen in normal seasonal > floods. The mammoths are excellent examples of something > catastrophic occuring to bury them suddenly. No matter HOW much > time you want to allow, there is no good uniformitarian explanation > for the mammoths. Something happened suddenly which must have been > global in its scope. > > It is hard to say what is "allowable" or not by an all-powerful God > who might wish to create things suddenly rather than by using the > uniformitarian processes over millions of years. IF God wanted an > instantly created world ready to receive and support life there > would need to be some things in place which some could say are > "remnants" or "fossils" of previous life. Things such as the > oxygen content of the atmosphere, or topsoil, or other parts of the > biosphere which are essential to life would need to be present if > God wanted to create man and animals instantly. We all know He > COULD do this, if He chose to. You ARE a supernaturalist, aren't > you Steve? We DO agree that God COULD do the creation instantly if > He chose to right? So if that is the proposed model asserted by a > YE, what would it imply? It would imply that some things appear > older than they actually are, so when "evidence of age" is shown, > it is still consistent with a YE model. That is indeed a possible > choice, once you "rule in" an all-powerful God. And your main > argument against that seems to be that it would contradict His > nature to do so, since this would make Him a "deceiver." If you > believe that, then you must deny that God could ever choose to do > anything instantaneous and supernatural that could be misconstrued > as "deceptive" by any misguided person. I tried to address why > that is wrong in my last post, but you did not respond to my > points. And neither did Al. If "deceptive" is sufficient as an > argument for a theist AE to disprove YE then it is also sufficient > for an atheist AE to disprove theistic AE. If not why not? Al > apparently would deny that God could create a tree instantly with > rings in it (without being deceptive). I don't disallow that God > could choose to do that without being an illusionist and violating > His nature. Al does, and maybe so would you, Steve. Would you? > Would ANY instantaneous miracle make God a deceiver? > > >>That does in fact mean that God is a > deceiver, if He did create the death remains of creatures that > never really lived and died. >>This is a very dangerous implication > of young earth creationism.>> > > Apparent age does not imply that God is a deceiver. I did not hear > any reply to my arguments explaning why that is not true. > > >>I don't accept the apparent age argument for a second, because I > believe that its theological implications are wrong. > > If you argue that apparent age is only because we assume the past > existence of something that had to have been made complete in order > to function properly, I am going to point out that the death > remains of animals that never lived and died (and the impact > craters of comets and asteroids that never existed) are totally > irrelevant to the functioning of the planet. These features have > absolutely nothing to do with imparting function to the planet for > the habitation of human beings.>> > > I would agree regarding some types of fossils. Of course, God > could have many reasons to do something which I cannot see. > Topsoil and oxygen however are essential, and would indeed be > needed to support life from the outset. So some creation of > "fossils" of creatures that never existed may be needed with an > instantly created model. > > >> These features are the marks left by ancient events > that have occurred, not features of planetary function. > > If you can demonstrate that God created trilobite fossils and > frozen mammoth flesh in order to impart proper habitat functioning > to our planet, this is how you will show that this criticism of the > apparent age argument is incorrect. There is no other way to do > it.>> > > No. I am not obliged to prove or "demonstrate" it was done by > instantly creating the earth with fossils in it, for whatEVER > reason. It certainly is one way God COULD have instantly created > the world if He chose to and had some reason to do it. I > personally don't believe He did do that. If He did, it would not > make Him a deceiver...any more than it would to envision that Adam > was created fullgrown with the "fossils" of implied events > (including the lives and deaths of billions of bacteria in his > digestive tract) in his life which never took place. God could > choose to create instantly without being a deceiver. Was Jesus a > deceiver when He performed instantaneous miracles? Or do you deny > He did that too?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37597
From: Steve Heiden Dear David, Your point is absolutely correct that "the idea that 'anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence must have checked his brain at the door'" is a false idea and should be repudiated. However, the problem in your discussion of the apparent age argument is not that we disagree about the interpretation of the evidence. It is that Al and I (and many others) acknowledge that the data is real, that the data itself, which does show the antiquity of the universe and of the earth, being what we objectively observe about the world, is real. (Fossils of trilobites are the remains of trilobites that really lived and died. Frozen mammoth flesh is the remains of mammoths that really lived and died. The blast wave of a supernova that we observe directly is a blast wave that really happened.) You on the other hand are arguing that the data itself, what we objectively observe about the world, is not real. Perhaps it isn't clear to you, but saying the data isn't real is not an "interpretation" of the data. This approach to the data ("It's not real") can only be described as knowing that the data contradicts your personal belief, but strong personal attachment to this believe means that despite the data you choose to hold to your belief, even though the data has shown that the belief is incorrect, so you instead choose to deny the data. "Denying the data" is not the same thing as "interpreting the data." I think this distinction is very clear to everyone, no matter what side of the issue they are on. This kind of semantic plasticity renders words and data meaningless, and if we're going to be that subjective then we may believe whatever we want to believe since words have no real meaning and since what we objectively observe about the world itself is not real. I was wondering if you were going to address the blast wave of the supernova SN1987A that I discussed earlier. Do you say that the this blast wave that occurred about 168,000 years ago, which astronomers are directly observing right, is real or not? Did this blast wave that astronomers are observing ever really happen, or is it merely an illusion of something that never existed? Oh, and, by the way, since it is a fact about the real world that the earth orbits the sun, saying "you have to check your brain at the door in order to deny this fact about the world" would be a true statement. Think carefully about that.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #37590): > Goad said: > > << Why would a Christian brother wish to be ugly on purpose or to > one-up someone via insults? Is this the Spirit of Christ, brother? > Al has used figures of speech, but goodness, he doesn't confess out > loud as you do an attempt to be more insulting and more ugly than > somebody else. Get a check on your attitude, dear brother, before > you lose all control. >> > > Most readers could see my point was not to "one up" Al or get even. > It was to (ONCE AGAIN) point out the churlishness and ugliness of > the idea that "anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of the > evidence must have checked his brain at the door." That is > insulting, and should be repudiated. I was using mockery to > condemn mockery and to expose hypocrisy if someone would object to > my using similar language...and you exposed your hypocrisy. That > is entirely different than what motivated the original ugly > comment. Fairminded readers can see that distinction. But not > you, Goad. When liberals do it, it's "all in good fun" or "a fine > art of mockery", but if a conservative does it (ONLY with the > purpose of pointing out that insulting comments should be stopped) > then it is a "violation of the highest order." The bias is > obvious. > > David Willis
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37605
From: Steve Heiden Dear David, Since you're interested, I want you to know that I accept that the general picture of biological evolution is an accurate description of biological history on the earth. I don't limit what God can do, nor do I limit Him in how He chooses to do it. (As I've mentioned before, the only limits God has those things that are inconsistent with His nature. Satan will do many things that God will not do, yet we understand that this is not because Satan is all-powerful but because Satan's nature is different in regard to evil.) I don't prejudge the matter based on the fallible religious traditions devised by human beings, nor do I prejudge the matter based on personal prejudice. (By the way, I hope that it is clear to you, and to everyone, that discussion of details regarding biological evolution are completely irrelevant to information about the antiquity of the universe and the earth, such as the data relevant to the supernova SN1987A which you have yet to discuss.)
Just so this is clear to you and to anyone else who may read this, I repeat here something I wrote to Bill Denton back in June here in the BereanSpirit list: > 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. You ask me: > Do you believe that God instantly created Adam full grown from the > dust of the earth? I believe God has created the heavens, the earth, and everything in them, including human beings. I do not accept that the interpretation of Genesis based on it supposedly being a scientific reference manual, that teaches that "God instantly created Adam full grown from the dust of the earth 6,000 years ago," is correct because this interpretation is based on a false hermeneutical premise. You ask: > And was Adam > the only creature on earth at that time which had similar human > characteristics to those he had? About four months ago, Ray West asked me: >> I would like it is you could confirm or correct my question. I >> will offer it as the alternatives I perceive and see if that >> helps. >> >> Do you reason that: >> >> A. These many years culminated in a garden with Adam and Eve >> in it 6000 years ago? >> >> B. Some substantial portion of these many years occurred >> SINCE the creation of Adam and Eve and their placement in >> the Garden. >> >> C. The story of Adam and Eve is itself allegorical and not a >> a static point in time. My response was: > I tend to believe a form of (B), though I wouldn't use the > word "substantial." First of all, I do not believe that the Bible > is a science book, nor do I believe that God is trying to teach > us about paleoanthropology in the Bible. I believe that Adam and > Eve could have existed tens of thousands of years ago (or even > longer). I can't say that I know clearly how the biblical account > and the fossil record "gel" in this respect. I do not think that > the genealogies are intended to be used as chronologies, as I > have mentioned in an earlier post. I have read of viewpoints that > follow some form of (C), but I have not yet read what I consider > to be convincing expositions of this type of view. As you can > perhaps tell, I'm open-minded on this score. One thing about the > general (C) idea that I believe to be correct is that there are > elements of Genesis 2 and 3 that contain elements of what is > clearly religious symbolism from the culture of the ancient > Israelites, and this is why I remain open to the possibility of > that view. However, take a look at this article by Davis A. > Young, which is on the internet: > > "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited" > http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/CSR5-95Young.html > > One view he discusses is that Adam and Eve are "the parents of > the human race in a representative sense rather than a biological > sense." This might be considered an 'intermediate' position > between your (A) and (B) above while at the same time containing > allegorical elements. This is the view I currently hold, though > not all that firmly. (By the way, the general page where Young's > article is located is "The Bible and Science" at > http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/.) Regarding this specific subject of Adam and Eve within the general topic of biblical interpretation, I also recommend the very detailed discussion which is at:
In this chapter of an online book, Paul Marston and Roger Forster discuss dozens of fallacies inherent in the literalist hermeneutical approach to Genesis. Here are some more internet references regarding biblical interpretation:
You state that I have made assumptions and declarations about your apparent age argument that are incorrect. David, I hope that you will explain these mistakes as soon as possible. (I want to see whether I've really made mistakes, or whether what I've stated is actually correct, while you mistakenly think they are mistakes. When you claim that what someone has stated is mistaken, it's usually a good idea to substantiate your claim.) As you saw in a previous post of mine, I was very quick to acknowledge my mistake about thinking that you were including trilobite fossils and frozen mammoth flesh in your apparent age argument. Successfully explain how what you think is a mistake really is a mistake, and I will be the second to acknowledge my error (since, of course, you'll be the first). You state that you aren't interested in "wild goose chases." If this is true, then I definitely want you to explain to me and to everyone else what my views about hominid fossils have to do with the supernova SN1987A and the fact that SN1987A is a direct observation of the fact that the universe has been in existence for at least 168,000 years. I think that in fact your comments demonstrate clearly that since you can't explain or deal with the details of SN1987A, and how they demonstrate the fallacy of the apparent age argument, among other things, you are attempting to use the fact that I accept biological evolution to divert attention away from the fact that young earth creationism has been conclusively falsified by direct observation of the antiquity of the universe. Of course, if I'm wrong about you using this for the purpose of diverting attention, I invite you to show and explicitly request that you show that my assessment here is wrong. You will do this successfully if you are able to clearly explain to everyone what my thoughts about hominid fossils have to do with SN1987A, or with any aspect of astronomy for that matter. If you can do this, I will openly acknowledge that you are not attempting to attack the fact of antiquity with irrelevant diversions. I can tell you quite honestly that I am very frequently met with such comments as these by those who find themselves unable to deal with the critical flaws that are inherent in young earth creationism doctrine. When I present detailed discussion explaining the relevant information and the details that show that the universe and the earth are old, instead of dealing with this relevant information that shows that antiquity is a fact about the world — which alone proves that young earth creationism is a mistaken doctrine — they choose instead to divert attention from this by saying, "Oh, well this guy is just an evolutionist, therefore all of his arguments are wrong." David, if, like them, this is what you are trying to do, then it's time to 'fess up now, brother. If this is not in fact what you are trying to do, then please state this explicitly to everyone. Prove that you aren't interested in wild goose chases.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #37524): > Steve, > > You made several assumptions and declarations about my view that > were incorrect, so before I reply to your post, I'd like to ask you > something for clarification. Do you believe that God instantly > created Adam full grown from the dust of the earth? If so, was > that a deceptive act by God? And was Adam the only creature on > earth at that time which had similar human characteristics to those > he had? If you would also want to tell us what your view is of the > presumed hominid ancestors of man (i.e. are the evolutionists > correct about their being ancestral and evolving), that would also > help me to fairly attack your position without misrepresentation or > wild goose chases. > > Thanks.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37691
From: Steve Heiden Dear David, Thank you for your response. And for any others who, out of interest in this general subject, happen to be following this discussion, I want them and you to know that while in my discussion I express forthright criticism of ideas that I believe are completely wrong, my criticism of these ideas does not at all mean that I think that there is something defective about your Christian faith or that this has any relevance to Christian fellowship, because, in fact, I don't think that at all. I discuss this subject because I know that young earth creationism is wrong, just as in the same way I know that geocentrism is wrong. In fact, I believe that the doctrine of young earth creationism has exactly the same relevance to our Christian faith as does the doctrine of geocentrism. (I also think that perhaps we differ on this particular point. Feel free to correct me if my assessment about this is incorrect.) I try to discuss the subject in some detail because it has been taught for many decades that anyone who rejects the doctrine of young earth creationism is denying the Word of God, and it is because this is a false idea and yet still has such a strong hold on so many of us that there must be thorough discussion of this subject. Consider this idea for comparison: Anyone who rejects the doctrine of geocentrism is denying the Word of God. Young earth creationism, like geocentrism, represents a failed biblical hermeneutic, and nothing more. --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > I apologize for not replying sooner, but unfortunately I won't > have much time for several days yet to properly address posts by > Steve H. and others. No problem. I'm certainly not following any kind of timeline, as I hope the comments I made to Bill Denton, that I repeated in a recent post, made clear. I have no expectations about your response time. I'm well aware that we have busy lives, and that this discussion is 'other time.' Please note that I shall be addressing your points in an order that is different from yours. You wrote (remember, this is in a different order): > I hope YOU will fess up that you see I had good reason to ask > about your view of hominids. Of course, a side benefit to me was > that it exposed your belief in theistic evolution, and I would > like others to know that and include that in their evaluation of > your overall view. I already agreed with you that if we are going to discuss biological evolution, and what our views are, then this is relevant. If this is a subject you really want to dig into the details on, then, by all means, let's discuss the subject. What I have pointed out to you is that discussion of hominid fossils, and of my view on biological evolution, has absolutely nothing to do with the details of such matters as the supernova SN1987A. I'm going to be a stickler about this, simply because this is the truth of the matter. With regard to such facts about the world as SN1987A and relevant information and understanding about these things, my view of hominids is totally irrelevant. When you state, as you have done here, that you "would like others to know [my view of hominids] and include that in their evaluation" of discussing the details of such things as how SN1987A shows by direct observation that the antiquity of the universe is a fact, you demonstrate that you threw it out there for the purpose of trying to divert people's attention away from the details of such things as SN1987A by appealing to personal bias.
