Here we go again with the false assertions and word games again. No one "decided" that evolution had to be true. If the patterns in the fossil record did not match the predictions of evolution, then evolution would have been wrong. Evolution is correct precisely because the empirical data supports its predictions, and has supported its predictions decade after decade after decade.

Sure, Rudy, the antiquity of the Universe (astronomy) and the Earth (geology) is nothing more than a matter of "interpretations" that differ from the "interpretations" of the young earth creationist. I just don't buy these word games for even one second.

Here we go with more false assertions for the purpose of misrepresentation, by Rudy. Your comments here are half-right. People who, for example, seriously think that the Earth and the Universe did not exist more than 6,000 or 10,000 years are "open-minded," so to speak, precisely because they are ignorant about the relevant scientific data (in geology and astronomy).

The problem is not questioning things. Absolutely not. As everyone knows (but creationists love to distort) questioning is one of the core aspects of scientific inquiry. The problem is people who adamantly refuse to question their own religious dogma even in the face of a large body of unequivocal empirical data that has been accumulated over several decades showing that that dogma is wrong.

Because that is precisely what they do. As we're observing right now.

By the way, Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

— Todd Greene

First, notice that Rudy confuses GEOLOGY with evolution, when he refers to GEOLOGISTS as evolutionists.

Rudy has apparently never heard of the word "hypothesis" before, or how it's used by scientists. In doing so he demonstrates that he apparently doesn't know much about how science operates. Rudy ignores the scientific study, ignores the empirical results, ignores how science really does operate from day to day (and has the public record history to back it up), and then makes more false assertions based on his false assumption that scientists operate like he does.

— Todd Greene

Rudy, in fact you completely missed the point, and later I will deal with the various other factual and conceptual errors expressed in recent posts that I have not yet responded to. But at the moment, quite frankly I've grown extremely tired of you playing the silly game of running away from yourself. You're a young earth creationist and you know it. Every single time that you pretend otherwise with your word games you are playing a game of deceit. Stop it. Stop trying to deceive everyone that you accept geology and astronomy. As a young earth creationist, you despise geological science and astronomical science, because these areas of science are the ones responsible for destroying the religious dogma that you hold so dear.

— Todd Greene

---

[Editor's note: Pay particular attention to what I stated right here toward the beginning of Rudy's game: "Stop trying to deceive everyone that you accept geology and astronomy. As a young earth creationist, you despise geological science and astronomical science, because these areas of science are the ones responsible for destroying the religious dogma that you hold so dear." It was only by spending a lot of time persistently hammering away at Rudy's evasive rhetoric did I finally elicit from him the admission that he does in fact reject geology and astronomy with respect to the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around for more than 100,000 years! See posts #1103, #1104, and the final post below (that did not post due to Rudy banning me from the group) where Rudy finally admits his rejection of geology and astronomy — thus proving that I was correct about him and his deceitful rhetorical tricks from the very beginning! Ask yourself: Why are young earth creationists so utterly dedicated to such dissembling as this?]

Do the list rules support a man who chooses to play games of deceit and engage in insinuating rhetoric for the purpose of playing those games?

I do not accept your characterization. Rudy is using a lie to attack me. But I notice that you have chosen to jump in quickly to support him. If you cannot tell your cohort to cease engaging in his deceitful evasions, then you will demonstrate what is called a "double standard," also known as hypocrisy.

— Todd Greene

The question that Rudy will PURPOSELY IGNORE FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF maintaining his CHARADE:

Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

And will Bill now act to support Rudy's deceitful evasions, or will Bill request that Rudy come clean?

Time will tell.

— Todd Greene

I already pointed out to Rudy that he completely missed the point of what he quoted of me in the first place. Here we observe Rudy ignoring the fact that he mistakenly missed the point, and then he generates rhetoric based on his own mistake.

Here is the question I asked:

Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

Rudy has - yet again - for more than FIFTEEN TIMES, evaded the question, so he may continue his charade.

— Todd Greene

---

[Editor's note: The reference to "fifteen times" has to do with the fact - as is mentioned later on in this discussion - that I had already asked Rudy this exact same question in another discussion group in the several weeks prior to this discussion in this group, and he had evaded the question every single time before this as well.]

Yet again, Rudy has INTENTIONALLY EVADED the question, and then deceitfully states that he has answered the question. It is exactly these kinds of tactics that DEMONSTRATE that young earth creationists especially have little interest in "honorable controversy."

Here - again - is the question that Rudy has both failed and refused to answer so far:

Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

The fact is that all kinds of young earth creationists say "up to 10,000" years, and some young earth creationists will say "Maybe it's a little more than 10,000 years too." None of this changes the fact that they are young earth creationists. Rudy's answer is thus completely ambiguous. Moreover, Rudy knows he's being ambiguous and he's doing it on purpose, which is precisely why I keep referring to his tactic as intentional evasion, because that is exactly what it is. Do not pretend to me that there is "honorable controversy" here while these kinds of deceitful tactics are supported.

