> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
> <w_w_c_l@> wrote (in part):
> >
> > What gets me is that Jerry McDonald refused, on these lists,
> > to answer questions about SN 1987A, and refused to debate
> > astronomy with Todd unless he could talk about biological
> > evolution, but now Jerry has gone to the "Comments" section
> > of Todd's video about biological evolution being science and,
> > rather than make any comments related to biological evolution,
> > just wants to talk about SN 1987A instead!

My comments on some of Jerry's questions in Todd's
"Comments" section of his "Creationist Delusion" video:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Z9_ZiVbMIO0

JERRY: You never did give me a definition of what you
consider "professional."

TODD: "characterized by or conforming to the technical or
ethical standards of a profession"...

JERRY: My next question is: "Is a scientist who believes
in young earth creation, a professional scientist?"
---------------------------

Not if he's going around saying that there is any
scientific evidence for a young Earth, because there isn't.

If he was saying that, he would not be adhering to the
*technical* standards of his profession, for one thing,
because by the technical standards of common scientific
methodology there is NO evidence that the Earth is only a
few thousand years old. NONE. Period.

And for another thing, if this scientist knew better, but was
deliberately promoting pseudoscience as if it were legitimate
science, then he would not be adhering to the *ethical* standards
of his profession, either.

A scientist may *believe* whatever he wants to believe, as
long as he is conducting and reporting his research according
to the established technical and ethical standards of science,
but in the end it is the science itself that is "professional",
irrespective of the personal beliefs of the one doing the
research. Just look through the creationist literature that
has been produced by some of these "scientists" who believe in
a young Earth and you will find that they DO NOT adhere to either
the technical standards OR the ethical standards of professional
science.

And that is something the scientifically illiterate supporters
of these shysters just don't seem to understand: the profession
of science DOES have standards, and the young-earth creation
"scientists" violate those standards AT EVERY TURN. People who
know better recognize that fact immediately, because it's plain
as day. People who don't know better (oh, for example, Dennis
(Skip) Francis) end up looking like idiots when they promote
these so-called young-earth "evidences".



JERRY: So if a person conducts professional research in
the area of astronomy and comes to the conlusion that the
universe is no more than 10,000 years old, is he a
professional astronomer?
---------------------------

Let's assume here that Jerry McDonald is referring to
Danny Faulkner, since McDonald has recently been in contact
with Faulkner in regard to his problem with the light
travel time from SN 1987A.

Danny Faulkner DID NOT come to the conclusion that the
Universe is no more than 10,000 years old based on his studies
of astronomy. He came to that conclusion based on a certain
interpretation of Scripture.

NO professional astronomer will conclude, based on the evidence
from astronomical observations and calculations, that the
Universe is no more than 10,000 years old.

Danny Faulkner's professional research is NOT related to the
age of the Universe, and he has NEVER published anything in
the literature of his profession suggesting that his research
indicates the Universe is only a few thousand years old.

And even in his creationist articles Faulkner seems very guarded
about what kind of claims he is making. His article "Toward
a Creationist Astronomy" is more of an acknowledgement that
there *isn't* any "creationist astronomy", and some suggestions
about how a young-earth astronomy might be developed, than it is
anything else. And it concludes with some critical words about
Russell Humphreys' "Starlight and Time" theories, saying, in
effect, that Humphreys' paper should NOT have passed the review
process that allowed it to be presented at the creationism
conference -- because it allows for an ancient Universe!

(I have to say that Faulkner is about the closest thing to an
"honest" young-earth creationist writer that I have ever read.

But still...

Here is his homepage at USC, that contains a link to his
published research:
http://usclancaster.sc.edu/faculty/faulkner/ )



JERRY: Question: "Does Biological evolution depend upon
the fossil record?"
Question: "Is the fossil record not part of geology?"
---------------------------

Yes, of course the fossil record is part of geology. But
that doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth
or the age of the Universe. See if you can figure this out,
Jerry: There are rocks that are much much older than anything
that has fossils in it. Geologists have searched all over the
planet for the Earth's oldest rocks, not by looking at fossils
but by looking at formations that existed before there ever was
life on the planet, before there ever were oceans, before there
was even an atmosphere.

The fossil record is just one of many evidences of biological
evolution. The clear "progression" of life forms in the fossil
record was one of the first clues that was recognized. But by
now there is so much additional, *independent* evidence that has
been discovered that arguing against the fossil record is futile.

But Jerry, your problem is only incidentally related to the
fossil record, because you believe the Earth and the Universe
are only a few thousand years old. And that belief can be
proved wrong without talking about fossils at all. All the
talking you want to do about fossils is not going to change
anything. Regardless of fossils, the evidence that you are
going to have to deal with is *physics* -- the physical laws
of the Universe -- NOT biology, NOT palaeontology, and NOT
your attempted philosophical "refutation of evolution".

Evolution or no evolution, if the Earth and the Universe are
thousands and millions of times older than you say they are
then you have a decision to make: is the Bible wrong, or is
it your interpretation that is wrong?



JERRY: The context of your video says that those books
prove evolution and you admit that they don't. Regardless
of what else I have said on the comment section your video
still lies. As long as you allow it to remain you are
perpetuating a lie.
---------------------------

The context of Todd's video is that research into evolution is
legitimate scientific investigation, NOT that one or another
book or journal "proves evolution". Jerry McDonald has yet to
come to terms with that, possibly because he doesn't know
enough about science to know whether evidence is the result of
tried-and-true scientific methodology or not.

SOME of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for biological evolution comes
from the SCIENCE of GEOLOGY. Jerry McDonald has the hardest
time, it seems, making a simple comment where his yea is really
yea and his nay is really nay.

But speaking of perpetuating lies, Answers in Genesis still has
available online some old articles by Danny Faulkner in which the
existence of the Kuiper Belt is questioned, as well as a Faulkner
article about there not being enough supernova remnants.

Both of these articles have long since been PROVED wrong -- but
AiG is still using them. ALL of Russell Humphreys' "14 Evidences"
have been PROVED wrong (not to mention that most of them are
totally irrelevant to establishing the age of the Earth or the
age of the Universe, anyway) and yet ICR and many other sites are
STILL promoting this nonsense.

Also, Jerry McDonald himself has an article online in which he
claims Nick Capaldi, business philosophy professor at Loyola
University, is an atheist, and that Capaldi's book was written to
show atheists how to win arguments with Christians. These claims
have been PROVED false, by Capaldi's own words, yet Jerry refuses
to correct the DELIBERATE misinformation. As Jerry McDonald has
done with his fiasco over logical validity, no matter how solidly
something has been proved McDonald can just *claim* that he doesn't
believe it, and keep right on preaching his error, just like
Answers in Genesis apparently still doesn't "believe in" the Kuiper
Belt, in spite of hundreds of Kuiper Belt objects having now been
identified.

And even if it were the case that every single thing that "Todd
the atheist" says on his YouTube site was deliberately false, that
would not in any way excuse the deceitful behavior of AiG and
D. Russell Humphreys and Jerry D. McDonald.



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


Faulkner article: "Toward a Creationist Astronomy":
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html