Anyone who does not answer "Yes" is misrepresenting the objective data. It's really that simple, David. In saying that my view of hominids is relevant, your argument seems to be something along these lines:
This kind of an argument is totally irrational. I'm sorry, David, but it is obvious to me that when you specifically tell people that they should include my view of hominids in their evaluation of factual details about such things as SN1987A, you are in fact engaging in a "wild goose chase," your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. You write: > You would like > to rule out the supernatural instantaneous interpretation of the > data and then accuse me of denying the data itself and that is an > unfair accusation. Jesus instantaneously created wine from > water. The "data" was the wine in the jar. Had someone ruled > out an instantaneous miraculous explanation, then > uniformitarianism would tell us that the data showed that some > grapes were grown, picked, pressed, etc. to produce the wine. > Had someone said, "No! It was done in an instant by a miracle", > would you have accused him of denying the data? You say that I want to rule out "supernatural instantaneous interpretation of the data." This is totally incorrect. I have never done this. I have never argued that God cannot have instantaneously created the universe. Quote me, please, where you think I have stated this. I have never ruled out an act of instantaneous creation by God. (In fact, it is an interesting point that the Big Bang theory is a theory that postulates — in the form of a scientifically-derived analysis — an act of instantaneous creation, but one that took place billions of years ago.) The fact is that our disagreement over the apparent age concept has nothing to do with a disagreement about acts of instantaneous creation. It is a disagreement about whether or not our direct observations of the world, including miracles, are real. In the case of Jesus creating wine from water, the fact of the matter is that what was observed — the objective data of observing the world — was that those who were there observed that there was water in the jar. Then Jesus performed a miracle, and these people then observed that there was wine in the jar. This is how they knew that a miracle had taken place, because of the events that they observed. As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with your argument that what we observe is not real. (Just the opposite: These witnesses would have to have denied what they observed in order to deny the miraculous act.) In the case of SN1987A, we observed an explosion that took place 168,000 years ago, and right now we are still observing how the blast wave from this explosion interacted with the surrouding medium, including the gas ring that was around the star. We are observing, directly, these events that took place 168,000 years ago in and around SN1987A. The apparent age concept says that what we are observating is not real. In doing so, it makes God deceptive in having created a universe that is deceptive, because here we are directly observing these events in the universe that have taken place in the distant past, and yet none of these events every happened. By the way, I hope you understand that the Bible does not discuss tree rings. This argument about tree rings is a pure speculation based solely on assuming that the concept you are arguing for is correct. This is referred to as begging the question. Where does the Bible state that instantaneously created trees will have annular growth rings? Cite the verse, David. This argument is based on nothing. The Bible is not a scientific analysis. The Bible is not a technical reference manual. The Bible is not a formal philosophical text. The Bible is not a book of systematic formulations of religious creeds. The apparent age concept, that says that what we observe about the universe is not real, cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not state this concept. The Bible does not teach this concept. The apparent age concept is an incoherent speculation devised by the fallible human wisdom of young earth creationists who refuse to acknowledge that their doctrine has been invalidated by the fact that we have directly observed that antiquity of the world. I previously wrote: >> You on the other hand are arguing that the data itself, what we >> objectively observe about the world, is not real. Perhaps it >> isn't clear to you, but saying the data isn't real is not an >> "interpretation" of the data. You reply: > I certainly don't deny that the data is real. But when it gets down to dealing with the actual details about the world, that you claim you aren't denying the reality of, you proceed to deny that they are real. Take a look: I wrote: >> I was wondering if you were going to address the blast wave of >> the supernova SN1987A that I discussed earlier. Do you say that >> this blast wave that occurred about 168,000 years ago, which >> astronomers are directly observing right, is real or not? Did >> this blast wave that astronomers are observing ever really >> happen, or is it merely an illusion of something that never >> existed? You then proceed to respond to this by saying, as is consistent with the apparent age argument, that if God created the universe instantaneously in full form, then the star explosion — which has been observed directly — and the blast wave from the explosion — which astronomers have been observing directly for several years — are indeed illusions of events that never happened. But, David, this is the whole problem with the apparent age argument, is that we observe these events, we observe them directly, as having occurred. We are personal witnesses to these events, even though they happen to have taken place in the distance. If these events did not in fact occur, then what we see is deceiving, in that while we witness it to have happened it did not happen. I think you are missing the critical point that we are observing these events directly. We aren't extrapolating these events. We aren't saying, well, here's what I observe now, therefore this thing in the past must have happened to get to this state that I now observe it to be in. No, not at all, in discussing such examples as SN1987A we are talking about what we observe right now. With SN1987A, we aren't making extrapolations about events in the past, we are witnessing them. You say: > I really fail to see any greater significance to a supernova > event (or apparent event) contained in a light stream from a star > than any other events. Maybe there is more dramatic change seen > there than just a glowing star or the rotation of a galaxy, so > this is a favorite to cite. EVERY star seen makes the same > argument (or non-argument) that you wish to make with SN1987A. Yes, David. Precisely! This is what I have been pointing out all along, that SN1987A is only one clear example, out of millions and billions of other events in the universe that all show us the same thing: The universe has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years. The apparent age argument implies that almost everything that we directly witness right now of the universe is not real. The apparent age argument implies that almost the entire universe that we observe right now is nothing more than an illusion. The apparent age argument implies that God is deceiving us with His Creation, deceiving us with a complete and total deception that could only be achieved by a supernatural being with incomprehensible power, for whom such deception would then have to be part of this being's nature. I realize that you proceed to discuss 'other options,' such as the fallible (and invalidated) human wisdom of Barry Setterfield's lightspeed decay model and the fallible (and invalidated) human wisdom of Russ Humphreys' cosmological model, and if you want to get into the details of these invalidated human ideas, then we should by all means discuss these details. Maybe it's not clear to you, David, but what you and everyone else who wishes to make claims about this matter need to understand is that Setterfield's model and Humphreys' model are not the same thing as nor similar to the apparent age argument. Their models are contradictions of the apparent age argument. Setterfield's model acknowledges that the data is real, and he was attempting to provide an explanation for how the universe could be only about 6,000 years old and still be consistent with the objective data. In other words, Setterfield was trying to take the data seriously. He did not nor does he argue that the data is not real. Humphreys' model goes even further than this. Humhreys' acknowledges that the data is real, and he acknowledges that it shows that the universe has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years. Humphreys tries to take the data seriously. He does not argue that the data is not real. Thus, you should not attempt to connect Setterfield's model and Humphreys' model with the apparent age argument, nor cite them in any kind of apparent support (no pun intended), because the fact of the matter is that Setterfield and Humphreys both disagree with the apparent age concept. (By the way, it is also the fact of the matter than Setterfield and Humphreys contradict each other. This is something you should be aware of, if you didn't already realize this.) Futhermore, along these very same lines, you try to cite Phillip Johnson as if he somehow is in support of the apparent age argument. You wrote:
> Phillip Johnson ("Darwin on Trial") has pointed out that the real
> differences between AE's (especially atheistic AE's) and YE's are
> PHILOSOPHICAL ones rather than scientific ones. This is probably
> the problem you and I have too. You seem to have a philosophical
> dedication to naturalism and uniformitarianism because "science"
> supports that and denies any supernatural explanations. If
> "science" is equated with "naturalism" then one can accuse all
> theists and YE's as having "unscientific" answers, and the battle
> is won...won by a philosophical presupposition, rather than with
> pitched combat between which model, if true, actually gives the
> better explanation.
Well, David, guess what? Phillip Johnson agrees wholeheartedly that the antiquity of the universe, and of the earth, "gives the better explanation." Phillip Johnson does not think that the apparent age argument is correct. Phillip Johnson agrees that the antiquity of the universe is a fact about the world that we know by direct observation. So what exactly is your argument here? Is Phillip Johnson's argument correct, or incorrect, and if his argument is correct, as you express support of in your comments quoted here, then why is it that Johnson accepts the fact of the antiquity of the universe and you don't? If Johnson's argument is correct, then why is it that Johnson denies the apparent age concept while you support it? And, of course, Johnson contradicts Setterfield and Humphreys. These three fallible human beings all contradict each other on these matters. With such a complete disarray in the concepts inherent in your philosophy, I do not understand why you think that all of this is supposed to substantiate the apparent age concept that you are arguing for. How does the incoherence and disarray of the position you are arguing for explicate the apparent age concept from the fallacies that have been pointed out? This makes no sense to me. In this particular response of mine, I wish to address only one additional aspect of your discussion. You wrote: > Distances in space could be less than what is claimed by > scientists too. I believe the methods for establishing the > "yardstick" for such huge distances is based on some assumptions > about the relative brightness of certain stars which have very > constant brightness (Cepheids? if I recall) and those standards > were established by triangulation (measuring a angle of a star > when the earth is at summer solstace, the angle at winter > solstace, and then knowing the distance of the "base" of the > triangle (the diameter of the orbit of earth around the sun). > This method (parallax method, if I recall) can be used only to a > limited degree of accuracy because beyond a certain distance, > the angle appears virtually the same at winter or summer > solstace, and no further validating of the "yardstick" of Cepheid > brightness can be done. David! I have carefully and directly provided you with references regarding SN1987A and how its distance is determined. While it is correct that the magnitudes of Cepheid variable stars are one method used to estimate astronomical distances, the distance to SN1987A is measured directly using triangulation, and this distance is determined to be approximately 168,000 light-years. There is no mystery about this. It is this kind of dismal lack of direct, relevant information that provides yet another example of the flaws in the young earth creationism position. Please, David, please, do a little work and learn about the relevant details before you make comments on the matter without knowing what they are. Please don't take this as an insult, because I'm simply being honest and forthright with you. Since you have clearly not yet taken a look at the internet references I provided to you in previous posts (if you had, you would have known how it is that astronomers have determined the distance to SN1987A), here they are again:
With regard to distance determination, I direct your attention specifically to these three:
And since I'm pointing out these references to you again, I also want to direct your attention to the last reference:
Go to the bottom of that page, then go up to the third from last graphic. This is multiple frame time-lapse graphic that shows the blast wave impacting the gas ring. (If you have a slow connection, you'll need to give the graphics a little time to load into your browser.) These are direct observations of the explosion blast wave, the one that the apparent age concept says isn't real.
Sincerely,
--- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #37630):
> David Willis here,
>
> I apologize for not replying sooner, but unfortunately I won't have
> much time for several days yet to properly address posts by Steve
> H. and others. I want to point out that I entered this thread with
> a specific purpose and that was to contradict the idea that an
> instantly formed world accuses God of being a deceiver. I made
> several arguments that were not addressed. Instead of discussing
> the concept of a Deceptive God, I have been expected to launch into
> the entire YE/AE dispute, and while this is a great interest of
> mine, I won't likely want to devote that much time at this very
> large topic. I'll try to make some brief replies to some points
> you've made and hope to not shortchange the topic too much.
>
> >> Date: 10/31/01
> From: Steve Heiden
>
> You on the other hand are arguing that the data itself, what we
> objectively observe about the world, is not real. Perhaps it isn't
> clear to you, but saying the data isn't real is not
> an "interpretation" of the data. >>
>
> I certainly don't deny that the data is real. I used the
> illustration of a rock in my yard that was placed there by a
> landscaper. The data was the presence of the rock. Denying a
> uniformitarian explanation of how that rock got there and having a
> belief that the rock was transported there "instantly" by a
> landscaper is not denying the presence of the rock. I affirm that
> supernatural instantaneous events can be "ruled in" as possible
> explanations of the data, just as I've ruled in the work of a
> landscaper. You would like to rule out the supernatural
> instantaneous interpretation of the data and then accuse me of
> denying the data itself and that is an unfair accusation. Jesus
> instantaneously created wine from water. The "data" was the wine
> in the jar. Had someone ruled out an instantaneous miraculous
> explanation, then uniformitarianism would tell us that the data
> showed that some grapes were grown, picked, pressed, etc. to
> produce the wine. Had someone said, "No! It was done in an
> instant by a miracle", would you have accused him of denying the
> data?
>
> Phillip Johnson ("Darwin on Trial") has pointed out that the real
> differences between AE's (especially atheistic AE's) and YE's are
> PHILOSOPHICAL ones rather than scientific ones. This is probably
> the problem you and I have too. You seem to have a philosophical
> dedication to naturalism and uniformitarianism because "science"
> supports that and denies any supernatural explanations. If
> "science" is equated with "naturalism" then one can accuse all
> theists and YE's as having "unscientific" answers, and the battle
> is won...won by a philosophical presupposition, rather than with
> pitched combat between which model, if true, actually gives the
> better explanation. Yes, you can accuse that supernaturalism is
> non-falsifiable...and I suppose it is, since we have an
> All-powerful God who can act instantaneously and without any
> barriers. But that IS THE MODEL of the YE. It rules in the
> supernatural and the instantaneous, which by definition would imply
> that actual age would be less than apparent age...and that is what
> you must refute.
>
> >>I was wondering if you were going to address the blast wave of
> the supernova SN1987A that I discussed earlier. Do you say that the
> this blast wave that occurred about 168,000 years ago, which
> astronomers are directly observing right, is real or not? Did this
> blast wave that astronomers are observing ever really happen, or is
> it merely an illusion of something that never existed?>>
>
> I really fail to see any greater significance to a supernova event
> (or apparent event) contained in a light stream from a star than
> any other events. Maybe there is more dramatic change seen there
> than just a glowing star or the rotation of a galaxy, so this is a
> favorite to cite. EVERY star seen makes the same argument (or
> non-argument) that you wish to make with SN1987A.
>
> Several explanations consistent with the YE model may explain light
> from stars. The idea that God created the stars and the beams of
> light "stretching toward earth" with information in the beams that
> suggest apparent events which did not actually happen is one good
> explanation. The retort given is "NO! That can't be, since that
> would make God a deceiver." But I would contend that it is no more
> deceptive to do that than to instantly create a tree with rings, or
> an adult Adam. Many AE theists would allow for that (Al seemed to,
> but was ambiguous). To view a grown man who is actually 2 minutes
> old is viewing "data" that suggests "apparent events" that also did
> not actually happen. But that does not make God a deceiver. My
> posts here on BS are aimed at deconstructing that false accusation
> against God. Supernaturalism implies that some "apparent events"
> never happen, and that is not implying that God deceives.
> "Apparent age" is fully sufficient to answer the "light from stars"
> argument. If "God is a deceiver" refutes AA, then one would have
> to deny that ANY instantaneous miracle or even ANY MIRACLE could be
> performed by a nondeceptive God. That is in contradiction to the
> plain accounts of scripture which speak of miracles as factual.
> Atheists can deny plain accounts of scripture. Do you?
>
> Another explanation consistent with YE involves a possibility of
> faster lightspeed in the past than today. One assumption made is
> that speed of light (SOL) is constant. The data we have about that
> is all from about the last 300 years and having a flat SOL is
> consistent with BOTH concepts: constant SOL and a decelerated SOL.
> If you walk into a garage and see a car parked there...and three
> minutes later see it again parked, is it a correct conclusion from
> the data to say "that car has always remained at the constant speed
> of zero." Could the data also fit the hypothesis that the car was
> moving much faster than zero in the past, before it was seen
> parked, and it decelerated to zero and remained at that "speed"
> only during the short time it was observed? Sure. One need not
> cite ANY measurements for SOL that show deceleration to be able to
> say properly that the data is insufficient to "prove" constant SOL.