— Todd Greene

Here we observe Rudy engaging in more of his tactics, as he lifts a dictionary definition out of context and omits additional relevant information THAT IS GIVEN IN THE SAME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS.

Note how Rudy arbitrarily picks and chooses a particular definition that is out-of-context to the discussion, and that misrepresents the way I was using it, and then based on false rhetoric on his misrepresentation. Typical Rudy tactics.

And here again is that question that Rudy has been intentionally evading for the past few months:

Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

— Todd Greene

Rudy, I have zero concern about being warned about anything by a deceitful man. My interest is in the public record, and what it reveals.

Rudy, you are a young earth creationist, and you know it.

Rudy, you have INTENTIONALLY EVADED answering my question, precisely because you are a young earth creationist and you know it.

This is the question, which you have played virtually every game in the book to EVADE answering, and part of your game is to make deceitful comments based on deceitfully pretending that you are not a young earth creationist even though you are: Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question. Even Bill, another list moderator here has requested that you answer this question, and still you refused to do it. But that wasn't enough for you. You still had to come back and then deceitfully PRETEND to answer the question, even though you never answered the question at all - and you know that you did not answer this question. Just as the most current example, I have not asked any question about Ussher or Ussher's chronology. You answer some unasked question about Ussher's chronology and then deceitfully pretend that that is the question I asked - even though (1) you know for a fact that I have never asked you anything about Ussher, and (2) you know for a fact exactly what my question is, since I've only asked you EXACTLY THIS SAME QUESTION almost 20 times: Rudy, do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years? This is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

Should you ban me, as I expect you will do in order to try to keep your deception going, the record will show, by demonstration, that I was banned on the basis of a man who thoroughly believes in deceptive discussion - which, by the way, is NOT any part of "honorable controversy."

"A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies." - Proverbs 12:17

— Todd Greene

See also:

Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design'
by Stephen Gey (Florida State University College of Law)
(Dec. 29, 2005)
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent-ruling-on.php

---

[Editor's note: Bill or Rudy deleted this post. Don't anyone try to pretend to me that creationists can deal with the truth.]

Robert, you ask far, far too much of Rudy.

Rudy's game-playing with something so simple as dictionary definitions is instructive, even if it is only instructive in showing how young earth creationists do so love to distort and misrepresent everything in sight, all for the cause of their falsified religious dogma.

This discussion from the Wikipedia is actually far more instructive concerning the immediate (but side) issue (as we chase another creationist rabbit) of the meaning of the words "empirical" or "empiricism" (which, by the way, I'm fairly sure I have discussed in detail before right here in this discussion group, thus having already demonstrated how creationist love to use this dictionary game for the purpose of out-of-context distortion and misrepresentation):

Can anyone guess which nuance of the word "empirical" I was using, in the context of the discussion in which I have used it? Anyone? Just a guess?

Some people seem to work so very strenuously to turn the utterly obvious into some great mystery. Geeze, the density sometimes gets so high, I think it has busted my barometer.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

No, it isn't.

Why are you speaking for Rudy? Rudy has not stated this. This is YOU attributing an answer to Rudy that Rudy himself has not given.

You are correct that it's somewhat difficult to comprehend or understand an answer that has never been stated.

Bill, you have chosen to try to give an answer for Rudy. I did not ask you the question, I asked Rudy the question. Furthermore, YOUR answer for Rudy does not address my question either - just like Rudy has not answered my question. I did not ask about the age of the Earth. Read my question again, it is quite straighforward:

Did I ask about the age of the Earth? No, I did not. Did I ask about the age of the Universe? No, I did not. The question is, "do you accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years?" If you (or Rudy) seriously have difficulty understanding this question, please feel free to ask for clarification. But don't answer questions I have not asked and then pretend that your answer to a question I never asked is an answer to my question.

Also, I find it rather curious that you feel a responsibility to try to give an answer for Rudy that he himself refuses to give, and then act as if your answer is his answer. Since I began asking Rudy this question a few months ago, Rudy has intentionally evaded the question. Why is Rudy incapable of answering for himself?

Previously, Rudy indicated that you had requested him to answer the question, but now it appears to me as if you are more interested in participating in a coverup of his intentional evasion of the question. Am I right or wrong about this?

— Todd Greene

Bill, that is not the question. Read it again:

Rudy either accepts it, or he does not. It's amazing to me how when people wish to evade what is being asked they can go in a thousand circles AROUND the question without ever dealing with the question itself.

