Group

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 02:08:07 -0000, GourmetDan wrote:

[...]

>SJ>I am willing to pay GourmetDan the respect of taking his position
>>seriously enough to give him the opportunity of presenting his case
>>for it on CED.

GD>This group is so fortunate to have such a gracious moderator.

The above was from me in my capacity as an ordinary member, not as
the Moderator. In the past I have asked members to draw a distinction
between my role as a member and as Moderator.

>SJ>But if GourmetDan does not make the full use of that opportunity
>>(as it seems, from this post, to be what is going to be the case),
>>then that is his problem.

GD>Pretty easy to predict where this discussion is headed.

The "discussion" is "headed" in the direction of giving GourmetDan the
opportunity to state his YEC position.

YECs are welcome on CED but they should not expect special treatment. They
will be protected from *personal* attack but it is `open slather' on their
*position*, as it is with any position (including mine), according to the
rules of CED:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/ [...]
3. Vigorous attacks against a member's *position* are expected, but attacks
against a member's *person* will not be tolerated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If YECs think their position is true, that should be all they need.

Personally I regard YEC as not even a good fit to the Biblical data, let
alone the scientific data (see tagline).

GD>I thought it best to begin with generalities, outline positions,
>provide some references to read and discuss, etc and then go from
>there. Obviously SEJ finds this approach deficient and immediately
>concludes that I will 'not make the full use of that opportunity'.

As I said I was working from past experience that YEC are relectant
to state their position fully so it can be debated.

I will be *delighted* if GourmetDan does "make the full use of that
opportunity" to state his YEC position.

GD>I think he is correct. I don't think I will take advantage of
>the 'opportunity'.

That's fine by me. It just confirms my view of ~8 years debating on C/E
lists that YEC is such a weak position (both Biblically and scientifically),
that it cannot survive on a level playing field in the free marketplace of
ideas.

>>GD>The plain reading of Scripture points to a recent creation.
>>>
>>>(Gen 1:5 - "... And there was evening, and there was morning - the
>>>first day.) Ussher's chronology proceeds from there.

>SJ>GourmetDan has *hardly* provided: "a) Biblical ... evidence in
>>support of the "recent creation (<10,000 yrs) of the universe"!

I have corrected the above typo "<0 yrs" back to "<10,000 yrs".

>SJ>The meaning of the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is equivocal, and
>>does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour solar day (see tagline).

GD>Do you think maybe that's why the Holy Spirit put "And there was
>evening, and there was morning..." into the verse?

If the "day" is symbolic then so are the parts of that day:

"The expression "evening and morning" is capable of several
interpretations. ... If one takes a metaphorical interpretation of the
word yom, then mutatis mutandis the expression evening and
morning, must be metaphorical." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK,
1967, reprint, pp.146-147)

GD>Could it be there just so that OEC's would have to 'dance around' the
>use of 'evening' and 'morning' to make their error apparent?

No. See above.

GD>Don't bother responding.

As those who know me longest, I will always "bother responding" to
attacks on my OEC/PC position! I run away from nothing and rule out
nothing. My long-held view is that if my position cannot survive on a level
playing field in the free marketplace of ideas, then it is not worth holding.

My only problem these days is I am studying a Biology degree and I don't
have as much time as I used to. However, starting today I have a 3 week
Mid-Semester break, and though I have some assignments due, I would be
*delighted* to answer any questions GourmetDan (or anyone) has about
my OEC position.

GD>Those are rhetorical questions.

I don't accept that these are "rhetorical questions". If GourmetDan asks
them, I assume he *means* them.

>SJ>I am used to YECs on C/E list who seem very reluctant to state
>>their position in any detail and always seem to want to change the
>>subject and/or attack other positions.
>>
>>As I do with evolutionists who seem similarly reluctant to state
>>their position, I assume it is because they don't really believe
>>their own position can stand up to scrutiny. I hope GourmetDan is
>>an exception to this rule.

GD>Just a guess, but I'll bet this rule invariably applies to everyone
>who disagrees with SEJ.

GourmetDan's "guess" is wrong. The "rule" applies to *all* those "who
seem ... reluctant to state their position".

I have no problem with *anyone* "who disagree... with" me. There are
members on this list who have been on it from the beginning who disagree
with me and I with them.

I admire and respect those who state their position and defend it fair and
square, even if I don't agree with it (e.g. atheistic evolution).