>
> Distances in space could be less than what is claimed by scientists
> too. I believe the methods for establishing the "yardstick" for
> such huge distances is based on some assumptions about the relative
> brightness of certain stars which have very constant brightness
> (Cepheids? if I recall) and those standards were established by
> triangulation (measuring a angle of a star when the earth is at
> summer solstace, the angle at winter solstace, and then knowing the
> distance of the "base" of the triangle (the diameter of the orbit
> of earth around the sun). This method (parallax method, if I
> recall) can be used only to a limited degree of accuracy because
> beyond a certain distance, the angle appears virtually the same at
> winter or summer solstace, and no further validating of the
> "yardstick" of Cepheid brightness can be done.
>
> The Humphrey "time differential" (my term) explanation is another
> one that I would say has some plausibility. I have not heard
> Humphrey address your argument that blueshift would be predicted by
> his model. I would like to hear his answer. I saw him this summer
> in Indy lecturing and his idea seemed pretty plausible to me. It
> is a proven fact that gravity affects time. Atomic clocks at the
> top of mountains DO run faster than at sea level. If the earth
> were near the center of the mass of the universe, then at some part
> of the time of expansion of the universe time would pass slower on
> and near earth than in the distant parts of space. And regardless
> of whether you accept the Humphrey model, an all-powerful God COULD
> make events happen at different timespeeds in different parts of
> the universe AND make blueshifts into redshifts if He so chose,
> couldn't He? He is not bound to follow YOUR rules or be proven to
> be deceptive.
>
> >>Since you're interested, I want you to know that I accept that
> the general picture of biological evolution is an accurate
> description of biological history on the earth. I don't limit what
> God can do, nor do I limit Him in how He chooses to do it. (As I've
> mentioned before, the only limits God has those things that are
> inconsistent with His nature. Satan will do many things that God
> will not do, yet we understand that this is not because Satan is
> all-powerful but because Satan's nature is different in regard to
> evil.) >>
>
> And because you have decided that God cannot perform a supernatural
> act instantaeously (which has apparent events which did not
> actually happen) without being deceptive and contrary to His
> nature...then you DO limit how God may "choose to do it." Those AE
> theists on this list who DO believe in actual instant miracles by a
> non-deceptive God are in agreement with me about the fallacy of
> your "Deceptive God" refutation of AA.
>
> >>I don't prejudge the
> matter based on the fallible religious traditions devised by human
> beings, nor do I prejudge the matter based on personal prejudice.>>
>
> Nor do I. I understand the YE model and its fair implications, and
> have "ruled in" the supernatural instant acts of a non-deceptive
> God.
>
> >> (By
> the way, I hope that it is clear to you, and to everyone, that
> discussion of details regarding biological evolution are completely
> irrelevant to information about the antiquity of the universe and
> the earth, such as the data relevant to the supernova SN1987A which
> you have yet to discuss.)>>
>
> Not irrelevant at all.
>
> >>You state that you aren't interested in "wild goose chases." If
> this is true, then I definitely want you to explain to me and to
> everyone else what my views about hominid fossils have to do with
> the supernova SN1987A and the fact that SN1987A is a direct
> observation of the fact that the universe has been in existence for
> at least 168,000 years. I think that in fact your comments
> demonstrate clearly that since you can't explain or deal with the
> details of SN1987A, and how they demonstrate the fallacy of the
> apparent age argument, among other things, you are attempting to
> use the fact that I accept biological evolution to divert attention
> away from the fact that young earth creationism has been
> conclusively falsified by direct observation of the antiquity of
> the universe. Of course, if I'm wrong about you using this for the
> purpose of diverting attention, I invite you to show and explicitly
> request that you show that my assessment here is wrong. You will do
> this successfully if you are able to clearly explain to everyone
> what my thoughts about hominid fossils have to do with SN1987A, or
> with any aspect of astronomy for that matter. If you can do this, I
> will openly acknowledge that you are not attempting to attack the
> fact of antiquity with irrelevant diversions.>>
>
> While I do think your assertion of hominid evolution IS fairly "in
> play" and I may want to exploit that to display the poverty of your
> position at some later time, I was not simply trying to divert
> attention from the AA argument and your point about SN1987A. The
> relevance in my asking about your beliefs about Adam was that if
> you would have admitted belief in an instantly created mature Adam
> (as many AE theists would) then I could have shown that there is no
> qualitative difference in accepting THAT "deception" about
> "apparent events which did not actually happen" (Adam's birth,
> childhood, adolescence, maturing etc.) than any other instantaneous
> supernatural event such as creating a light beam with data that
> suggests events which did not actually happen. Now that your
> beliefs about hominid evolution are exposed, I will aim at
> defeating those views of yours at some future time, and would
> expect lots of help from the AE theists on BS who are NOT "theistic
> evolutionists". Hopefully they will agree with me now that if they
> can believe in an adult Adam being instantly created by a
> non-deceiving God, then they can believe in any other manifestation
> of AA (such as light from stars), and apparent events (like
> supernovae) can be also accepted as being consistent with the
> nature of God.
>
> QUESTION: Steve, do you believe in ANY miracle? Any instantaneous
> supernatural event EVER being done by deity? If so, then you
> believe in "apparent age" too!
>
> >>I can tell you quite honestly that I am very frequently met with
> such comments as these by those who find themselves unable to deal
> with the critical flaws that are inherent in young earth
> creationism doctrine. When I present detailed discussion explaining
> the relevant information and the details that show that the
> universe and the earth are old, instead of dealing with this
> relevant information that shows that antiquity is a fact about the
> world — which alone proves that young earth creationism is a
> mistaken doctrine — they choose instead to divert attention from
> this by saying, "Oh, well this guy is just an evolutionist,
> therefore all of his arguments are wrong." David, if, like them,
> this is what you are trying to do, then it's time to 'fess up now,
> brother. If this is not in fact what you are trying to do, then
> please state this explicitly to everyone. Prove that you aren't
> interested in wild goose chases.>>
>
> I hope YOU will fess up that you see I had good reason to ask about
> your view of hominids. Of course, a side benefit to me was that it
> exposed your belief in theistic evolution, and I would like others
> to know that and include that in their evaluation of your overall
> view. But there was a legitimate nexus between my question
> directed to you about Adam, and the discussion about light from
> stars and Aparent Age.
>
> Thanks.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38421
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit discussion participants and readers, The supernova SN1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago, but it is so far away that is only now here on earth in recent years that we have seen this explosion. Even though we observed the explosion in 1987, the condition that the star was in before the explosion (pre- supernova) was more than 168,000 years ago, because in observing the light from this explosion we are actually seeing the record of the event of the explosion of the star that occurred that long ago. (Please note that the word "light" here is actually in reference to the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and not just the spectrum of light that's visible to our eyes. Also, you should note that in addition to the electromagnetic energy, astronomers also detected one particular kind of matter that reached Earth from the explosion, in the form of neutrinos, because this form of matter travels at nearly the speed of light.) Those young earth creationists who promote the apparent age argument are thus telling us that even though with SN1987A we have observed the light and the neutrinos, as well as light from the explosion that was refracted from some interstellar sheets of dust that happened to lie between SN1987A and the earth, this objective physical data is supposed to be meaningless, because the light and the neutrinos could not really have been generated by the explosion of this star, and the light could not really have been refracted by sheets of dust between SN1987A and the earth. They argue that the reason the light and the neutrinos could not have actually come from the explosion of the star, and the reason the light could not actually have been refracted by the dust sheets, is because the explosion never really occurred, and the light never really traveled through the dust sheets, because the universe did not exist more than 6,000 years ago, so nothing from an "apparent age" of 168,000 years ago ever really took place. As David Willis (a proponent of the apparent age argument) acknowledged in a previous post here on the BereanSpirit list, there are many, many more examples like SN1987A, where astronomers directly observe that starlight has traveled through interstellar and intergalactic material that lies between the source and the earth. Here are more almost thirty striking examples of the fact — this is direct, factual information, not speculation, extrapolation, or opinion — that we directly observe that the starlight has indeed traveled between the source and the earth, because we directly observe that the light has traveled through intervening material (note that, if you want, with all of these you can click on the image to get more information about what is being discussed):
Here are two examples showing how the pathways followed by starlight from some galaxies have actually been "warped" due to the relativistic effects of the gravitational fields of galaxies that lie between the source galaxies and the earth:
If the apparent age concept was correct, then all of these things that we observe about the universe are not real. What we observe about the universe does not exist. The universe is not true, it is only an illusion. The fact that we directly observe specific events occurring at specific times in the past is entirely meaningless. So the argument of those who advocate the apparent age concept boils down to this: Since the objective, factual data contradicts their belief in the doctrine of young earth creationism, rather than accepting that fact that their belief has been falsified by the facts and then abandoning this doctrine that has been proved to be false, they choose to simply dismiss the facts, arguing to us that the facts themselves are not real. Here is the dialogue over the apparent age concept:
Now observe the fly in the jelly:
What we see in this approach is the flawed nature of the biblical hermeneutic that the doctrine of young earth creationism is based on. The irrational nature of the apparent age argument, which is based on this flawed biblical hermeneutic, is yet another example showing why the doctrine of young earth creationism is incorrect. I have written this post, because in my previous discussion of this subject I have focused heavily on the relevant details of the specific example of the supernova SN1987A (because it is such a clear example which thus provides a good focus for revealing many of the critical flaws in many of the typical arguments made by young earth creationists), and I wanted everyone who is interested in the details of this issue and who has been following this discussion to understand that SN1987A is just a single example taken from a huge range of astronomical observation and analysis. Contrary to the pretensions made by many young earth creationists, this is not an argument about a flawed "uniformitarian" or "naturalistic" philosophy of science. This is an argument about whether or not we are going to accept the facts themselves, and whether or not we are willing to change a belief we might have that the facts have demonstrated to be an incorrect belief. Arguing that 'the facts are not real' is a denial of the facts, not an "interpretation" of the facts. The belief that the universe did not exist more than 6,000 years ago is a belief that we know is wrong, because we see by direct observation that the universe has been in existence for a much greater period of time. Unless someone wishes to discuss further relevant details, and clarifications of the issues and the details, with me, this completes my discussion of the subject in this 'current round' of my discussion participation following my post of 10/24/01. I thank all of those who raised issues in the discussion, because it is only by raising the issues, discussing them, and hashing out the details in open discussion, that we can improve our understanding. (Unfortunately for those who make the arguments I criticize, they have to put up with a critical old curmudgeon like me.) As always, I also thank Al Maxey for providing for and actively supporting open discussion in this forum.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38628
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit participants and readers, In a previous post, David Willis wrote: > To close this post, I have a very simple question to ask Steve > and Al, and any other AE: > > If God HAD wanted to create the world instantly and mature (ready > to accept life forms) which by definition means with apparent > age...could He? Would that be an impossibility to Him, without > contradicting His nature? Could He create a fullgrown man, or > fullgrown tree or a grain of sand without being a deceiver? This > question should be able to be answered with a "yes" or "no." > Al in the past has SEEMED to say "yes" to this, and indeed not > only COULD He do it, but He DID do it. Al seemed to express that > a full-grown tree could be created, but it would be "deceptive" > of God to give it growth rings! Surely the size of the tree, its > branches, bark, root system etc. would be as "apparently aged" > and "deceptive" as would the presence of growth rings. Without > realizing it perhaps, by admitting that God could have created a > tree or a man full-grown, Al is admitting to God creating > apparent age without His being deceptive. Or Al, would you deny > He could do that? Both Al and I (and others) have addressed this particular point a number of times. David is neglecting what the word 'apparent' in 'apparent age' really means. The connotation of 'apparent' is that a superficial examination will lead you to believe something about what you've looked at that is not really correct. In other words, based on initial appearances you may be led to think something about what you've observed that is incorrect. So far, so good. But here is what the advocates of the apparent age argument neglect to consider: 'Apparent age' literally means that 'age' is only 'apparent,' but that deeper, detailed examination will reveal that the 'age' is not genuine. Since the age is only apparent but not genuine, it is apparent age. Let's apply this aspect of 'apparent age' to the typical argument of the instantaneously created tree. Standing before an instantaneously created tree, we would estimate an 'apparent age' for the tree based on the assumption that the tree had to have grown from a seed to its present status — even though the tree did not grow. But this is exactly the point that David Willis and other apparent age advocates completely fail to address: The instantaneously created tree did not grow from a seed to its status as a full-sized tree. It was instantaneously created, so obviously it did not experience a history of growth. No critic of the apparent age concept argues with this at all, nor do we argue with the idea that God could certainly have done this if that is what He had chosen to do. What apparent age advocates are missing is that since the instantaneously created tree would not in fact have experienced growth from a seed to a full-sized tree — since it did not in fact grow, but was instantaneously created — then it would not have such features as annual growth rings, because annular growth rings are the 'remains' of a history of growth (just as fossils and frozen mammoth flesh are the remains of creatures that lived and died, and just as impact craters are the remains of asteroids and comets that hit the earth, the moon, and other planets). When apparent age advocates argue that instantaneously created trees would have annular growth rings, they have made two mistakes in their argument. First, they have made the legitimate concept of 'apparent age' incoherent. The reason the estimated age of the instantaneously created tree would be 'apparent' rather than 'genuine' is because the person doing the estimate is basing the estimate on preliminary information which based on the assumption 'this tree grew to full size from a seed' led to the estimate. The estimate itself could be very good, but the assumption 'this tree grew to full size from a seed' is a wrong assumption. The tree did not experience growth, because it was instantaneously created. But in this aspect lies the key to the legitimate concept of 'apparent age': More detailed examination of the tree would show that it did not possess any actual features of having experienced growth, and these unusual details about the tree would show that the earlier estimated age was really only 'apparent,' but not the genuine age of the tree. In other words, detailed examination of such a tree would actually reveal the mistake of assigning an age to this tree that was really only an 'apparent age.' David Willis (along with all young earth creationists who make the apparent age argument) has no substantiation for the argument that he is making, because he doesn't really take his own concept of 'apparent age' seriously. He has not produced any deeper, detailed information which substantiates his idea that the age is only apparent but not genuine. In fact, the apparent age concept as argued by young earth creationists breaks down at this very point because of the fact that it is nothing more than pure speculation by fallible human beings who have absolutely nothing to substantiate their speculation. They specifically argue that all of the data, right down to every detail that could possibly be examined, does show antiquity (age), but they deny that the data is real. Do they have any data, any details, that support their contention that the data has merely been "misinterpreted"? They don't, and the problem that they themselves have made, is that it is impossible for them to substantiate their argument with any data at all because they have purposely abandoned all data by declaring that all of the data is not real. (This flawed aspect of the apparent age argument was brought up by Greg Koukl when he talked about the skepticism of truth promoted by the apparent age concept.) "We don't need any physical data, because we rely on the Word of God" is their response. But then we're back to square one, because the very thing under question is what exactly does God's Word teach about this? The young earth creationists claim, according to their interpretation that it teaches that the universe and the earth did not exist prior to about 6,000 years ago. Okay, then we should be able to examine the world to see whether or not this interpretation is correct. "Oh, no," they say, "we can't learn anything from the data we get from examining the world, since the data will show age, as you say it does, but this age is only 'apparent.' If you rely on the physical data, it will mislead you. We can rely only