Thank you for using the word "apparently" <-- by which you indicate that you recognize that Rudy has not answered the question, and you are guessing what he may mean in trying to give an answer for him that he himself has intentionally evaded for the past few months.

If this is really what Rudy thinks, then Rudy's answer to the question would be "No." Read the question again:

If the answer YOU have given for Rudy (which is not what he himself has stated) is really his answer, then he would have to say, "No, I do not accept that it is a geological fact that the Earth has been around for more than 100,000 years, and I do not accept that it is an astronomical fact that the Universe has been around for more than 100,000 years." But Rudy has NEVER given any such answer, because Rudy has never answered the question.

It is also possible to disagree with someone without engaging in deceit.

Bill, here's the deal, and - as I've already said - Rudy has been playing his crazy game for months, and I'm just not going to play his silly game any longer. The fact is that Rudy is a young earth creationist. Dare I make critical references to the fallacies of young earth creationist rhetoric, Rudy is right there to play his game and (deceitfully) pretend he's not a young earth creationist and that my critical remarks are the YEC rhetoric are irrelevent since he's not a young earth creationist (which is the insinuation he's trying to make with his rhetoric of deception, even though - if you will read his comments very, very carefully - you will notice that he never actually states unambiguously "I'm not a young earth creationist" <-- if you think I'm wrong about this, go back and re- read his comments). I'm not putting up with Rudy's game of deception on this any longer. I'm just not going to do it. And any time that anyone pretends that my refusal to go along with the deception is because I'm not following "honorable controversy" I'm going to point out that it is a distinct mischaracterization, because the use of intentionally evasive rhetoric for the purpose of deception has nothing to do with honorable discussion. Which should be obvious, but apparently isn't.

I'm still also rather curious as to why you feel it is your responsibility to try to give answers for Rudy that he himself has not stated and does not state for himself. Rudy has not answered the question, and an "answer" from YOU is not an answer from Rudy.

It APPEARS to me as if there's a coverup going on.

— Todd Greene

Bill, here's a question for you this time:

Is 7,500 years greater than 6,000 years, and less than 100,000 years?

— Todd Greene

Bill, remember your rules?

Paranoia has absolutely nothing to do with it. And I know you know this.

That would have been fair, since Rudy has never yet answered the question.

Now YOU are pretending that he has answered the question I asked, even though he has not done so. This is EXACTLY the coverup I'm referring to. Here is the question again:

— Todd Greene

The question that is now being mischaracterized as a "false dilemma":

Either a person accepts it, or he doesn't.

If he does not accept it, he may provide all the additional explanation concerning why he does not accept it (or not provide any explanation at all), but the simple answer is that he accepts it ("Yes") or he does not accept it ("No").

There is no false dilemma here, but now the coverup is in full swing.

— Todd Greene

Hi, Bill.

In post #986, Rudy wrote "I believe the earth to be more than 6,000 years old." If Rudy believes that the Earth was created around 7,500 years ago - or 10,000 years ago - or 15,000 years ago - or even 25,000 years ago - then all of these numbers are "more than 6,000 years old" but substantially less than 100,000 years.

Here again is the question I asked Rudy:

Bill, thank you for acknowledging that Rudy evaded the question, by "answering" some other question that was never even asked.

— Todd Greene

In fact, Rudy is a young earth creationist for more reasons than just 'I don't accept that through geological we know that the Earth, and through astronomical science we know that the Universe, have been around far longer than the young earth creationist timeframe' (Bill, you were not involved in the discussion several weeks ago in the "coCBanned" discussion group; though with a short comment he stated yesterday he has reiterated a bit of what he stated there), but with the evasions going on right now, honest discussion can't take place on this particular matter. The question that I have asked Rudy (around 20 times now, or more) is only the first question, and people who love evasions can't even get through that one.

By the way, here is the question that Rudy has never yet answered:

— Todd Greene

Here is the question I have asked over 20 times:

If a person has absolutely no idea as to the age of the earth, exactly as you put it, then the answer to my question is "No."

Very straightforward.

Of course, Rudy has never answered the question.

Answering "No" could then mean one of two things: 'I don't know anything about the relevant science' or 'I don't accept the relevant science (that through geological science we know that the Earth, and through astronomical science we know that the Universe, have been around far longer than the young earth creationist timeframe).' But *for the context of me asking the question in the first place* either meaning of "No" demonstrates that the additional rhetoric that Rudy was using is itself based on false premises (false insinuations), because his rhetoric is based on ignoring the relevant science, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Rudy has made a number of false claims about science and scientists. People who do not understand the relevant science demonstrate that their claims have zero credibility.

And I think you know this.