>SJ>In particular I would expect GourmetDan to show how he gets
>>from "Ezra and Nehemiah" in "the fifth century B.C. in Ussher's
>>Chronology" to the "birthday of Christ and thus connect the older
>>narrative to the present":

GD>That would be the prophecy of 'weeks' in Daniel 9. This describes a
>483 year period from the prophecy to rebuild the temple until 'the
>Annointed One' comes.

Thanks to GourmetDan for this. Since I basically agree with the view that
"the prophecy of 'weeks' in Daniel 9" does "describe... a 483 year period
from the prophecy to rebuild the temple until 'the Annointed One' comes" I
will accept that as an answer to my question for "GourmetDan to show how
he gets from "Ezra and Nehemiah" in "the fifth century B.C. in Ussher's
Chronology" to the "birthday of Christ...".

So now, I await GourmetDan's laying out in *detail* how "Ussher's
chronology proceeds from there", i.e. from 4004BC to the time of "Ezra
and Nehemiah".

GD>This was fulfilled with the Triumphal Entry of Christ just prior to
>His crucifixion. To the very day by some calculations.

See above. I agree with this basically, but it has its problems. I prefer
the sabbath-cycle interpretation of Robert C. Newman at
http://www.ibri.org/09timeofmessiah.htm.

[...]

>SJ>period of Ezra and Nehemiah, the fifth century B.C. in
>>Ussher's Chronology." (Gould S.J., "Fall in the House of
>>Ussher," in "Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natural History,"
>>Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp.187-188)

GD>Would that be Stephen J Gould the unbeliever and evolutionist?

No it is the *late* "Stephen J Gould the" *former* "unbeliever and
evolutionist".

GD>I can understand using the statements of unbelievers that *support*
>Scripture to show it's ultimate reliability, but I don't understand
>using 'unbelievers' to comment on the unreliability of Scripture.

Gould was actually criticising his fellow evolutionists for their
simplistic attacks on Ussher.

And the point he made was valid. One cannot arrive at "Ussher's 4004
... a date ... from adding up the ages of people named in the lineages
of the scripture."

GD>Isn't that like asking Karl Marx to defend capitalism?
>
>Does that *really* support your position?

What Gould said was *true*, so I agree with it.

GD>Again, rhetorical questions.

See above on me not accepting that these are "rhetorical questions".

>>GD>The evidence for a declining speed of light is the scientific
>>>support for recent creation. While Paul Davies is making
>>>headlines today, Barry Setterfield (www.setterfield.org) has
>>>proposed a declining speed of light for many years.
>>>
>>>A declining speed of light means that the universe and the earth
>>>are nowhere near as old as 'science' claims they are. Especially
>>>if the speed of light has a steep decay curve as Setterfield
>>>suggest.
>>>
>>>Davies even suggests that the speed of light immediately after
>>>the 'Big Bang' was nearly infinite. The question then
>>>becomes, "What was the slope of the decay curve and where are we
>>>on that curve?" We could easily be just a few thousand years down
>>>the road from a near infinite speed of light, not billions.

>SJ>This does not provide "b) scientific, evidence in support of
>>the "recent creation (< *10,000 yrs*) of the universe" (my
>>emphasis).

GD>No, but I thought you would have looked at the link I provided to
>Setterfields work at:
>
> http://www.setterfield.org/
>
>and in particular
>
> http://www.setterfield.org/ccchron/barrychron.html
>
>that showed the conversion from atomic time to dynamic time.
>
>Evidently you did not look at the table at the end of the page as I
>had requested because it showed how the effect of a declining speed
>of light condensed billions of years into a few thousand.
>
>Setterfield also wrote regarding Davies' latest findings at:
>
> http://www.setterfield.org/recentlight.html

Indeed I have not "looked at the link" GourmetDan "provided to
Setterfields work" and I have no intention doing so.

From time to time evolutionists (usually) have posted web links as
their answer to a problem or question. My consistent reply is that
if a member thinks that an article on another website is the answer
to a question/problem, then the member should quote from that article,
prefaced by his own summary of the point he is making.

>SJ>What I expect GourmetDan to show is *positive* evidence for an age
>>of "< *10,000 yrs*" for *both* the Universe and the Earth.
>>
>>In fact (as I posted on another list in which there were YECs
>>present) what YECs like GourmetDan need to show is all* these
>>dating methods *converging* on an age of the Earth of (or Universe)
>>~10,000 years":
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>On 9 Jul 2002 17:08:08 -0000, sejones@i... wrote: [...]
>>>But this is all a sideshow. To me the *real* problem with YEC
>>>regarding datings are:
>>>
>>><snip>

GD>Surely you are aware that the post you offered indicating a need
>for "all these dating methods *converging* on an age of the earth of
>(or Universe) ~10,000 years" does not address the effect of a
>declining light speed on radioactive dating measurements at all?