on proper interpretation of the biblical text." But when we study the biblical text we find that the subject is ambiguous, and is not really taught anywhere. The Bible does not in fact teach us how old the universe and the earth are. The Bible does not teach the apparent age concept (even though young earth creationists keep making this argument, outside of any biblical authority). The Bible does not teach anything at all about instantaneously created trees having annular growth rings (even though young earth creationists who argue for the apparent age concept typically make this unbiblical argument). The brief accounts of creation in various places in the Old Testament say nothing at all about apparent age, or tree rings, or impact craters, or fossils, or frozen mammoth flesh, or supernovae blast waves. So why, contrary to what the data obviously shows us, do apparent age advocates insist that the data itself is not real even though they have no data (and even imply by the nature of their argument that it is impossible for them to come up with any data) of any kind to support their speculation? What did God in fact do? When we look at the universe that God created, what do we see? With respect to the universe, we know that God created the universe far longer in the past than just 6,000 years ago. How do we know this? Because, as one example, we have directly observed the explosion of a star that occurred about 168,000 years ago, which is 162,000 years farther in the past than the 6,000 years of the doctrine of young earth creationism. If this universe was created by God 6,000 years ago, instantaneously, in a fully functional form necessary for life, then that is what we would observe. But the fact is, contrary to what apparent age advocates argue, that is not the kind of universe we observe. We do not observe a universe instantaneously created with fully functional planets for supporting life, but that is also bereft of any remains of events that took place in a distant past. What we observe is all kinds of remains of a long history of events. We observe such things as the planet Earth having craters on it where massive asteroids or comets impacted the planet at some distant times in the past (we also observe far more numerous impact craters like this on the moon, simply because the moon doesn't experience the dynamic erosion processes that are present on Earth), and we observe blast waves from stars that have exploded. These features are not features of 'apparent age' but are features that are the direct results of events that occurred in the distant past. When apparent age advocates take our direct observation of the explosion of a star that took place about 168,000 years and claim, in accordance with their concept, "This stellar explosion never took place," then we do in fact have a situation of direct deception in that we have literally witnessed the explosion of this star even though apparent age advocates say the explosion never happened. Does God have the power to create such an intricate and complex deception as the universe would be if the apparent age advocates were correct? Certainly God has ultimate power, and thus has the power to do such a thing. But this is not the question. The question is, would God create, not 'apparent age' (which I've explained above) but the deception of 'all data, all details, show the remains of events that have never occurred'? Would God engage in such deception? Thus, the second mistake of apparent age advocates is in arguing that God has purposely created the deception of features of historical events that have never taken place. Critics of the apparent age concept argue that deception is contrary to God's full nature, and that because of this even though God has the power to create ultimate deception He does not do so, because deception is contrary to God's goodness.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > David Willis here to the AE's, > > You have accused me of "denying the data" because I believe an All > Powerful and Non-deceiving God could create a mature universe > instantly or in 6 literal days. The "data" to atheists also says > that something does not come from nothing (1st Law of > Thermodynamics, i.e. The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy) and > that entropy always increases (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and that > life does not come from non-life (Law of Biogenesis). An atheist > would say that your belief that there is a God who performed > supernatural acts which are in contradiction to these natural > "laws" is your stubborn refusal to accept the "data". But really > it is your refusal to accept the naturalistic interpretation of > data...which is a product of a philosophical predetermination...a > premise that says "all reality and all history can be explained > naturalistically". However, you (as theists) believe in > supernatural events, and that belief will cause you to form a > different conclusion about reality and history when you consider > the data. Is it legitimate for an atheist to accuse you of being > stupid and blind and "denying the data?" > > No, it is not legitimate, and the same applies to Apparent Age. > God can create. He can create (as Al has admitted) either by a > long process or instantly. He can create a grain of sand > instantly. A created grain of sand has "data" that one might infer > incorrectly had an actual history requiring eons of time of being > lava, cooling, crystalizing, and eroding to form into a grain of > sand. But if it was indeed created this would not be a correct > interpretation of the data. God of course also can create a tree > or a man instantly. And it is impossible to say whether God would > choose to let that tree have growth rings with apparent history, or > that man to have tanned skin or a belly button. He very well may > have chosen such characteristics of a fully mature world in > "mid-cycle." Qualitatively, those data are no different than what > is contained in the grain of sand...or in a light beam from a > star. When He creates instantly, a person who is evaluating the > data only by naturalistic criteria will not correctly interpret the > data. By definition, an instantly created mature world will appear > older than it is, and it will contain data which will have apparant > age and apparent history of apparent events which never happened, > or perhaps happened within a miraculously shortened time > dimension. This is true by definition. To deny it requires one to > take a philosophical stance that God is not able to create mature > things...that if He did this or any supernatural act without > clearly telling us (which of course YE's would say He DID tell us, > regarding creation) He would deny His character. I do not agree > with this philosophical stance, and every miracle of the Bible > disproves it. > > David Willis
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38629
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit participants and readers, Here I will examine some other comments made by David Willis. --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > In the discussion about apparent age, I have not been pleased so > far with how my points have been addressed. Perhaps those whom > I've opposed would feel similarly. In a discussion I expect to > have responsiveness to my points and when my points are not > fairly considered, or when the topic is shifted to other areas, I > will have less interest in participation. I still have Steve H's > last post to me in my "to answer" file, and have intentions of > replying to those parts of it that are pertinent to the specific > question I had interest in regarding "is God a deceiver, if He > created the earth with apparent age?" But without more direct > responsiveness to my points, I will be less interested in being > responsive to his. At this point, I figured that David was about to discuss specific points that he had raised regarding the apparent age concept that he has been arguing in support of that I had neglected to address, or that he had raised regarding the subject of the antiquity of the universe and the earth more generally that I had neglected to address. But what is David's first comment after this paragraph? > I have also been pretty disappointed in those on this BS list who > are NOT theistic evolutionists like Steve is. It seems that no > one has interest in challenging that. Are YE's the only ones > willing to hold the line about evolution? I wonder about > Al...he would seem not to be an evolutionist...but perhaps I'm > wrong about that. How about clarifying that, Al? And yet I have > not heard Al or anyone else taking up the challenge to oppose > Steve's theistic evolution views. But look again at what David had written just prior to this:
Certainly, the subject of biological evolution is one of interest for many, especially in the context of discussing religion and science. But when discussing the subject of the antiquity of the world, or the subject of the apparent age concept, discussing the subject of biological evolution is in fact a shift to other areas that are irrelevant. I have explicitly pointed out to David the "wild goose chase" nature of this, and yet here he is, doing it again. Why does he write that he doesn't think the topic should be shifted to other areas while at the same time he himself engages in such shifting? Does he or doesn't he? These self-contradicting comments are very confusing. David Willis continues: > I raised a point that no AE has addressed yet. I previously > wrote: > > DW>>Any miracle could be miscontrued as God's attempt to deceive > us. Was Jesus a deceiver to do His miracles? Your same argument > would be used by an atheist AE (ancient earther) to say that God > deceived us by seeming to have given fossil evidence showing (to > a naturalist) that we all evolved from the apes and they evolved > from some one-celled life form and it was formed from non-livings > substances through purely natural means. Why are you (with your > theistic AE view) not also accusing God of being deceptive, since > the naturalist would tell us (wrongly) that the evidence points > to a natural origin of life, and that the general theory of > evolution accounts for our existence. Did God MEAN to deceive > all those poor naturalists? Or is it possible that their > deception is due to their being SELF-deceived? Why accuse God > for their foolishness? >> Yet again, we see David throwing in more "wild goose chasing" material. The unequivocal fact is that fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died. The unequivocal fact is that fossil remains come from Earth's ancient history. The pattern of life through time that fossils show us is unequivocally one of immense change. Progressive creationists attribute this to God's intervening (supernatural act) in the natural order that He created. Theistic evolutionists tend to attribute this to the natural order that God created. (Though, in fact, in practice there is a range of beliefs between progressive creation and theistic evolution. Michael Behe is considered a theistic evolutionist, but sees God as somehow supernaturally guiding the natural order along certain pathways. Howard J. Van Till is considered a theistic evolutionist, and he does not think that God necessarily needed to supernaturally guide the natural order, since he thinks that God already invested the natural order with such fruitful capabilities when He created the universe.) Theistic evolutionists say the pattern of fossils (and the patterns of genetic similarities and dissimilarities) are the results of the natural order created by God. Progressive creationists say the pattern of fossils (and the patterns of genetic similarities and dissimilarities) are a combination of the results of the natural order created by God and supernatural interventions at various times. Both accept the fact that the fossil record shows immense changes in the biological realm over time. Furthermore, since the Bible does not discuss fossils or the nature of patterns in the paleontological record, there is in fact no 'biblical position' on fossils. So what is David even talking about? But whether one is a progressive creationist or a theistic evolutionist, discussions of what is shown by the overall pattern of the fossil record (and, for another example, the patterns of similarities and dissimilarities in genetic material across the biological world) are irrelevant to the fact that in the case of the antiquity of the universe we directly observe the ancient past. We directly observed the explosion of a star in 1987, that was named SN1987A. If this star did not in fact explode, then we have a deceptive observation. While discussions of fossil record patterns and ideas about ancestral relationships being shown in the fossil record, the possible relationships between fossil creatures have absolutely nothing to do with the direct observations of the ancient past in the universe, and have nothing to do with the apparent age concept taught by young earth creationists which argues that we literally observe events that never happened. Here was my earlier response to David's "wild goose chase" of biological evolution (from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37691): > What I have pointed out to you is that discussion of hominid > fossils, and of my view on biological evolution, has absolutely > nothing to do with the details of such matters as the supernova > SN1987A. I'm going to be a stickler about this, simply because > this is the truth of the matter. With regard to such facts about > the world as SN1987A and relevant information and understanding > about these things, my view of hominids is totally irrelevant. > When you state, as you have done here, that you "would like > others to know [my view of hominids] and include that in their > evaluation" of discussing the details of such things as how > SN1987A shows by direct observation that the antiquity of the > universe is a fact, you demonstrate that you threw it out there > for the purpose of trying to divert people's attention away from > the details of such things as SN1987A by appealing to personal > bias. > > Question: Does the objective data of direct observation show us > that the universe has been in existence far longer than > 6,000 years? > > Answer: Yes. > > Anyone who does not answer "Yes" is misrepresenting the objective > data. It's really that simple, David. In saying that my view of > hominids is relevant, your argument seems to be something along > these lines: > > Question: Does the objective data of direct observation show us > that the universe has been in existence far longer than > 6,000 years? > > Situation: Steve Heiden says that the correct answer is "Yes"; > as a substantiating example he discusses relevant details > about a supernova. > > Consideration: But Steve thinks that hominid fossils may > represent evidence of human evolution. > > Conclusion: Therefore, if you disagree with his view of hominids > then you should disagree with what he says about the > supernova. > > This kind of an argument is totally irrational. I'm sorry, David, > but it is obvious to me that when you specifically tell people > that they should include my view of hominids in their evaluation > of factual details about such things as SN1987A, you are in fact > engaging in a "wild goose chase," your claim to the contrary > notwithstanding. David Willis continues: > Also, > > >> If you believe that, then you must deny that God could ever > choose to do anything instantaneous and supernatural that could > be misconstrued as "deceptive" by any misguided person. I tried > to address why that is wrong in my last post, but you did not > respond to my points. And neither did Al. If "deceptive" is > sufficient as an argument for a theist AE to disprove YE then it > is also sufficient for an atheist AE to disprove theistic AE. If > not why not? Al apparently would deny that God could create a > tree instantly with rings in it (without being deceptive). I > don't disallow that God could choose to do that without being an > illusionist and violating His nature. Al does, and maybe so > would you, Steve. Would you? Would ANY instantaneous miracle > make God a deceiver?>> > > The question (restated) is, "If the naturalists and atheists say > that the data suggests abiogenesis (life arose from non-life) > occurred, but the theist says it did not, then why is it not > correct to say that God "deceived" by creating life in such a way > that atheists could think it appears to have arisen without God?" > If "God is a deceiver" works against the YE, then why does it not > work for the atheist against the theist AE? It is interesting to see David try to use this 'atheism bogeyman' "argument." This is not really an argument. It is a popular rhetorical tactic of trying to prejudice people's minds against consideration an argument on a rational basis, by saying, "So-and-so makes this argument, and he's an atheist. Therefore, that is a bad argument." But look at the form of this argument, which is identical in form:
You can see by this argument, that any argument based on the appeal- to-prejudice is an irrational argument. (By the way, it is the third proposition that is totally false.) If "naturalists" and "atheists" say something, then it doesn't matter that they are "naturalists" or "atheists." What matters is whether the argument is a good argument or not, and saying "Some who make this argument are 'atheists'" is merely an irrational appeal-to-prejudice and is irrelevant to criticizing or supporting what is being discussed. In order to discuss the subject of whether or not the earth orbits the sun would require us to deal with details relevant to the subject, and whether Bertrand Russell, who supports the idea, is an atheist is totally irrelevant. Furthermore, what "the data suggests" regarding abiogenesis means that we have to acquire that relevant data, which can be done by objectively examining the physical world. Since the Bible is not a technical manual of science about the world, at best we might find some ambiguous statements if we could find anything relevant at all. The Bible does not discuss whether biogenesis was the result of natural processes (which were created by God in the creation of the universe) — abiogenesis, or whether biogenesis was the result of a supernatural act (or a combination of innumerable supernatural acts over time), so there is in fact no 'biblical position' on the subject. So what is David even talking about? David Willis continues: > I also asked the following, which I don't recall seeing answered: > > >>QUESTION: Steve, do you believe in ANY miracle? Any > instantaneous supernatural event EVER being done by deity? If > so, then you believe in "apparent age" too!>> In fact, BereanSpirit participants and readers, take a look for yourselves: David Willis brought this up in a post on October 31st, which I specifically addressed on November 1st, the very next day. His post was