Here again is the question that Rudy has not yet answered:

— Todd Greene

Bill, if the *age of the Earth* is, say, 2.8 million years, or 760 million years, or 4.6 billion years, or 61 billion years, but we did not possess relevant empirical data by which to determine the age, but at the same time we DID have relevant empirical data showing that the Earth has been around longer than 100,000 years, then the answer to the question

would be "Yes."

NOTE THAT A "Yes" ANSWER IS CORRECT EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT THE AGE OF THE EARTH.

I agree that there is *relevance* to the age of the Earth, even though the question itself is not about the age of the Earth. The relevance is simply the logical relevance in that if we know (through the geological science) that the Earth has been around for at least 100,000, then we also know (logically) that however old the Earth is - even if we have no idea how old the Earth is - it must be at least as old as 100,000 years. I agree with the logical implication even while I'm pointing out to you - correctly - that the question I have asked is not about the age of the Earth.

By analogy: Say we were having an argument about whether or not a particular road was more than 2 miles long. You insist that the road is less than 2 miles long, and I insist that it's significantly longer than that. Indeed, I say I'm pretty certain that it's at least 7 miles long, but I'll bet you lunch that it's more than 3 miles long. You accept the bet. We start at the end of the road, where it ends/begins at the highway, turn onto it, set the odometer, and start driving. We pass the 2 mile mark. We pass the 3 mile mark. I say, "There you go Bill, thank you for lunch!" You say, "Well, just for curiosity's sake, let's keep driving for a few minutes. You said you thought the road was even longer than 7 miles, so let's check it out." I say okay, and we continue on (while I'm prematurely thinking of the juicy burger I'm about to get). We pass the 7 mile mark on the odometer, and as far as we can see down the road (and we can see pretty far due to the topography) it just keeps right on going as it fades into the distance. You complain to me, "Now, hang on a minute there, Todd! Obviously, we have no idea how long the road actually is, therefore, you can't tell me that the road is any longer than 2 miles and thus can't justify your position that the road is at least 3 miles long. We just don't know how long the road is."

Bill, do you see any flaw in that complaint?

That burger sure does sound good just now!

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

Bill, I agree that an honest answer to the question is a dilemma FOR RUDY. The reason it's a problem for him is because of rhetorical insinuations that he has stated previously. All dilemmas are not false, and you have falsely characterized this as a "false dilemma."

Because of the insinuating statements he made earlier that made the issue relevant. He has made these same kinds of statement previously. In the "coCBanned" group, in two different discussions over the last few months he made similar insinuating statements, and then engaged in COMPLETE EVASION when I addressed this question to him for the very purpose of demonstrating the errors of his insinuations.

Bill, you seem to working very hard overtime to cover up what is, after all, RUDY's complete failure to answer the question. Which I find rather curious. Here again is the question:

— Todd Greene

Bill, I HAVE ALREADY STATED MYSELF THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, and now here you completely ignore WHAT I STATED.

Also, WHY DON'T *YOU* ASK HIM WHICH IT IS???

The coverup continues...

YOU mischaracterize my question as a false dilemma precisely because YOU ignore what I stated and YOU falsely attribute to me statements I have not made.

How do you know Rudy "obviously does not hold" the particular position you're referring to? He may very well hold that exact position. Indeed, I'm fairly certain he does - and one of the reasons my degree of certainty is rather high is precisely because of how diligently Rudy evades the issue.

Bill, why do you support his evasion?

— Todd Greene

Bill,

The question is not based on the age of the Earth.

Period.

I explained thoroughly, carefully, to you exactly why it is not based on or about the age of the Earth.

I have NEVER claimed that my question is based on the age of the Earth.

And yet here you are, in a truly breathtaking manner, pretending that I have claimed that the question is based on the age of the Earth and not based on the age of the Earth at the same time. I would never have believed it was even possible for a man to distort what I stated so horribly as this, if I had not seen you do it here.

My question is not about the age of the Earth. I never said it was about the age of the Earth. I have proved it's not about the age of the Earth. I gave you a very-easily-understood analogy to show you another example of how my question is not about the age of the Earth.

And yet here you are again pretending the question is about the age of the Earth. I agree with you that such distortion is truly breathtaking and astonishing!

Bill, that is not what I stated, and you know it. I stated that the fact that the Earth has been around for at least, say, 100,000 years (as in the question) IS RELEVANT to the age of the Earth IN THE RESPECT THAT LOGICALLY THE EARTH'S AGE MUST BE OLDER THAN THAT EVEN WHILE WE MAY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE AGE OF THE EARTH IS.

You seem to be working overtime to misunderstand the logic. The question is not about the age of the Earth. I have NEVER asked "How old do you think the Earth is?" That is NOT the question I asked. How can you so badly distort such plain English? I have not asked about the age of the Earth. I am not asking about the age of the Earth. My question is not about the age of the Earth, and never was.