First, if there was an "effect of a declining light speed
on radioactive dating measurements" then *all* "radioactive dating
measurements" would reflect that new "light speed".

Second, it is not enough for YEC for there to be a "declining light
speed". That could still yield an age of the Universe and the Earth
of billions of years. YECs need a "declining light speed" that yields
"an age of `< *10,000 yrs*' for *both* the Universe and the Earth".

GD>You do understand that don't you? Don't you? Again, rhetorical
>questions. Obviously you don't.

See above. At least GourmetDan by answering his own "rhetorical questions"
unfavourably to mehas shown that his "rhetorical questions" are
not "rhetorical questions" but real questions.

GD>A declining speed of light affect all radioactive dating methods
>equally because c has an impact on decay rates. Higher c, higher
>decay rates.

Agreed! See above. So presumably GourmetDan now agrees that if the Universe
and Earth were created ~10,000 years ago, "all radioactive dating
methods" would converge on an age of ~10,000 years ago?

GD>And no, we wouldn't have been cooked from radioactivity. The
>position is that energy release is constant over dynamic time. This
>means that quicker decay rates released the same amount of radiation
>over the same dynamic time. (dynamic time is time not measured by
>atomic methods. e.g. pendulum, orbital periods, etc.)

I don't go into those technical arguments about whether "we would... have
been cooked from radioactivity".

I simply take YEC's position at face value, i.e. that the Universe and Earth
were both created ~10,000 years.

And from that I make one simple scientific prediction to test it by, namely
that if "the Universe and Earth were both created ~10,000 years ago" then
*all* scientific dating methods (radioactive and non-radioactive) would
converge on that date.

But the fact is that not *one* scientific dating methods (radioactive and
non-radioactive) yields a date of ~10,000 years!

GD>Actually, radioactive energy release may be increasing due to an
>increase in ZPE over time. Radioactivity per decay event may be more
>powerful today than in the past, in terms of dynamic time.

See above.

>>GD>Michelson-Morely & subsequent experiments indicated a stationary
>>>earth when a moving one was predicted.

>SJ>See above. This says nothing about an age of the Universe of
>>"< *10,000 yrs*", so I take that GourmetDan is trying to change the
>>subject.

>>GD>Crick and Watson unveiled an information-bearing code when
>>nothing of that magnitude (which we are still trying to understand)
>>was ever considered.

>SJ>Ditto.

GD>Obviously, the statements above refer to geocentricity and the
>creation of life.

OK.

GD>Those statements were just two thoughts I had in the text that I
>didn't develop completely. I wouldn't get too excited about what they
>mean wrt my motives.

OK

GD>Can you guess what I'm thinking now?

No.

>SJ>What GourmetDan needs to provide is "b) scientific, evidence in
>>support of the "recent creation (< *10,000 yrs*) of the universe"
>>(my emphasis). Vague handwaving and trying to change the subject is
>>not good enough.

GD>Well, that certainly was a short honeymoon. Don't even remember
>getting kissed!

See above.

>SJ>"(yom) day, time, year. ... It can denote 1. the period of light
>>(as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of
>>twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time. 5
>>a year (in the plural; 1 Sam 27:7;
>>Ex 13: 10. etc.)" (Coppes L.J., "yom. day, time, year," in Harris
>>R.L., Archer G.L. & Waltke B.K., eds, "Theological Wordbook of the
>>Old Testament," [1980], Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth
>>Printing, Vol. I, p.370)

GD>To reiterate, do you think maybe that's why the Holy Spirit prompted
>Moses to write "and there was evening, and there was morning," after
>*each* and *every* creation day verse describing the literal 24 hour
>days of creation in Genesis 1? Hmmmm?

See above.

GD>What do you think that means, "and there was evening, and there was
>morning," if not to clarify completely and absolutely that 24 hour
>days are being described?
>
>Again, rhetorical questions.

See above.

GD>I have moved this to the end of the response for emphasis as it
>appears to be a general theme in SEJ's posts.
>
>>>3) What YEC needs is *all* these dating methods *converging* on an
>>>age of the Earth of ~10,000 years. That is what modern
>>>scientific dating (despite its problems) does in respect of its
>>>estimate of the age of the Earth. [...]
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------

GD>I am *extremely* disappointed in SEJ's conduct in this response.