I quoted David where he had written: >> You would like >> to rule out the supernatural instantaneous interpretation of the >> data and then accuse me of denying the data itself and that is >> an unfair accusation. Jesus instantaneously created wine from >> water. The "data" was the wine in the jar. Had someone ruled >> out an instantaneous miraculous explanation, then >> uniformitarianism would tell us that the data showed that some >> grapes were grown, picked, pressed, etc. to produce the wine. >> Had someone said, "No! It was done in an instant by a miracle", >> would you have accused him of denying the data? I responsed to David, in detail, as follows: > You say that I want to rule out "supernatural instantaneous > interpretation of the data." This is totally incorrect. I have > never done this. I have never argued that God cannot have > instantaneously created the universe. Quote me, please, where you > think I have stated this. I have never ruled out an act of > instantaneous creation by God. (In fact, it is an interesting > point that the Big Bang theory is a theory that postulates — in > the form of a scientifically-derived analysis — an act of > instantaneous creation, but one that took place billions of years > ago.) > > The fact is that our disagreement over the apparent age concept > has nothing to do with a disagreement about acts of instantaneous > creation. It is a disagreement about whether or not our direct > observations of the world, including miracles, are real. In the > case of Jesus creating wine from water, the fact of the matter is > that what was observed — the objective data of observing the > world — was that those who were there observed that there was > water in the jar. Then Jesus performed a miracle, and these > people then observed that there was wine in the jar. This is how > they knew that a miracle had taken place, because of the events > that they observed. As you can see, this has absolutely nothing > to do with your argument that what we observe is not real. (Just > the opposite: These witnesses would have to have denied what they > observed in order to deny the miraculous act.) > > In the case of SN1987A, we observed an explosion that took place > 168,000 years ago, and right now we are still observing how the > blast wave from this explosion interacted with the surrouding > medium, including the gas ring that was around the star. We are > observing, directly, these events that took place 168,000 years > ago in and around SN1987A. The apparent age concept says that > what we are observing is not real. In doing so, it makes God > deceptive in having created a universe that is deceptive, because > here we are directly observing these events in the universe that > have taken place in the distant past, and yet none of these > events every happened. > > By the way, I hope you understand that the Bible does not discuss > tree rings. This argument about tree rings is a pure speculation > based solely on assuming that the concept you are arguing for is > correct. This is referred to as begging the question. Where does > the Bible state that instantaneously created trees will have > annular growth rings? Cite the verse, David. This argument is > based on nothing. > > The Bible is not a scientific analysis. The Bible is not a > technical reference manual. The Bible is not a formal > philosophical text. The Bible is not a book of systematic > formulations of religious creeds. The apparent age concept, that > says that what we observe about the universe is not real, cannot > be found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible does not state this > concept. The Bible does not teach this concept. The apparent age > concept is an incoherent speculation devised by the fallible > human wisdom of young earth creationists who refuse to > acknowledge that their doctrine has been invalidated by the fact > that we have directly observed that antiquity of the world. While David may believe that my response is deficient, I would prefer for him to refrain from implying as he frequently does that my responsiveness is lacking. It is anything but that.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38650
From: Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > David Willis replying to David Matthews, > >> 1. Can you name one object, entity or historical process in >> the Universe whose age and history are apparent rather than >> real? > > A miraculously created instantly mature object (if there is such > a thing) would by definition be indistinguishable from another > object that is actually old. A created grain of sand would look > like one that was formed by natural processes. Dear BereanSpirit participants and readers, David has injected this mistaken notion into his argument: The idea that "A miraculously created instantly mature object would by definition be indistinguishable from another object that is actually old" is an entirely incorrect statement. In fact, in previous posts I have already pointed out specific examples of how an instantaneously created object would be different from an object that had actually experienced the effects of the genuine passage of time. In the case of instantaneously created trees, such trees would have the most unusual feature of having a lack of annular growth rings because such trees would not have experienced any growth. If David Willis really wants to show that a created grain of sand would look exactly like a grain of sand formed by natural processes, in every detail, then he should produce the instantaneously created grain of sand for objective investigation so that we can see whether or not his claim is correct. >> 2. Can you provide some objective rules to distinguish apparent >> age from real age? > > No. The failure to provide such "rules" has no dispositive > effect on YE, however. The effect it has is that it shows that the apparent age argument that young earth creationists make is an incoherent concept. Even YECs themselves are unable to give their concept any meaning. Thus, the dispositive effect is quite severe. >> 3. Can you identify some boundary in the Universe between >> events whose age is entirely real, events which include a >> mixture of apparent and real age, and events whose age is >> entirely apparent? > > I cannot identify the exact age of the universe. If I could it > would be after that day. If the day of creation was exactly > 10,000 years ago, then that would be the day. David Willis has simply failed to answer the question. What specific data, what specific observation could a person make, what details could be analyzed, by which one could distinguish between observed events of the past that young earth creationists say are real (Alpha Centauri; an interstellar cloud in the Pleiades star cluster, http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/36/) and observed events that young earth creationist claim are not real (Nova Cygni 1992, http://www.seds.org/hst/novacyg.html; or SN1987A, http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/homework4/hwk4.html and http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm; or the bending of light by intervening galaxies, http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/08/). David's task, which is the task of everyone who espouses the apparent age argument, is to explain what data, what observational details, will enable us to distinguish between the observations of events that really happened and the observations of events that young earth creationists claim did not happen. David has completely failed to do this. >> 4. If the Universe's actual age, since its origin, is actually >> x years, would you attribute all events in the Universe whose >> age is calculated as greater than x to include apparent age >> equal to (its measured age) - x? > > I would either do that or challenge the accuracy of the > "calculation." There are many reasons to doubt the ages > calculated by AE's. As is typical of young earth creationists who make this claim that David has made ("There are many reasons to doubt the ages calculated by AE's"), he is long on claims and infinitesimally short on substantiation of his claims. (In other words, he is very free with expressing his personal opinion, but is unable to back it up.) >> a. Example: If the physical evidence indicates that the last >> Ice Age concluded 11,000 years ago, while we know or surmise >> from the Scriptures that the Universe is only 10,000 years >> old, would we conclude that the time which passed since the >> last ice age included 10,000 actual years and 1000 apparent >> years? > > Probably not. I would likely regard the ages assumed for the ice > ages as erroneous. However, the YE view I hold would regard ages > of 100,000 years or less as being potentially actual ages, and I > believe most of the ice ages (and all carbon dating) would fall > into that range. In fact, David here demonstrates yet again the typical approach of young earth creationists of quite freely expressing their personal opinions without providing any substantiation for their opinions. The question is asked of them repeatedly, where is the data that substantiates the claim he is making? We don't care how David "would likely regard the ages." His opinion is irrelevant. When young earth creationists make such claims, it is their responsibility to substantiate their claims. Why is anyone supposed to pay any attention to their statements of personal opinions, especially when those opinions are in fact contradicted by the relevant data? >> b. Second example: If a stars light is measured to have >> taken 186,000 years, while we know or surmise that the >> Universe is only 10,000 years old, would we conclude that the >> star's light includes 10,000 actual years and 176,000 >> apparent years? > > Yes, unless speed or light has not always been constant, or the > creation event was some time compression or time differential. I > have no problem with apparent events contained in lightbeams any > more than I have with apparent events (which did not happen) > contained in Adam's adult body or a grown tree's size. The > concept of "apparent age" may also be a matter of actual events > but time compression, which of course God could also do. David, like many other young earth creationists, seems to be very fond of the invalidated opinions of another fallible human being, D. Russell Humphreys. Since Humphreys' model has in fact been falsified, one wonders why young earth creationists are still promoting it. What I have observed about the approach that young earth creationists tend to take is that they insist that their idea (the universe and the earth did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago) must be right, and they do not really care what the relevant data is or what the relevant data shows about the matter. So the approach they take is to put on the table any and every opinion a young earth creationist might have, no matter how invalidated or irrational it might be, because, after all, since they know absolutely that their doctrine must be the correct doctrine, actually having substantiation for the doctrine is just not relevant to the matter. So year after year, decade after decade, we are treated to this smorgasbord of invalidated young earth creationist opinion, in some of our church bulletins, brotherhood magazines, and Bible class materials, with insult added to injury in that it is often presented to us as if it is the same thing as God's Word itself. How many more years are young earth creationists going to keep feeding us with these invalidated opinions based on ocean salinity, Setterfield's speed-of-light decay, Humphreys' cosmological model, and the like? Why won't they take upon themselves at least the basic responsibility of abandoning their invalidated arguments? Of course, after abandoning all of these invalidated arguments, there's always remains the ultimate fallback position that young earth creationists have taken for over 150 years: Yes, the data indicates antiquity, just as old earthers have been saying, but the data is not real, and so the age is not real. And then we're back to asking David to substantiating even this argument, which he has so far failed to do (see discussion above). >> 5. If physical evidence indicates that an event which took >> 100,000 years to accomplish occurred ten million years ago, >> would we attribute the measured length of time for the event's >> accomplishment as actual or apparent time? In addition, would >> we attribute the time since the conclusion of the event to >> actual or apparent time? > > I don't know which event you reference but I would expect that I > may question the time of the event and its surrounding time > context. Uniformitarianism is assumed by the AE's and I would > regard catastrophism as a better explanation for many geologic > features. Yet again we see David stating his unsubstantiated opinion. What we want from those who make these claims is to go the next step and provide substantation for what they say. What are the relevant details? What does the relevant data show? What are the objective observations that have been made that substantiate these claims that David and other young earth creationists make? Anyone can state an opinion. We need more than this, and it is their responsibility to provide it. >> a. Explanatory note: If the Universe is only 10,000 years >> old, evidently no process taking 100,000 years to accomplish >> could have occurred in that time, and it is likewise >> impossible for 10 million years to have passed since the >> process was accomplished. Therefore, such an event would >> compound two types of apparent time. >> >> b. For those who doubt the relevance of this example, it is >> by no means strictly theoretical. It takes millions of years >> to lift rocks from sea level to the 10,000 or 20,000 feet >> above sea level (as they are in mountains), and there is >> evidence that these mountains have existed for millions of >> years after they had reached their maximum height. How does >> apparent age explain this physical evidence? >> >> *** > > Catastrophism is a better explanation for many features including > mountain formation. Here again we see an expression of totally unsubstantiated (and obviously incorrect) opinion. The fact of the matter is this: Geologists abandoned catastrophism (of the kind that David is referring to) over 150 years ago, because they found that it could not explain the variety of geological features that they were studying and learning more about in advancing the relatively young science of geology. Since 150 years ago, catastrophism as an explanation has only continued to be invalidated by additional geological investigation. >> These five questions deserve an answer. I look forward to any >> answers provided by our YEC brethren. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> David Mathews > > > I'm not sure how deserving the questions were or how worthy my > answers were, but you have mine anyway. (I may need some time > compression to keep up writing a lot on this subject) > > David Willis I thank David Mathews for presenting these questions, and I thank David Willis for stating his responses.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38652
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Willis, I have pointed out this reference before, but in this post I want to specifically draw your attention to it and ask you just one question. On the following web page is a detailed discussion about the supernova SN1987A by astronomer Dr. Richard McCray: http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm Go to the bottom of the page, then go up to the third from last graphic. This is multiple frame time-lapse graphic that shows the blast wave from SN1987A impacting the primary gas ring that surrounds the star. (If you have a slow connection, you'll need to give the graphics a little time to load into your browser.) These are direct observations of the blast wave from the explosion. Now here are the straightforward questions for you: Did this sequence of events, the explosion blast wave progressively impacting the gas ring, ever happen, or is what we are witnessing not real? If it is not real, then how is it that you know it isn't real? What relevant data shows you that the blast wave impacting the gas ring is something that did not occur even though we are witnessing it?
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38700
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit participants and readers,
David Willis' response to the question regarding the reality of the blast wave that we are directly witnessing provides a distinct demonstration of the fallacy of the position of young earth creationism. For decades young earth creationists have told us that claims about a distant past are simply speculations based on "uniformitarian assumptions." But when it is pointed out that the antiquity of the world is observed directly (in the case of the scientific field of astronomy) — a fact which proves that this YEC criticism is completely wrong — they turn around and tell us that our direct observations of such events as these that have occurred in the distant past are not real but are just illusions of events that have never taken place. If young earth creationists want to acknowledge that events from the distant past are observed directly (which is exactly what the apparent age concept does, though it denies that the observed events are real), then why do they also make the contradictory argument that claims about a distant past are simply speculations based on "uniformitarian assumptions"? Since young earth creationists, in espousing the apparent age argument, already know that the fact of antiquity is actually based on direct observation, then why do they continue to make the other contradictory argument? This further demonstrates the incoherence of their position. As I have pointed out in earlier posts, young earth creationists do not really care what the relevant data is or what the relevant data shows about the matter. Their approach is to put on the table any and every opinion a young earth creationist might have, no matter how invalidated or illogical it might be, because, after all, even though they have no objective data that substantiates the idea that the universe and the earth has existed for no more than about 6,000 years, and even though all of the relevant, objective data that we have shows that the universe and the earth has been in existence far longer than 6,000 years, they insist with frequent expressions of unsubstantiated personal opinion that their doctrine must be the correct doctrine. Substantiation of their personal belief with objective data is just not considered relevant to the matter. At the web page http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm by astronomer Richard McCray (a researcher of SN1987A) we can see for ourselves that we are directly observing the supernova blast wave impacting the primary gas ring that encircles the supernova. (If you have not gone to this page and taken a look at the multiple frame time-lapse graphic, third graphic from the bottom, you should take a look at it now.) There it is. We directly see this event having taken place. This supernova blast wave impacted the surrounding gas ring. Why do I say that this happened? Because we see that it happened. This is not a theoretical extrapolation of data. This is a direct observation of the event itself. (Further developments in telescope technology are not going to make such observations as these vanish into nothingness, but will serve to increase the resolution, the clarity, of what we can see at such great distances.) David claims that this event did not occur. The supernova, the explosion of the star, never happened, even though we saw it happen. The blast wave never hit the gas ring, even though we see it happening. Does he have any objective data to support his idea that the event did not occur? No, he does not, and he explicitly acknowledges that he has no objective data to substantiate his speculation that these events that we observe did not happen. Why, then, does he claim that what we see is not real? Because it contradicts his personal belief. These are the facts of the matter. Now comes David Willis, as an advocate of the apparent age concept, who says "the data is insufficient for me to say if it is a real event or an apparent one." He denies that our actual witnessing of the event proves that the event took place. We watch the event, directly, yet David insists that "the data is insufficient." Yet the fact is that even his phrase "the data is insufficient" is incoherent, having no meaning. In using this phrase, he implies that while we don't have enough data there is the possibility that we could have sufficient data. Yet the nature of his apparent age argument has already contradicted even the possibility of having sufficient data. It is by this that we see the most fundamental fallacy of the apparent age concept. David himself acknowledges that he cannot explain in any manner how anyone could distinguish between 'real' and 'not real.' There can never be sufficient data. Even direct observation of events doesn't count. No level of data can be determined to be real or not real, because direct observations of events is the highest level of data that is possible in the real world. The apparent age concept is incoherent, in that it cannot be explained, even in principle, in terms of objective examination of the world. With the apparent age concept, 'real' and 'not real' are identical, because according to the argument it is absolutely impossible to distinguish any difference, at any level of detail, between what is real and what is not real. It is this fundamental fallacy of the