If you think I'm overly belaboring this point, all I have to do is point to the recent posts that you've made to demonstrate that it is apparently virtually impossible for me to belabor even such a simple point as this. I've been accused at times in the past of being overly redundant, yet your post here, Bill, that I'm responding to is a perfect example of why I *have to* be so repetitive with creationists. Because they just don't get it, not even some of the most obvious things.

If we know for a fact that the Earth has been around for at least 9 years - and we do - THIS TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT THE AGE OF THE EARTH. (However, there is the LOGICAL point, that however old the Earth is, it LOGICALLY MUST be older than 9 years old.)

If I ask the question, "Do we know on the basis of the empirical evidence that the Earth has been in existence longer than 9 years?", then is this question about the age of the Earth? No, it is not. It is about the fact that the evidence shows that the Earth has been around longer than 9 years. It is not about the age of the Earth.

If I ask the question, "Do we know on the basis of the empirical evidence that the Earth has been in existence longer than 400 years?", then is this question about the age of the Earth? No, it is not. It is about the fact that the evidence shows that the Earth has been around longer than 400 years. It is not about the age of the Earth.

If I ask the question, "Do we know on the basis of the empirical evidence that the Earth has been in existence longer than 100,000 years?", then is this question about the age of the Earth? No, it is not. It is about the fact that the evidence shows that the Earth has been around longer than 100,000 years. It is not about the age of the Earth.

Yes, this is breathtaking and astounding that you think the question is about how long the road is even if everyone were to agree that we don't have a clue how long the road is.

But even though we don't have a clue how long the road is (20 miles?, 38 miles?, 127 miles?, 286 miles?, who knows?), we can still on the basis of our available evidence make unequivocal factual statements about the fact that length of the road is longer than 2 miles, or 3 miles, or 7 miles.

Apparently this point traveled over your head. I certainly didn't intend it to, because I gave you this analogy specifically for the purpose of making the point easy to understand.

CLEARLY THIS IS SO. I AGREE.

THEREFORE, when someone comes along and says, "I know the road is longer than 7 miles because I have traveled on in, and I can even give you satellite pictures showing the road, with scale, and you can measure the data for yourself," that person IS IN NO POSITION TO DISPUTE IT but must in HONESTY say, "I don't know."

But when he instead digs his heels in and pretends that no one knows it or that it cannot be known then he has crossed the line from an honest statement of ignorance to a dishonest claim of knowledge where he has none.

THIS IS THE POINT. THIS IS MY ORIGINAL POINT. THANK YOU, Bill, for getting to this point.

By the way, here is the question that Rudy has still not yet answered:

— Todd Greene

I'm not Robert, and in fact I have not had the time to pay much attention to what Robert has been writing (I have only glanced in a cursory manner at a handful of his posts). Robert may, or may not, agree with what I have stated (and I can't know without knowing what he has stated). But whatever the case, please don't attribute Robert's statements to me, unless I happen to specifically state agreement with him on a point.

This is not correct.

You are not correct.

Here is exactly what I wrote:

Bill, it matches exactly what I have stated previously. You are wrong.

I'm doing it. Right here in this post. And this is not the first time.

You have asserted that it is a false dilemma, and you did so only by quoting something from someone about false dilemmas. You have never once demonstrated that my question is a false dilemma. Indeed, here in your post I'm responding to, just as one example, you claim that a statement I've made "does not match with what [I] have stated previously," but then I just quoted my previous post and proved that it exactly matches what I have stated. You have manufactured a false dilemma based on falsely attributing to me statements I have not made. I have proved this. More than once.

He did? Then quote him. Quote what he said. What I have seen from Rudy is nothing more than a game of rhetorical ambiguity.

Oh, his position is SUPPOSED TO BE A SECRET? Why? So he can pretend one thing, while really meaning another? So he can pretend to be speaking from a position that he does not really agree with?

What position is that exactly? Quote him. Tell us what his position is, Bill, since you have apparently elected yourself his spokesperson, and I want you to provide quotes to back you up.

Why does he have to hide what he thinks? If I behaved in this manner you would be all over my hide.

— Todd Greene

You are wrong, Bill. Rudy said that "the data" (whatever he was referring to by this, I don't know) was INCONCLUSIVE IN REGARD TO USSHER'S 6,000 YEARS. I NEVER ASKED RUDY ABOUT USSHER'S 6,000 YEARS.

Here again is the question that Rudy have never yet answered:

Bill, why are you Rudy's spokesperson?

— Todd Greene

No, it isn't.

No, you haven't answered the question. You answered other questions I never asked, and then pretended you answered my question.