I am not surprised!

GD>He has obviously ignored the copious online reference material that
>was provided and posts a reply that reflects a complete
>misunderstanding of my position.

See above.

GD>A declining speed of light affects *all* dating methods because c is
>integral to the calculation of radioactive half-lives for *all*
>radioactive dating methods. This is irrespective of any other
>problems those methods might have.
>
>And again, radioactive decay energies are projected to be constant
>over dynamic time meaning that higher decay rates were accompanied by
>lower radiation energies per event. Setterfield's work again if
>anyone wants to review it.
>
>Are you so uninformed that you don't know that? And yet you charge
>me with vague handwaving and changing the subject? Don't bother,
>rhetorical questions again.

See above.

GD>Sheesh. What a narrow-minded fool.

Since GourmetDan claims he is a Christian, I suggest he read Mt 5:22.

GD>Projecting one's weaknesses is
>the sign of an obsessive personality and this guy is a pro.

I have only attacked Dan's *position*. It is Dan who is starting to
get personal.

And of course this "Projecting one's weaknesses..." ad hominem cuts both
ways!

GD>I don't think that an honest debate can proceed under these
>circumstances. Been nice knowing you guys.

I am *sure* that "an honest debate" *cannot* "proceed under these
circumstances" if GourmetDan does not answer the key question about his
own "basic position" that "is recent creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the
universe":

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:01:00 -0000, GourmetDan wrote: [...]
>My basic position is recent creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the universe,
>earth and all life with the earth occupying a geocentric position in
>the universe. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

namely:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 07:45:30 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote: [...]
>If GourmetDan is a Christian, perhaps he will provide what he sees as the:
>a) Biblical, and b) scientific, evidence in support of the "recent creation
>(< 10,000 yrs) of the universe"? [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

GD>Recent creation and geocentricity are key to restoring the inerrancy
>of Scripture and understanding that the evidence is there is eye-
>opening. It was for me as I changed my views.

I had ignored GourmetDan's "geocentricity" position, as I am sure that even YECs
would not agree with him on that. I was only interested in debating his
YEC posiition.

GourmetDan's own `body language' shows he does not really believe his own
position
on "Recent creation". If he did, he would have been *delighted* to be asked
to provide: "a) Biblical, and b) scientific, evidence in support of the "recent
creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the universe".

GD>Anybody can come over to the TrueOrigins group and drop me a line if
>you want to discuss these issues. I'm no physicist but I will do the
>best I can.
>
>See ya.

*** Moderator: GourmetDan is still a member of CED, i.e. he has not
unsubscribed. ***

[...]

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The other major problem with young earth creationism. is the
overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth. This has been well
documented in several books in recent times. The size of the universe, the
many different radiometric clocks, the development of coral reefs, and
thousands of feet of widely varying sediment all argue convincingly for an
earth and a universe of great antiquity. To their credit, Reynolds and
Nelson acknowledge this current state of affairs regarding the scientific
evidence, without trotting out some of the usual, discredited scientific
arguments for a recent earth. The events of Genesis 2 which recap a
portion of the sixth "day" do not neatly fit into a morning-to-evening
scenario. Thus, it is questionable whether the young earth interpretation of
Genesis 1-2 is preferable. Even the International Council for Biblical
Inerrancy in their 1982 conference on hermeneutics refused to affirm the
necessity of interpreting Genesis 1 as a recent, six solar-day event. In an
invited paper for this meeting, I weighed the scientific and biblical evidence
and concluded that a young earth position was less plausible than a
progressive creationist position. Reynolds and Nelson conclude their
discussion by offering the reader a choice between a probable reading of
Scripture and a more plausible scientific theory (their view of progressive
creationism) and a plausible reading of Scripture with a probable scientific
theory (young earth creationism). I would argue that their claim that a
young earth creationism is a more plausible interpretation of Scripture is
dubious. Also, I would add that the scientific plausibility of progressive
creationism is overwhelmingly superior when compared to young earth
creationism." (Bradley W.L., "Young Earth Creationism: Responses:
Response to Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds," in Moreland J.P. &
Reynolds J.M., eds., "Three Views on Creation and Evolution,"
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1999, pp.78-79)
Young Earth Creationism: Responses 79
Stephen E. Jones sejones@... or senojes@...
Home: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------