apparent age concept that renders all discussion futile, because it purposely removes itself from the realm of rationality and objectivity. According to the apparent age argument, there is nothing to discuss, because if we try to discuss the objective details of something we can never really say anything based on such objective details because objective details don't tell us anything because it is impossible to know whether or not anything is even real. The apparent age concept is an ultimate skepticism. It doesn't matter what the data shows, because no matter what the data shows it is denied because what it shows contradicts the personal belief in the doctrine of young earth creationism. If the objective data confirmed their belief, young earth creationists would not be arguing that the data, including direct observation, isn't real. Of course, if the data showed that the universe and the earth did not exist more than 6,000 years ago, I would be a young earth creationist too. David writes, "God is capable to create mature things with apparent age, and I believe the Bible indicates that He did." No one has argued that God is not capable of creating things instantaneously in full form, and I'm baffled as to why David keeps writing this statement as if someone has. That is simply not something that anyone in this discussion has ever disagreed about. I would prefer that David stop repeatedly dropping this false implication into his discussion. We already know that David "believe[s] the Bible indicates that He did" (stating his opinion). This is the opinion that he seeks to justify. But all he has shown is that he denies the reality of the objective data, because it contradicts his belief, without having any objective substantiation for doing so. It is the substantiation of his opinion that "the Bible indicates that He did" that we are asking of him, and he has so far failed to provide any, even acknowledging that he cannot do so. David writes, "I do not conclude that a created mature tree would have to look different from a grown one" (stating his opinion). This is the opinion that he seeks to justify. He has not justified this opinion, either logically (recall that in a previous post he claimed that this was by definition, though he failed to explain what definitional aspect possessed this requirement) or with substantiating objective data. It is the substantiation of his belief that we are asking of him, and he has so far failed to provide any, even acknowledging that he cannot do so. We have already explained certain details by which we could tell the difference, objectively, between an instantaneously created fully- formed tree and a tree that had actually grown to full form. An instantaneously created human being would not possess a broken tooth (from an event in that person's childhood) nor a scar on his knee (from an event in that person's childhood), because such a childhood would not have existed and thus this person would not have a history of events that he had experienced. We might as well say that this instantaneously created human being was created with the memories of having grown up, with the memories of having climbed trees (that never existed) when he was a child, with the memories of having falling out of a tree and getting a sprained ankle, because, after all, as David himself has claimed, instantaneously created objects must by definition be identical to objects that have actually existed and experienced a history of events. Here with another of David's examples, we again see the nonsense of this "identical by definition" notion. Could God have instantaneously created Adam with the false memories of a childhood that never existed? This is the question that David keeps asking us, as if we have not already answered this question several times. Well, yes, certainly God has such power. But such false memories would be a deception, since in fact no such events ever occurred. And since deception is contrary to God's nature, God does not do everything that He has the power to do. The fact is that when David, or any other apparent age advocate, claims that instantaneously created objects would by definition be identical to objects that have experienced a history of events, he is simply mistaken. He is mistaken, because we have already explained how they are not by definition identical. But this is what takes us, again, to the point regarding deception. An all-powerful being certainly could instantaneously create objects that are identical to objects that have experienced a history of events. Again, no one has argued that an all-powerful being (or even a being with immense power but not omnipotence) could not do this. That is not the criticism, and no one here has expressed such a criticism. The criticism that has been made is that since instantaneously created objects are not by definition identical to objects that have experienced a history of events, then to instantaneously create objects and then also give them the features that they would have if they had experience a history of events even though they did not in fact experience a history of events is an act of deception, because the fact of the matter is that bearing the marks left by a history of events that did not in fact occur is deceptive, by the nature of the case. Since we are talking about God, in particular, and not just any powerful being, we are dealing with a Being for whom such deception is contrary to His nature. Impact craters have nothing to do with the planet Earth being instantaneously created in a fully functional form. What function does an impact crater serve? Did God create impact craters as a necessary component of imparting functionality to Earth in order to support life, or are impact craters the marks of events that occurred in the distant past? Contrary to David's unsubstantiated opinion, there is nothing here that is "identical by definition." Impact craters have nothing to do with needing to exist in order to provide necessary function to an instantaneously created planet. They have everything to do with catastrophic events that occurred at different times in the distant past, some of which resulted in massive destruction of life. The apparent age argument is an erroneous human concept set up by fallible young earth creationists as an attempted defense of their doctrine. As I have pointed out numerous times, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about instantaneously created trees having annular growth rings, nor anything about instantaneously created objects having to be by definition identical to objects that will have the marks of having experienced events in the past. These humanly-devised ideas have been injected into the Bible ("eisegesis") by young earth creationists trying to support their doctrine. (I still would like to see the explanation of the literal meaning of the water above the firmament, that I've been asking about but which no young earth creationist appears to want to try to explain.) Before I finish addressing these points about the fallacies of the apparent age argument, I should address David's question. He asks me: > If God wanted to, could he add a new star in the sky so that you > could see it today, or would that be impossible for Him? If you > saw it, how old would it have to appear? Would He be forced to > create a gas cloud first and wait 5 million years before He could > show you His newly created star? Yes, for the zillionth time, God could. No one questions God's power. What we are discussing is, what did God do, and when someone chooses to claim that God did do something in particular, then he takes upon himself the responsibility to substantiate his claim. Unsubstantiated expressions of fallible human opinions is worthless. There is nothing that "forces" God to create a gas cloud first and wait 5 million years before He could show us His newly created star. But if the objective data shows us a star forming from a gas cloud, which we see by direct observation, then it is ridiculous to then turn around and say, 'Oh, well, now that I see that the data contradicts what I was proposing, then instead of accepting these direct observations of what has occurred I will choose to believe that the data is not real.' This is not an argument about what God could or could not do. This is an argument about what we actually see that God has done, according to our direct observations of the universe that God made. Those who make the apparent age argument, in making this particular argument, have in fact already acknowledged that we observe that the universe has been in existence for a far longer period of time than just 6,000 years. They simply make the empty claim — empty due to being without any substantiating data of any kind — that what we see directly is not real. If David Willis or other young earth creationists wish to discuss the actual details of the actual data, and wants to take this data seriously instead of arbitrarily claiming (without any substantiation) that 'the data isn't real,' then I will be happy to examine the details and explore the issue further. But make no mistake about it, the antiquity of the universe and the earth are facts about the world is because this is the objective data. A star in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded about 168,000 years ago, and about 11 years later the blast wave from the explosion began to impact one of the gas rings that surrounded the star. This is not a theory, this is some of the factual data. When young earth creationists tell you that the data doesn't really show antiquity, that antiquity is just an "interpretation" of the data, they are making a false claim. What they are calling their "interpretation" of the data, is really their unsubstantiated opinion that the data is not real, an opinion which they can neither provide logical explanation of (because the concept is incoherent) nor justify (because the concept has absolutely no supporting data). Take a look at http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm again. If you want to claim that this supernova blast wave impacting the primary gas ring never happened, then an accurate factual description of what you are doing is that you are denying the objective data of the world that exists, because you don't want to abandon your unsubstantiated personal belief even though the objective data contradicts it. The objective data is the unequivocal direct observation of events that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago. Claiming that these events did not occur is denying the data by definition, because these direct observations are the objective data. Those who have a very strong desire to deny the objective data should go ahead and deny it. But in all honesty they should stop promoting their false argument that antiquity is nothing more than a mistaken extrapolation based on "uniformitarian assumptions," since the fact of antiquity is a matter of direct observation, just as I have been pointing out and substantiating all along. They should also stop claiming that they are only "interpreting" the data differently from everyone else, since denying the reality of direct observation has absolutely nothing to do with being a matter of interpreting the data in a different way. Saying it is is a blatant misrepresentation (a totally incorrect description) of what is being done. They should be bold about what it is they are doing, and should forthrightly and accurately describe what they are doing. It is wrong to try to persuade people to accept their argument based on incorrect portrayals of what the argument really is. This is my final discussion at the current time regarding the fallacies of this apparent age argument, out of the cornucopia of false arguments made by young earth creationists. I close by reiterating the point that while some of use completely disagree about this particular issue, most of us (on all sides of the subject) do not believe that this is a matter that is relevant to our salvation nor to our standing of faith in Jesus Christ. We discuss for several reasons, one of them, of course, being that there are in fact many young earth creationists who do believe that what we believe about this subject is relevant to our salvation. I believe it is important to counter this particular error, because those young earth creationists who take that approach seek to divide the church over this issue. One of the reasons I discuss this subject is because issues of religion and science are interesting to me, and in particular I try to point out the implication that this subject has in revealing some critical problems with 'traditional biblical hermeneutics,' in that there is this popular hermeneutical approach that leads to an interpretation of the Bible from which the doctrine of young earth creationism is derived. The fact that this doctrine is wrong shows us that there is some kind of fundamental flaw in the 'traditional biblical hermeneutics,' and this fact should prompt us to work on trying to correct our biblical hermeneutic in order to develop better interpretation. Our human interpretations of the Bible are fallible, because we humans are making them. When we discover flaws in our interpretations, it is our responsibility to work to correct them.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > Steve Heiden writes: > >> << Did this sequence of events, the explosion blast wave >> progressively impacting the gas ring, ever happen, or is what we >> are witnessing not real? If it is not real, then how is it that >> you know it isn't real? What relevant data shows you that the >> blast wave impacting the gas ring is something that did not >> occur even though we are witnessing it? >> > > Given that God is all-powerful, and controls matter and time, the > data is insufficient for me to say if it is a real event or an > apparent one...and it is also insufficient for YOU to either. > God is capable to create mature things with apparent age, and I > believe the Bible indicates that He did. Unlike you, I do not > conclude that a created mature tree would have to look different > from a grown one. I am baffled as to why you have concluded > that, and ESPECIALLY that you believe I must find your opinion > about that compelling. It isn't. If I was shown a grain of > sand, I also could not tell you if it was one which was created > that way or one which once was lava, crystallized and then > eroded. Could you? Do you believe God could create a grain of > sand or a tree which is indistinguishable from one that came > about by natural means? I do. If the Bible did not reveal that > the universe was created suddenly and within a relatively short > time from our present, I would have no reason to have an opinion > as to whether some apparent event on a lightbeam was real or not. > Because (to me) the Bible does not allow for millions of years > since creation, that is my main reason for concluding that some > inferred events on lightbeams are only apparent or "speeded up" > events rather than actual events in real time. > > Now my question for you: > > If God wanted to, could he add a new star in the sky so that you > could see it today, or would that be impossible for Him? If you > saw it, how old would it have to appear? Would He be forced to > create a gas cloud first and wait 5 million years before He could > show you His newly created star?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38727
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Willis, Thank you for acknowledging that instantaneously created objects are in fact different from objects that have gathered the marks left by a history of events. Thank you for acknowledging that instantaneously created objects are NOT identical by definition as you had previously stated. This was the major flaw in your argument that I and others have pointed out, and I thank you for realizing it. You offered another example that shows that this "identical by definition" argument is simply incorrect when you wrote (post #38725): > For instance, I believe God could create a mountain with cracks in > the rocks and smooth edges (as if some erosion had happened) just > as easily (and consistent with His nature) as He could create a > mountain which was pristine (whatever THAT might be in SH's mind). > Indeed, it is pretty hard to imagine any mountain God would create > that would not have cracks, and even a non-eroded edge would have > some "apparent history" too. Indeed, we have such mountains that have been created, though in a relatively short period of time rather than instantaneously, and by men using powerful machines instead of by the omnipotence of God, and these created mountains are far different in characteristics from mountains that possess the remains of a long history of events, such as geological strata of ancient oceans, and trilobites that lived and died having ruled the oceans for a hundred million years and which are now extinct. Just as God would not instantaneously create humans with the deceptive memories of a childhood that never existed, God would not instantaneously create mountains with the deceptive fossilized remains of creatures that never lived and died, in geological strata of oceans that never existed. The argument of "identical by definition" is a critically mistaken notion, and I'm thankful that you have recognized this conceptual error.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38738
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Willis, I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to this invalid labeling! I thought you acknowledged that an instantaneously created tree did not in fact have to have false annular growth rings. I thought you acknowledged that God could have instantaneously created trees without annular growth rings. This implied to me that you realized that instantaneously created objects were NOT by definition identical to objects that experienced a history of events. I thought you acknowledged that an instantaneously created human being (Adam, perhaps) was not in fact created with the false memories of a childhood that never existed. I thought you acknowledged that God could have instantaneously created a human being who did not possess false memories of a nonexistent childhood. This implied to me that you realized that instantaneously created objects were NOT by definition identical to objects that experienced a history of events. That is all I said, and I courteously thanked you for it. If I am mistaken about you acknowledging that these things are not identical by definition, but that God had to 'do something extra' to impose false remains of events that never happened, please feel free to forthrightly correct my error. (I should then retract my thanks, I suppose.) But call me a liar? Methinks there should be less thin skin on this.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote (post #38737): Subject: Unlike God, Heiden is deceptive > Heiden said >>Dear David Willis, > > Thank you for acknowledging that instantaneously created objects > are in fact different from objected that have gathered the marks > left by a history of events. Thank you for acknowledging that > instantaneously created objected are NOT identical by definition as > you had previously stated. This was the major flaw in your argument > that I and others have pointed out, and I thank you for realizing > it.>> > > Liar. I acknowledged no such thing and in fact said the opposite. > > I'm done with you.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38764
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Mathews, In order to be specific to the specific examples David Willis raised, and to which I also referred in discussion, these questions should be with specific reference to instantaneously created trees and instantaneously created human beings. David Willis acknowledges that God can, or has the power to, instantaneously create trees that do not have annular growth rings. He also acknowledges that God can, or has the power to, instantaneously create a human being that does not have the false memories of a nonexistent childhood. These represent acknowledgements that instantaneously created objects are NOT identical by definition to objects that have been affected, or marked, with the remains of a history of events that have occurred to them. I just want to make sure that we are very specific about this.