I did not ask you if the Bible is concerned about the data of creation. (I do happen to think that here you are contradicting statements you've made earlier, Rudy, but I'm not getting into that side track now.)

I did not ask you about Ussher's chronology. I did not ask you about 6,000 years. Here again (for, what?, the 25th time now?) is the question I asked:

This question has not changed. I don't think I have changed this question even one iota in about 3 months or so that I've asked you the question, Rudy.

Rudy, either you accept it, or you don't. If you do accept it, then your answer is, "Yes" or "I accept it." If you do not accept it, then your answer is, "No" or "I do not accept it."

I already know that it is a fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around a lot longer than just 100,000 years. We know these things through geological science (for the Earth) and astronomical science (for the Universe). My question is about whether you ACCEPT this scientific fact, or not. Here again is the question:

False assertion. And irrelevant to the question besides.

Rudy, again you ignore the use of hypothesis and hypothesis-testing in science. Every time you make the kind of statement you make here you demonstrate that it is you who does not understand how science operates, and also that you apparently don't understand the fact that IT WORKS.

And this is BESIDE THE POINT. The question for you is:

Yeah, or nay?

In fact, Rudy, since you do not accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 years, I have already several weeks ago figured out that your answer is "No." Here is another way to put it: Rudy does not accept that geology has shown that the Earth has been around for more than 100,000 years, and Rudy also does not accept that astronomy has shown that the Universe has been around for more than 100,000 years.

In other words, by further logical implication of this position, Rudy believes that young earth creationism is a credible position WITH RESPECT TO SCIENCE. <-- And that is precisely why Rudy's insinuations about my criticisms of young earth creationist rhetoric against science are completely bogus.

— Todd Greene

---

[Editor's note: This is where I reiterate the original point that I made in post #979. Remember that in that post I had stated to Rudy, "Stop trying to deceive everyone that you accept geology and astronomy. As a young earth creationist, you despise geological science and astronomical science, because these areas of science are the ones responsible for destroying the religious dogma that you hold so dear." <-- It is precisely this point that Rudy was purposely wasting all kinds of time and effort to evade. But as we observe by the end of this discussion, only through my strong persistence against his evasions, I elicit from him the admission that he does in fact reject geology and astronomy. Why do young earth creationist love to evade what they really believe? Of course, we know the answer to this question.]

Bill, I am just as perplexed as always as to how you claim that I claim that the question is about the age of the earth DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU AT LEAST 15 TIMES THAT IT IS *NOT* ABOUT THE AGE OF THE EARTH, and explained it to you carefully and thoroughly. Indeed, all you have to do is READ AT THE SUBJECT HEADER.

Re: "Age of the earth" <-- NOT my question

How can people read plain English and then attribute to me a claim that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have both stated plainly and explained clearly. How is this even possible?

You completely ignored everything I stated in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFEOT/message/1061

In that post, I made such plain and obvious statements as, "The question is not based on the age of the Earth. Period." and "My question is not about the age of the Earth. I never said it was about the age of the Earth. I have proved it's not about the age of the Earth."

Yet here you are claiming that I have claimed the exact opposite of what I have pointed out at least 15 times. Yes, it is truly astonishing! And yet you and Rudy wonder why I so often describe creationists as misrepresenting things. How ironic!

Bill, STOP claiming that I "claim the question is about the age of the earth" when I have NEVER done so. My question is NOT about the age of the Earth. It never was.

My question is concerning whether or not Rudy accept the fact that geological science and astronomical science have shown that the world has been around LONGER THAN THE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST TIMEFRAME - which thus shows that young earth creationism is wrong. Rudy either accepts that, or he does not. The question is extremely simple, and Rudy has so far adamantly refused to tell us whether he accepts this or does not accept it. Rudy has instead chosen to run away from his own position and live in rhetorical ambiguity and misdirection.

Rudy is the one who brought this matter up in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFEOT/message/976

where he began making his insinuations. Rudy has used these exact same rhetorical tactics with me at least two other times in the "coCBanned" discussion group in the last few months. I'm not putting up with his silly game any more. If Rudy is going to play his game, I'm going to call him on it. If Rudy didn't play that game in the first place, this would never have come up. Bill, do not attribute Rudy's game to me. Bill, do not lay the responsibility for Rudy's game at my feet. I do not accept it.

Rudy is, in fact, a young earth creationist. But like so many other young earth creationists these days (as I've learned over the last few years), they're rather embarrassed about their position being known openly so they attempt to hide the fact behind rhetorical smokescreens.