Thank you, --- In BereanSpirit, David Mathews wrote: > Hello David [Willis], > >> I consider it a major offense in controversy to willfully >> misrepresent an opponent. > > I do not know that you were willfully misrepresented. If we > searched through your posts in this discussion there is a distinct > possibility that we will find a sentence or paragraph which may > confirm Steve Heiden's comment, based (of course) on the manner in > which we interpret your words. > > So I kindly will ask you to clarify your position on the following > topic: > > 1. Instantaneously created objects are in fact different from > objected that have gathered the marks left by a history of events. > > a. Do you agree with the above sentence? > > b. Do you contradict the above sentence? > (i.e., your viewpoint is actually that: Instantaneously created > objects are identical to objects that have gathered the makrs left > by a history of events.) > > c. Do you make the above sentence provisional? > (i.e., your viewpoint is: God can Instantaneously create objects > possessing all of the marks left by a history of events, if God so > chooses, but that God may not have done so.) > > *** > > I would like to know your viewpoint about this one matter, the > central matter of controversy in your discussion with Steve > Heiden. > > Sincerely, > David Mathews
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39146
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Mathews, As David Willis had already implied in his previous comments, he now again writes:
So, I stand correct (note that I have written "stand correct," not "stand corrected"). On Nov. 15th I had written to David Willis:
Later on Nov. 15th I also wrote to David Willis:
Even later on Nov. 15th, I wrote to you that:
So contrary to David Willis' earlier accusation against me of being a liar, I did not "willfully misrepresent an opponent" (and, of course, I don't consider David Willis an "opponent"), but was making statements based on what seemed clearly implied to me by comments that had been made by David Willis. So as it was, we see that my understanding of his comments was in fact correct. Thus, I do not retract my thanks to David Willis, because I know that he realizes and understands that the "identical by definition" argument is wrong, and I did and do genuinely appreciate his realization of this. David Mathews, as you noted, this argument was a "central matter of controversy" in our discussion, because this "identical by definition" argument, which is mistaken, was the basis for claiming this (follow the logic):
In fact, as we already knew (and as I and others had explained a number of times), and as David Willis also acknowledges, the truth of the matter is that the "identical by definition" concept is erroneous and is thus an incorrect argument. (By the way, I want to explicitly note here that what David Willis calls the "identical by definition" argument is the same argument that is often referred to as the "fully functional" argument. The general concept here is that the 'marks of an ancient history of events' must exist in any instantaneously created object. I also thank David Willis for his "identical by definition" terminology, because it actually helps to clarify the argument in such a way as to show even more clearly that the concept is mistaken.) God can instantaneously create trees that do not possess annular growth rings, because instantaneously created trees do NOT by definition have to have growth rings. Thus, if God added to such trees characteristics that they would have if they had experienced a history of events, these characteristics would be deceptive in showing the marks of a history of events that never in fact occurred. If God added the false memories of a nonexistent childhood (that do NOT by definition have to exist) to an instantaneously created human being, this would be deceptive in that the human being would remember things that never happened. Needless to say, it is not 'old earthers' who are arguing that God is deceptive. To the contrary, we state unequivocally that God is not deceptive. What we have been pointing out all along is that the apparent age concept implies that God is deceptive, because of the remains of an ancient history of events which are deceptive if those events did not in fact occur. The counter-argument made by apparent age advocates, that these marks of an ancient past must necessarily exist because of instantaneously created objects having to be "identical by definition" to non-instantaneously created objects, is simply wrong, and thus it fails to address the inherent flaw of the fact that the apparent age concept does indeed imply that God is deceptive. Since God is not deceptive, the apparent age concept is false.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39273
From: Steve Heiden
Dear David Willis I thank you for your response. First of all, I wish to clear up a mischaracterization. --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > First, regarding my "liar" remark: > > Your prior post seemed to recklessly or intentionally > mischaracterize my position. Regardless of your claim of > "courtesy", the "thank you" also seemed to be something other than > courteous...rather, an attempt to say "you stupidly revealed what > you didn't want to reveal about your position." To the contrary, David, when I make mistakes (either factual or in conceptual logic) and these mistakes are revealed in the details of effective discussion, I attempt to quickly acknowledge my errors and correct them. I also try to quickly let others know of my appreciation when they do the same thing. This is the kind of behavior dictated by our Christian responsibility in terms of honesty and integrity, and though I'm human and am by no means perfect, I sincerely try to abide faithfully by this responsibility. > It was consistent > with other smart-alecky putdowns from previous posts (let's be > honest here...that IS what many of your remarks have been). I forthrightly state what I believe to be the truth. I understand that my critical comments, in being stated forthrightly, are taken to be offensive by some of those who have a stake in whatever position it is I happen to be critical of, but the fact is that it is the flaws in the arguments of young earth creationists that are the problem and that thus need to be pointed out (which I can and do substantiate in discussion), and the way that advocates of young earth creationism feel about such criticisms emotionally is totally irrelevant. I have pointed that out in order to forthrightly say this: David, I don't make "smart-alecky putdowns." If you think a criticism that I state is incorrect, then you should explain why my criticism is incorrect, or you should not complain about it with such emotional remarks as 'I'm offended by your comments' and 'your criticisms are merely smart-alecky putdowns'. These are irrelevant emotional responses and as such they are essentially misrepresentations of the serious problems that I have pointed out in young earth creationism doctrine. > I could not > imagine how you could have sincerely believed that I would assert > that a created object must be different from a naturally aged one > after I had argued as I had. I had made statements clearly > contradicting that. I do not and did not believe that that is what you asserted. Look at what you just wrote:
This is not what I stated that you have acknowledged. I stated that you have acknowledged this:
In earlier posts, in arguing for the apparent age concept you had attempted to justify it with the proposition that instantaneously created objects must have the same characteristics as a naturally aged one, "by definition." This was your "identical by definition" argument. When you acknowledge that "A created object can be different from a naturally aged one," this is also by direct implication an acknowledgement that the "identical by definition" argument is actually incorrect. Since they can be different, they are NOT in fact "identical by definition." That is all I ever said about what you acknowledged. In my previous post on this subject (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39146) I have already discussed the implications of the fact that the "identical by definition" argument is wrong. > Therefore I was > angry for what I felt was a serious transgression in controversy: > willful misrepresentation...and declared you to have lied about my > position. And note that I immediately wrote to you that I was sorry that you felt the necessity to respond in that manner. > In reading your > posts since then I'm reconsidering that perhaps what you wrote > can be seen in a less harsh light. I continue to believe that > you were being audacious at the least to accuse me of having > "given away the store" when I hadn't, but it maybe was due to a > misunderstanding by you rather than willful misrepresentation. > I will therefore retract my charge of "liar" and ask you to > forgive my intemperance in using it. Already forgiven. (In fact, though I knew your charge was incorrect, I was never offended by it.) It's already forgotten. What I consider important to the topic is the substance (or lack of it) of the points being made. The "identical by definition" argument is wrong, and because it is wrong it fails as an attempt to defend the apparent age concept against the criticism that it implies that God is deceptive. This is the point. > Your error or confusion seems to have been that my acceptance that > God COULD create a tree without rings was an assertion that all > created trees WOULD have no rings. I never said that. I stated (correctly) that you acknowledged that God could create a tree without rings. This fact alone demonstrates that the "identical by definition" argument is wrong. > I would NOT > assert that, but you characterized me as having said that (or so > it seemed to me): > > >> Thank you for acknowledging that instantaneously created > objects are in fact different from objects that have > gathered the marks left by a history of events. >> > > The correct way to state my position would be that I could > imagine that instantly created objects may appear different or > may not appear different than naturally aged objects. Yes. That is what I stated. > That is not > the same as saying they ARE different or WOULD appear different. Yes. As noted above, this was and is clear to me. > Although, I can > see Steve's point that that in itself (having EITHER potential) > is a difference, if that is how he meant it. Naturally aged > objects can only appear old, but a created object could > conceivably either have distinctions or NOT have them. And this is why the "identical by definition" argument is wrong. > It amazes me > that Steve and Al would be so bold as to assert confidently that > all the trees in a created Eden could not possibly have growth > rings! It would amaze me too! We have never made such an assertion! We have always acknowledged that God has the power to create them in such fashion. What we've been pointing out is that God does not in fact do everything that He has the power to do. There are many things that Satan does, for example, that God would never do, even though we all acknowledge that God is omnipotent and thus has the power to do anything that Satan has the power to do (since Satan is not omnipotent). However, at the same time we realize that God's nature is different from that of Satan, and for God to do many of the things that Satan does would be contrary to God's nature, thus there are many things that God can do because He obviously has the power to do them but that He does not do because they are contrary to His nature. God would not act to deceive us about the nature of the world that He has created. Since annular growth rings are not a necessary component of an instantaneously created tree (because such created trees are NOT "identical by definition" to trees that are marked by the experience of a history of events), God would not have created such features because such features would be deceiving regarding the nature of the tree. I have also already discussed other examples of this: Mountains with ancient sedimentary strata of ancient oceans containing the fossils of plants and animals. Such features are not necessary components of instantaneously created mountains (they are not "identical by definition"; they are not required for imparting "full functionality" to a mountain). The light (and matter, in the form of neutrinos) of the explosions of stars that have never occurred. These having nothing to do with what is necessary for functionality (they are not "identical by definition"). Human beings with the memories of a nonexistent childhood. Such a feature is not a necessary component of instantaneously created human beings (they are not "identical by definition"). And so on. The fundamental point is that this "identical by definition" argument (which is exactly the same argument as the "apparent age is required for full functionality" argument, but just using another description for it) is a false argument. It is wrong, and thus it does not explicate the apparent age concept from the flaw of implying that God is deceptive. > I suppose they > would be hollow inside or have some sort of artificial wood in > there. I wonder what that soil must look like or the gravel > found in the riverbeds...if indeed God had created Eden > instantly. If, indeed. In fact, this in an interesting speculative question. Just what are all the kinds of detailed differences that would exist between instantaneously created objects and those same objects that have experienced a history of events? What are the details of the many kinds of peculiarities that we would observe in that kind of instantaneously created universe? But while that is an interesting speculative question, the fact is that that is not the kind of universe that we live in. We do in fact observe, directly, that the universe has been in existence for hundreds of thousands, for hundreds of millions, and yes even for billions, of years. We do observe on the earth the remains of events that have taken place in the distant past, such as sedimentary geological strata that contains the fossils of plants and animals, and the impact craters left by comets and asteroids that have struck the earth. > The pertinent point is that a tree's having rings is not > conclusive as to whether it was created instantly or was > naturally aged. The reason it is conclusive is because God is not deceptive. > However, a tree > withOUT rings (if one were ever found!) would likely be > conclusive (from what we know about normal trees) that that tree > was created. I agree. > This actually reminds > me of the argument of Robert Gentry regarding polonium halos > found in granites. THOSE "rings" may be tantamount to finding a > tree without growth rings. Yes, this is a good example of the principle! (Unfortunately for the position of young earth creationism, the example itself is flawed since in fact Robert Gentry did not find what he thought he found.) > >> I thought you acknowledged that an instantaneously created > tree did not in fact have to have false annular growth > rings. I thought you acknowledged that God could have > instantaneously created trees without annular growth rings.>> > > Yes, I think I can acknowledge that an all-powerful God could > create trees without rings, although that of course is hard to > imagine. I guess I personally don't find it particularly difficult to ponder the idea of an instantaneously created tree not possessing fake growth rings. I also don't find it particularly difficult to ponder the idea of an instantaneously created human being not possessing the memories of a nonexistent childhood. I also don't find it hard to ponder the idea of an instantaneously created mountain not possessing sedimentary geological strata from an ancient ocean that never existed and not containing fossils left by plants and animals that never lived. > It is hard > to imagine also what a star in an instantly created sky over an > instantly created earth would look like too...other than what > starlight looks like today. Such a universe would be very different from the universe that we actually observe that we live in. This is the point. > I asked IF > a Righteous God wanted to put a new star into the sky tonight > that you could see tomorrow, could he? But no one answered. > Could He? I don't think it is certain that He couldn't, and yet, > the AE MUST say He could NOT. Actually, the argument is much stronger than that. The fact is, if the universe did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago, then what we directly observe today is light from stars that do not exist and that never existed. This is an incredibly deceptive situation, and since we believe that such deception is contrary to God's nature we do not accept the apparent age argument that God did that. And this is only in reference to starlight. There are also the other aspects of the world that show antiquity that we've discussed, such as fossils and impact craters. All lines of relevant objective data show the remains of an ancient history of events, showing us thus that the universe and the earth have existed far longer than 6,000 years. > I have not > asserted that any created tree MUST have no rings. In fact I > would find it more likely (for whatever it is worth...about the > same as Steve's opinion is worth about it) that a tree instantly > created WOULD have rings. But this is irrelevant. The fact is that it does not have to have growth rings. (The "identical by definition" argument is wrong.) If a tree possessed such a feature (growth rings) even though it did not in fact experience any actual history of growth, then it is a deceptive feature, so why would God add such a deceptive feature to the tree? In fact, God would not add growth rings to trees that never experienced growth, He wouldn't add impact craters of comets and asteroids to a planet that was never impacted by comets and asteroids, and He wouldn't add sedimentary strata of oceans with their corresponding fossils neither of which ever existed, because these would be deceptive. They are deceptive because they show the very detailed, distinctive marks of an ancient history of events. The response of the apparent age advocate is that, well, these features aren't really deceptive because the act of instantaneously creating things requires such features to exist in what is created. (This is the "identical by definition" argument, also known as the "these features are required for full functionality" argument.) The valid criticism of this response is that the "identical by definition" argument is a false argument. Therefore, you still have the flaw in the apparent age concept that it implies that God is deceptive. And you have acknowledged that the "identical by definition" argument is wrong. In doing so, this demonstrates that you have no explanation for why God would add such deceptive features to the world. Since such features aren't necessary to instantaneously created objects, they are in fact deceptive features, just as I've been pointing out all along. > But we don't > have to settle that speculation at all to defend the YE view. MY > position allows for either, and of course as far as we know the > trees DID have rings. Yes, trees did have growth rings. The reason trees have had growth rings is because the earth was not instantaneously created about 6,000 years ago, but has been around for a few billion years. I agree that in the hypothetical case the apparent age concept alone allows for either case. However, due to the further consideration that God is not deceptive, we know then that instantaneously created trees would not have growth rings, we know that instantaneously created human beings would not have false memories of a nonexistent childhood, we know that instantaneously created mountains would not have the fake sedimentary strata of ancient oceans that never existed with the fake fossils of trilobites that never lived in them, and we know that an instantaneously created planet would not have fake impact craters from nonexistent comets and nonexistent asteroids that never hit the planet. This is because God is not deceptive. Therefore, the apparent age concept in conjunction with the consideration that God is not deceptive means that the apparent age concept does not allow for God creating a world with completely detailed deceptive features of a history of events that never happened. This is the fundamental flaw in the apparent age argument. > The presence of > growth rings (or apparent events on lightbeams) is consistent with > my view...and with the character of God. Since they would be deceptive features, they are not consistent with God's nature. This is the point. > The absence of > finding anything in nature equivalent to a tree without rings > cannot be used successfully as positive evidence supporting AE. And, lucky for me, I have never claimed that that is positive evidence supporting antiquity. What I have pointed out to you, with dozens of examples and with substantiating information, is that we have directly observed the antiquity of the universe, and we have observed features on the earth that are the results of an ancient history of events (because with many such features it is physically impossible for them to have occurred within a period of only 6,000 years). > Can't we agree that both sides of this have rather arbitrary > philosophical standards of what God could or couldn't do without > being deceptive? No. I have already shown otherwise. > We all agree > that making the earth appear flat was not a deceptive act This argument is completely different from your apparent age argument. Just because you are using the word "appear" in the genuine sense of "apparent" does not automatically equate this to the incorrect usage of the word "apparent" in the term "apparent age concept." The fact is that when we consider all relevant details about this matter about the earth, we realize, according to the relevant objective data, that the earth is not flat. This fact destroys the use of this argument as any kind of justification for the apparent age argument. If these two argument were truly parallel, this would imply then that you could produce relevant objective data to substantiate your claim that the world has not existed more than about 6,000 years, just as we can produce relevant objective data that substantiates the fact that the earth is not flat. But the apparent age argument doesn't even try to produce data. Just the opposite: It denies that objective data is real. > ...and making the sun and stars look small in comparison to the > earth are not deceptions...right? (Please answer). Correct. Why? Because when we consider all of the objective data relevant to the matter we realize that the sun and the stars (the vast majority of stars, anyway) are much larger than the earth — according to the objective data. We don't deny the objective data. Again, this fact destroys your use of this as any kind of justification for the apparent age argument. Apparent age advocates never produce any objective data to support the argument. They can't, because the very basis of their argument is that the data is not real, so for apparent age advocates objective data cannot, in principle, substantiate anything. [In these examples of an "apparently flat" earth and an "apparently small" sun, this is using the word "apparent" according to its genuine meaning. I discussed this in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38628 where I wrote, "But here is what the advocates of the apparent age argument neglect to consider: 'Apparent age' literally means that 'age' is only 'apparent,' but that deeper, detailed examination will reveal that the 'age' is not genuine. Since the age is only apparent but not genuine, it is apparent age." But then I pointed out apparent age advocates do not actually use the real meaning of the word 'apparent' when they call their concept "apparent age." I explained that the apparent age advocate "has not produced any deeper, detailed information which substantiates his idea that the age is only apparent but not genuine. In fact, the apparent age concept as argued by young earth creationists breaks down at this very point because of the fact that it is nothing more than pure speculation by fallible human beings who have absolutely nothing to substantiate their speculation. They specifically argue that all of the data, right down to every detail that could possibly be examined, does show antiquity (age), but they deny that the data is real. Do they have any data, any details, that support their contention that the data has merely been "misinterpreted"? They don't, and the problem that they themselves have made, is that it is impossible for them to substantiate their argument with any data at all because they have purposely abandoned all data by declaring that all of the data is not real."] > We also seem > to agree conceptually that God could create a functionally mature > tree or earth, but disagree on what details could be included > without being deceptive. You apparently "allow" only those > things you regard as "necessary for life" (maybe including tanned > skin or topsoil or oxygen, etc. even though a strict naturalist > would say those also imply a history of events) but rule out > anything capricious or simply meant to imitate naturally aged > things. I would say that cannot be ruled out, since God could > have some reason to have kept those details (like growth rings > ...they may strengthen the tree or allow movement of sap etc.) Actually, no. The features of growth rings are contingent on the history of the growth of the tree (such as differences between 'lean' years and 'fat' years in terms of the availability of the resources the tree uses from its environment). If a tree is effected by drought, or fire, such events will leave their marks on the tree. Patterns of growth rings are unique to trees, like fingerprints are unique to us, except that growth rings are the continually growing result of the history of a tree's growth. > the same for a created tree and for a naturally aged one...or > perhaps just for the sake of consistency. Consistency with what? Consistency with a history of antiquity? Now why would God want to make things consistent with an ancient history since He did need to do this and since no such ancient history ever existed? Why would antiquity even be a consideration? Why would God want to "imitate" naturally aged things with the fake remains of an ancient history that never existed? Keep in mind while you're talking about trees (which have a lifespan of at most, what, a few thousand years?) that you must deal with many other features showing a detailed ancient history of events. Don't forget about the supernovae. Don't forget about the impact craters. Don't forget about the geological strata of ancient oceans and the fossil trilobites in them. > We on the > other hand also both consider it not likely that God would > instantly create fossils of lifeforms that never lived or give us > "created memories", although He has the power to do that. We all > are doing little more than speculating about an imponderable. Correction: You're the one doing the speculating, not me. I'm the one dealing with the objective data and accepting the data for what it shows rather than attempting to deny the objective data by claiming, without substantiation, that it isn't real. And what does the Bible say about tree rings? Absolutely nothing. What does the Bible say about SN1987A and when the explosion occurred? Absolutely nothing. What does the Bible say about impact craters and trilobite fossils? Absolutely nothing. What scriptural passage discusses the apparent age concept? Absolute none. Now tell us again who's speculating. > God behaves sometimes > in ways we would not predict. Of course He does. > I sometimes struggle > to fit events I read about in the OT into a cohesive picture of a > Holy God. I do too. Now let's keep in mind the fact that we're not talking about the Old Testament. We're discussing the apparent age concept that is being argued by young earth creationists. > Sometimes it is > necessary to simply say that God is Holy and whatever He does is > by definition "good." I think it is impossible to pretend to > know with any certainty what is or isn't intrinsically > "deceptive" or what a "non-deceptive Righteous God" could or > couldn't do. This is like saying "We can't really learn anything for certain about the world by investigating it in a careful objective manner" (scientific investigation). But, you know, the earth really does orbit the sun, instead of the other way around. This is a certainty. I know when something is deceptive. If trilobites never existed, then trilobite fossils are deceptive. This is a certainty. If the ancient ocean that produced exactly (all relevant detail) the sedimentary strata that is in a mountain, and that ocean never existed, then this strata is very deceptive. This is a certainty. If the impact craters on the earth (and the moon, and Mars, and Mercury, and the moons of Jupiter, and...) were never produced by impacts, they are incredibly deceptive features. The detailed objective data of these deceptions is absolutely exquisite. This is a certainty. Check out http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm again about the supernova SN1987A. Such very detailed objective data is phenomenally deceptive if in fact this supernova never happened. It is certain that this is deceptive if it never took place. All of the detailed objective data that shows us an ancient history is deceptive if none of the events of this history ever happened and if none of the things that we observe to have existed ever existed. This is simply the fact of the matter, precisely because instantaneous creation does not require any such features (which is the point you have acknowledged, since you agree that God can create objects without the remains of a history of events that never happened). > To build an > AE argument around such an elusive concept depends too much on > philosophical hypotheticals which cannot be known. Therefore, > this argument as an offensive attack on YE fails. > > David Willis This is good for me since 'old earthers' such as myself don't build any argument around such elusive concepts. The fact of antiquity is not the result of some elusive concept. The fact that the universe has existed far longer than 6,000 years is known by direct observation. All relevant objective data proves this. There is nothing elusive about it. The antiquity of the universe is not based on speculation. It is based on direct observation. It is the apparent age concept itself that is elusive because it denies that the objective data is real, and thus those who rely on this concept are relying on a very elusive concept. In denying the data, apparent age advocates are acknowledging that it is impossible for them to provide any objective data which could substantiate either the apparent age concept or young earth creationism. They know that the objective data shows that the universe is ancient, so they have no choice, short of actually abandoning the doctrine of young earth creationism (as they should, since it is factually wrong), but to deny the reality of the data. Unfortunately for those who find it too difficult to abandon the doctrine of young earth creationism, they choose to abandon the reality of the objective data and thus end up rendering the argument as ultimately and fundamentally elusive, since for them it is impossible for objective data to have any meaning. When young earth creationists resort to the apparent age argument, they demonstrate that those who have been pointing out that antiquity is an objectively-determined factual characteristic of the world have been correct all along.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39320
From: Steve Heiden Dear Onyxkylix, The apparent age concept is wrong because it is actually based on a number of philosophical incoherences. Just as a first example, it does not even use the genuine sense of the word "apparent" (as I've already explained in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/38628, and explained again in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39273). (I also discussed your wine example in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/37691. If a scientist had been present, he would have observed the fact that there was water in the jar [the objective data]. Then after Jesus performed the miracle the scientist would have observed that there was wine in the jar [the objective data]. In no case would the scientist be denying the objective data. This example is not at all the same as the apparent age argument. Apparent age advocates deny that the objective data itself is real.) David Willis and I have been over this ground quite thoroughly about the fact that this idea that instantaneously created objects must possess the same features as objects that have actually experienced a history of events (which David referred to as "identical by definition," and which is also commonly referred to as the "full functionality requires these features" argument) is a false idea. Everyone, even those who argue for apparent age, accepts the fact that this idea of "identical by definition" is wrong. You state that "if the universe were created recently with an artificial appearance of maturity/history, it would scarcely be a deception, since Genesis can be readily understood (wrongly, methinks, but readily) as saying that the universe was miraculously and recently created." I agree with you that this is the standard apparent age argument. Please note carefully and precisely this argument that you stated. You will see that this idea of "identical by definition" is embedded in the argument. Just in case it isn't clear, let's examine what was stated:
Yet the second part is exactly what is wrong. Instantaneously created objects are NOT "identical by definition" to objects that have experienced a history events. While we all agree that instantaneously created objects would have an "appearance" of having been around longer than they actually were, we also all agree that this does not mean that they must possess the features of having experienced a specific history of events. This is why I liked David Willis' example of the instantaneously created mountain, because in pondering this example we can clearly understand the difference between having an appearance of having been around longer (what you call "artifical appearance of maturity") and possessing the remains of an actual history of events (what you call "artificial appearance of history") such as the sedimentary strata of an ocean which contains the fossilized remains of plants and animals. We all understand that an instantaneously created mountain, merely by having been created, would have to have an artificial appearance of maturity. We also all understand that an instantaneously created does NOT have to have an artificial appearance of history. In writing "maturity/history" together as you did, this is precisely the equating of "appearance of maturity" to "features left by events that have occurred," which is exactly what the "identical by definition" argument is. But we already know that this argument is false, because those two are NOT "by definition" the same thing. Since it is clear that this "identical by definition" idea is wrong, then the apparent age argument is just as wrong since this wrong idea is one of its inherent components. This is what I've been pointing out. You write that "All the empirical evidence...is on the side of the Ancient Universe position." And apparent age advocates agree that it is (because if the empirical evidence showed that the universe and the earth has not existed for more than about 6,000 years, we would never have heard anyone making this apparent age argument). I find it very fascinating how a religious creed can have such an extreme hold on people's minds, such that they can look at the direct observation of an event like the blast wave of a supernova hitting a gas ring that surrounds the supernova (see http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm, time-lapse image toward the bottom) and then stand back and claim — without any substantiation whatsoever — "That never happened." I find this fascinating, mystifying, and troubling how some people reach a point where they decide "I will adhere to this belief that I have, no matter what the objective evidence shows." The reason this is troubling is because it means that no matter what the facts are, even if all relevant objective information shows that the idea is wrong, they have decided to arbitrarily hold this belief even though it has unequivocally been demonstrated to be wrong. Isn't it absolutely amazing at how much in a person's mind a human doctrine can become so closely equated to being God's actual words that all manner of correction is totally disregarded? Don't people understand that seeking the truth sometimes means abandoning deeply held beliefs because they are erroneous? A few hundred years ago Christians had to work through the difficulties of casting aside the false doctrine of geocentrism (and correcting their biblical hermeneutics accordingly). Today, our task is very similar. We are working through the difficulties of casting aside the false doctrine of young earth creationism (and correcting our biblical hermeneutics accordingly).
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, Onyxkylix wrote: > Greetings everyone. > > A recent post here emphasized that the notion that God created > the universe with an apparent (but not actual) age of billions of > years, with a corresponding apparent (but not actual) history, > implies that God would be deceptive if He did so. > > I think the universe is about 12-14 billion years old. But I am > not confident that the claim that an "apparent age" would make > God a deceiver is altogether valid. Here's why: > > At the wedding-feast in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. It > was excellent wine. There is no indication that it was > unfermented. The Greek word is "oinos," the ordinary word for > wine. If a scientist had been present, and had he used the > scientific method to study the wine to determine its history, he > would have concluded that the wine must have had a history of > previously being the unfermented juice of various grapes, and > that the juice had undergone fermentation to achieve its observed > characteristics. But the scientist would be wrong. The wine had > not been unfermented grape juice at any time; it had been water. > Jesus did not seem to feel obligated to clear up the "deception" > to the wedding-guests. > > Similarly, consider the conception of Christ in Mary's womb: by > all empirical standards, her pregnancy implied a certain history. > And yet, it was only an "apparent" history, not an actual one; > the miracle of the conception of Christ in the virgin's womb > would "deceive" any scientist who assumed that pregnancies always > imply conception, and conception always implies fertilization, > and fertilization always implies non-virginity. > > All the empirical evidence, imho, is on the side of the Ancient > Universe position. But I don't see how the "apparent age" > argument can be demolished, since it assumes that the scientific > method is inapplicable to miracles such as the creation of the > universe, and the validity of this assumption seems to be clearly > shown in the case of the miraculous conception of Christ and in > the case of the water-to-wine. > > Also, if the universe were created recently with an artificial > appearance of maturity/history, it would scarcely be a deception, > since Genesis can be readily understood (wrongly, methinks, but > readily) as saying that the universe was miraculously and > recently created. How can one say that the effects of a miracle > (whether it be the appearance of a Type Ia supernova or tasty > wine) are deceiving us if all the while the Bible is telling us, > "Your assumptions are wrong; here is what really happened?"
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39328
From: Steve Heiden Dear David Willis, You're welcome. I would point out that I have already repeatedly acknowledged and agreed that if God is deceptive, then all bets are off, and I really do mean all. However, I do not believe that God is deceptive, and I have argued accordingly. Since God is not deceptive, then what apparent age advocates are doing is denying the data. But if God is deceptive, then the objective data is in fact meaningless, just as you've been saying.
Sincerely, --- In BereanSpirit, David Willis wrote: > Steve Heiden wrote, > >> << Therefore, the apparent age concept in conjunction >> with the consideration that God is not deceptive means that the >> apparent age concept does not allow for God creating a world >> with completely detailed deceptive features of a history of >> events that never happened. This is the fundamental flaw in the >> apparent age argument. >> >> > > Thank you for acknowledging that AA is not denying the data but > rather is a consideration of the data IN CONJUNCTION WITH a > philosophical consideration of WHETHER OR NOT a Righteous God could > create a world with apparent age and apparent events. That is what > I have been contending for, and have made philosophical arguments > supporting the conclusion that AA does not imply deception. Your > philosophical conclusion of your considerations is that He could > not and AA is necessarily deceptive...mine is that He could. You > chose to mischaracterize this as YE's merely "denying the data." > It is NOT denying the data, but rather a consideration of the data > interpreted in conjunction with considerations about the nature of > God and the concept of "deception". Thank you!
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39344
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, Your speculations are too elusive. Please put some flesh on those bones! --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley wrote: [snip] > > Why in the world would God want to be deceptive? He wouldn't. This is my point. > But, think of this: Could He not possibly do some strange > something that we humans determined to be deceptive when He had > some motive other than being deceptive? And what would that be? What are you referring to? You have not defined in any manner the concept you are speculating about. In David Willis' words, you are basing your argument on an elusive concept, and since this is so it just doesn't provide any support for your argument. > When God made Adam, did He make a full-grown man, or a baby? And did God give Adam the false memories of a nonexistent childhood? Did God create Adam with a scar on his knee? Did God create Adam with split ends, a missing toe, and a stiff joint in the little finger of his right hand where he did not really sprain it in his nonexistent childhood? All these elusive speculations, and no objective data to back them up, not even a single scripture! How much more fallible and erroneous 'human wisdom' like this must we discuss? > If Adam had died two days after his creation and his remains > were found a thousand years later, would man have found remains of > a man appearing to be about 30 years old, or what age would they > have "guessed" him to have been when he died? And just how many childhood injuries would we note on Adam's bones? How many, Wiley? I know the answer. Do you? > Brethren, there are all kinds of mysteries that we humans are > not able to grasp, and when we argue them for a lifetime, we still > do not understand them. > > The Lord says, "my ways are not your ways, and my thoughts your > thoughts..." > > Wiley D. You are absolutely correct. Fortunately, in this particular discussion we're not discussing any of these mysteries. The earth really does orbit the sun, Wiley. Yes, it really, really does. Is this a mysterious thing to you? The universe really did exist far more than 6,000 years ago. This is a directly observed fact about the world, I have provided numerous references that substantiate this statement, and I can certainly continue to provide many, many more if you need them. While you discuss your elusive, undefined, speculative concepts, I shall deal with the facts and, I'm sorry, but if you're going to discuss this particular subject then I'm also going to honestly and forthrightly criticize when you ignore these facts and make false implications about the antiquity of the universe and the earth being some kind of mysterious, incomprehensible subject. Here is this reference for you again: http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm (see the time-lapse image toward the bottom) There it is, the blast wave from the star that exploded about 168,000 years ago impacting the primary gas ring that surrounded the star. Please carefully describe to us just how mysterious this is.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/39346
From: Steve Heiden Dear Wiley, What I'm pointing out is that in regard specifically to the subject of the antiquity of the universe and the earth, this particular subject is not a mystery, we are able to grasp it, we do understand it, it is not a speculative thing, and we are not in the dark about it. In this sense it is equivalent to the particular subject of the earth orbiting the sun (rather than the sun orbiting the earth). There is nothing mysterious or speculative about the fact that the universe has existed far longer than 6,000 years. We know it by direct observation. Thus, when anyone claims that this particular subject is merely mysterious and speculative, it is a fact that this is a false characterization of this particular matter. I fully understand that young earth creationists commonly characterize this subject in this way. But they are totally wrong. If it is the apparent age argument specifically that you are referring to, then I must agree with your description.
Sincerely, --- In Berean Spirit, Wiley D. wrote: > Brethren, there are all kinds of mysteries that we humans are > not able to grasp, and when we argue them for a lifetime, we still > do not understand them. --- In BereanSpirit, Wiley D. wrote: > Dear Steve, that is my point too, brother. Such discussions > have no meat to present. We humans can only speculate about such > things. > > Like I said, discuss them for a lifetime and you will still be > in the dark.
|