Which, of course, is an answer to a question I NEVER ASKED. Here again is the question I asked Rudy, and that I have asked Rudy for months, and that I will ask Rudy every time he himself makes it relevant with his own rhetoric vis a vis my critical comments of young earth creationists' poor understanding of science and their fallacious rhetoric against science based upon their poor understanding:

— Todd Greene

Rudy, in this particular case I did not "quote people" but described what you stated in my own words. When I quote people I make it quite clear that I'm quoting them. Since I did not quote you, why would you state that I quoted you?

In fact my description was totally accurate.

Rudy, your statement here is just bizarre! You yourself have provided the direct quotes of yourself above, where you do exactly that!

You wrote:

And you wrote:

Thank you for providing the quotes I was referring to that demonstrate that my description is totally accurate.

Incidentally, people who have such a poor understanding of science that they seriously believe young earth creationism is a credible position with respect to the relevant science have no business discussing evolution. It's like a guy who doesn't even know what algebra is complaining that the calculus is bad mathematics. His comments are WORTHLESS. And, yes, that IS an ad hominem remark, and, no, it's not fallacious!

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

Rudy, you just stated a young earth creationist argument.

Of course, your claim regarding the meaning of a "Yes" is incorrect. Here again is the question I've been asking:

"Yes" means "I accept the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than 100,000 years." The idea is a fact (which is not really what the question is about) which you accept (which is what the question is about), is the meaning of "Yes."

Look at what I wrote in this post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFEOT/message/1064

You, Rudy, deny "that there is such a thing as verifiable ways to date the universe without taking a number of pre-suppositions under consideration."

This makes you a young earth creationist, because that is a young earth creationist argument. (And you have made additional statements, such as comments you've made regarding the Genesis creation story, that also indicate that you are a young earth creationist, as I pointed out in the "coCBanned" group several weeks ago, and you've made similar comments more recently here in this discussion group.) You seriously think that with respect to the science, young earth creationism is a credible position. Young earth creationism is unequivocally wrong. The relevant geological and astronomical science on this is abundant and obvious. Anyone who argues about science from the position that young earth creationism is a scientifically credible position demonstrates in the act of doing so that his understanding of science is critically and deeply flawed. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. Which is precisely why some of your comments in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFEOT/message/976

are just plain wrong. And I think now enough relevant information has been gathered, while weathering through your rhetorical ambiguities, that I can and shall proceed to addressing that post directly and effectively (following this one, later), by cutting right through your insinuations.

What I have elicited from you is the admission that you seriously think that geology and astronomy have not established the fact that the Earth and the Universe have been around far longer (say, at least 100,000 years) than the young earth creationist timeframe.

You are reaping the fruit of your evasive rhetorical ambiguities, for which you have only yourself to blame. Your tactics have been noted for the public record.

— Todd Greene

Rudy, you deny "that there is such a thing as verifiable ways to date the universe without taking a number of pre-suppositions under consideration." What you don't seem to grasp is that that is a young earth creationist argument. It is an empirical fact that the Earth has been around for more than 100,000 years (learned about through geological science). It is an empirical fact that the Universe has been around for more than 100,000 years (learned about through astronomical science). Your claim that these are merely "presuppositions" is a young earth creationist argument, and it is false.

Your argument here is another young earth creationist argument. It is also false for three reasons:

1. The antiquity of the Earth beyond the young earth creationist timeframe is a matter of empirical fact, not "presupposition."

2. The history of the development of geology demonstrates that your argument is false, because most of the early geologists who discovered that young earth creationism was wrong (by discovering that the Earth had been around substantially longer than the young earth creationist timeframe) were Christians.

3. There is no logical contradiction between the idea that the Earth has been around for millions or billions of years and the idea that "God spoke things into existence." Indeed, this is exactly what most Christians today accept (geology) and believe (God created the Universe billions of years ago).

So your argument here is a completely false red herring. (Another one!)

This is another false statement. Indeed, modern cosmology accepts the fact that the Universe has not been constant, because with astronomical observation into the past we observe that the Universe has not been the same but has changed over time.

This doesn't seem to make any sense. Please clarify. We make conclusions about what it's like around the surface of the Sun from relevant information that we determine from observing various forms of energy and matter from the Sun. Obviously the circumstances here on Earth are far different from circumstances at the Sun's surface. This doesn't change what we have observed.

So your argument here, as I'm able to decipher it, is another false red herring.

Again you try to change my question from what it is. I did NOT ask you to accept it. Here is my question, yet again:

I asked whether or not you accept it.

What I don't like is (1) you've never yet directly answered my question, yet (2) you keep falsely pretending that you have.

But that's okay, Rudy, because even though you've so far refused to directly answer my question, going through many tactics in the book to evade any direct answer, you've already stated enough indirectly that I've been able to determine that your answer is "No." I have also pointed this out (that you've stated enough to determine your answer from your indirect statements) a few times now.

— Todd Greene

What do you mean "original question"? You imply that now my question is a different question. In fact, I have never asked any other question than this one:

That is the identical question I have asked you for a few months now, in the other discussion group and now in this one.

Gee, Rudy, you sure to love to make baseless assertions, don't you?

Geology and astronomy use a number of unproven suppositions with respect to various hypotheses that are being worked on at any particular time - just like all other areas of science.

Astronomy uses a number of unproven suppositions with respect to various hypotheses currently being worked on in astronomical science. So what? This does NOT imply that in astronomy there are no astronomical facts and that everything in astronomy is merely "unproven supposition." For example, it is a fact that Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around. It is a fact that the average distance of the Sun from the Earth is approximately 93 million miles. And so on. In other words, in astronomy we have acquired a lot of factual information about the Universe. The fact that the Universe has been in existence for more than 100,000 years is one of them.

That is correct. I know that. That's what young earth creationists do.

Don't play your insinuations game with me, Rudy. I already told you I'm not buying your game of insinuations. I'm done with them.

First of all, I have already pointed out to you at least three or four times (in the "coCBanned" discussion group) that Genesis 1-11 does in fact concern itself with chronology. I specifically cited Genesis chapter 5 and Genesis chapter 11 for you. In that group, of course, you completely ignored my references. No doubt you'll play the same game here and completely ignore the references again. We shall see.

Second of all, you are now pretending by insinuation that you accept the idea that the Earth having been around for, say, at least 65 million years is perfectly compatible with your "non-mythical" (i.e., literal) interpretation of Genesis, which we all know is something that you actually deny. Why would you try to falsely pretend that you think that 65 million years is perfectly compatible with a "non-mythical" Genesis creation account, when in fact you reject such an idea altogether? You really need to stop these false insinuation games. (This is the deception I've been complaining about.)

Rudy, you have made many young earth creationist statements and arguments, and you have yet to make even a single statement or argument that is not consistent with the young earth creationist position. Feel free to do so any time, and demonstrate that your position is contrary to young earth creationism. I've been waiting for you to do this, I have asked for you to do this, and you've never done it while at the same time have several times made young earth creationist comments.

As I've mentioned previously, you are certainly not the first young earth creationist I've encountered who has attempted to deny and hide the fact that he holds a young earth creationist position. This curious phenomenon has become increasingly popular in young earth creationist circles in the last few years.

— Todd Greene

Here we see Rudy making his young earth creationist insinuations again. Notice how he conveniently ignores the following: (1) Scientists have experiments that give negative results all the time. Such negative results are in fact relevant information that lets them know that their hypothesis was incorrect, and thus they modify or discard the disproved hypothesis and try another one. (2) "Experiments" in this case does NOT just refer to lab work, but also refers to field observation and analysis where geologists are out in the field observing and analyzing Earth geology in the natural settings, or astronomers are gathering data from distant regions of the Universe by looking at it. Ask yourself: Why does the young earth creationist ignore/deny the existence of the empirical facts? Answer: Because he knows that the empirical facts falsify his religious doctrine.

First of all, notice that Rudy completely ignored all three points (point 1, point 2, and point 3)! All Rudy did was remark on a comment I added after stating point 3!

Second, note that *I* was referring to the fact that most Christians around the world accept GEOLOGY and ASTRONOMY, yet here Rudy falsely pretends that I stated that 'most Christians accept evolution,' which is a blatant misrepresentation of what I stated!

Here we go - yet again - with more misrepresentation from Rudy. Note that I have explicitly and clearly stated - and reiterated this numerous times - that I have NOT been discussing either the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe, but have been discussing the fact that we know that the Earth (through geology) and the Universe (through astronomy) have been around substantially longer than the young earth creationist timeframe. Yet here is Rudy again pretending that the topic I've been referring to is the one I've specifically pointed out to him that I have not been discussing.

Finally, Rudy - as do most young earth creationists - simply buries his head in the sand and pretends that geology and astronomy don't have any empirical facts at all.

Hmmm... So maybe the Sun really does orbit the Earth!!!

Note also that Rudy seems to think that if scientists can't yet determine a particular value very precisely, then we can completely ignore all associated empirical data that shows that some other value that's not even in the running is somehow valid. Which would, for example, be like saying that astronomers could never state truthfully that they had unequivocal empirical data proving the existence of Pluto before they were able to determine the precise size of and distance to Pluto. In other words, Rudy has just made an illogical argument. Even if we do not know the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe to very precise values, this does not in any way change the fact that we already possess a voluminous body of empirical data from geology and astronomy that proves that the young earth creationist timeframe is completely wrong. (Note that I have discussed this point already in previous posts here, but Rudy has ignored this point as well, and continues using this illogical young earth creationist argument.)

— Todd Greene