> NOT SCIENTIFIC?
> Jerry D. McDonald
No, Jerry D. McDonald, your "scientific explanation" for how
we can see the light from the supernova SN 1987A, 168,000
light-years away, if the Universe is only a few thousand years
old, is NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL. Writers of unabashed science
FICTION produce tales with more scientific credibility than
what you have come up with this time.
What McDonald offers here is a mix of fantasy, delusion and
outright ignorance, with a heaping spoonful of typical McDonald
dishonesty thrown in. The bulk of McDonald's answer doesn't
have anything at all to do with explaining distant starlight,
rambling all over the place instead. I started not to even
respond to it, and if it wasn't such an exemplary specimen of
the kind of irrational argumentation we have to deal with out
young-earth creationists, I would not have.
Nevertheless...
McDonald begins:
> In looking at Rick Hartzog's response to my article entitled
> SN 1987A he begins with this quotation [from Jerry]:
>
>| I didn't admit to being wrong about the date that SN 1987A
>| exploded. Read what I said: "He assured me that I am in
>| error on why the gas rings were not detected." I am still
>| convinced of a young earth and universe. The only thing I
>| have admitted error about was why the gas rings had not
>| been detected. I am in the process of writing an article on
>| SN 1987A and will put it on my website when I am finished.
>
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4
>
> Which he took from a Youtube comment I had made on Todd Greene's
> video "Creationists Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science," and I
> felt it essential to let the reader know what this quotation was
> about. (1) I am not a scientist and especially one trained in
> astronomy, but I do know how to read.
McDonald's claim that he knows how to read is offset by his
apparent lack of comprehension of what he does read, e.g., the
quotes from Copi I have requested on logical validity (which he
has never yet provided), the quotes from Freeman and Herron about
macro-evolution I requested (which he has never yet provided),
and McDonald's utterly idiotic interpretation of Exodus 12:29.
(see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/221
or, if not available, I comment on that here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13094 )
Most recently McDonald has shown, by misrepresenting to Russell
Humphreys what I have said, that his lack of reading comprehension
is further complicated by his own eagerness to bear false witness
against those with whom he disagrees. (I will be posting the
documentation of that after this message.)
McDonald also knows how NOT to read, or at least how to *pretend*
he hasn't read, the relevant material that has been repeatedly
recommended to him on a number of subjects (such as Copi's and
others' explanation of logical validity), just as he did again
here with the explanation of why the gas rings around SN 1987A
weren't seen until months after the supernova was observed.
You'll see...
> In the book Astronomy Today by Chaisson & McMillian, in their
> discussion of SN 1987A,
>
>| "Theory predicts that the expanding remnant of SN 1987A is
>| now on the verge of being resolvable by optical telescopes.
>| The accompanying photographs show the barely resolvable
>| remnant (at the right) surrounded by a much larger shell of
>| glowing gas (in yellow). Scientists reason that the
>| progenitor of the supernova expelled this shell during its
>| red-giant phase, some 40,000 before the explosion" (p. 563).
>
> I asked Todd Greene, on the comments section of his youtube
> video, why astronomers didn't pick up the glowing red/yellow
> ring before the explosion if it had been there for 40,000 years.
> All I could get out of Greene was that the star wasn't studied
> that much, but I pointed out that the star had been catalogued
> as sk 69o 202 decades before the explosion. Greene could not
> give me a satisfactory response, so I included this information
> in my original article. I then sent the article to Dr. Russell
> Humphreys and astronomer Danny Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner explained
> to me that the reason that it had not been detected is because
> it had not yet been ignited until the star went supernova.
WRONG, McDonald! Todd told you to read the Wikipedia and the
McCray articles. *I* told you the gas rings were ionized by
the explosion! *Todd* told you the gas rings were ionized by
the explosion! Todd asked you *again and again* if you had
read the articles he pointed you to yet!
YOU *IGNORED* ALL THAT!
Now you come here pretending that nobody could answer your
question, which is blatantly false; you KNOW it is false,
and you DELIBERATELY LIE about it.
> Well, this made sense, so I changed the article and left that
> part out. However, on Todd Greene's youtube comments list I
> made the statement that Mr. Faulkner had corrected me about why
> astronomers didn't pick up the gas ring and Mr. Greene thanked me
> for my correction. He then replied with the following statement:
>
>| Jerry, I appreciate you acknowledging that what I have been
>| correct in what I've been telling you all along about your
>| comments being wrong and irrelevant. Therefore, just as I've
>| been telling you, you have yet to deal with the fact that
>| SN1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago - which falsifies
>| young earth creationism. And none of this is relevant to the
>| video of this comments page.
>
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4
>
>
> The response you read at the beginning of Rick's article (and this
> one as well) is in response to the above statement. I encourage
> you to go to the Youtube comment section provided by the link and
> see how Todd Greene evaded the questions that I asked for at
> least 2 days.
Yeah, be sure to read these messages, which will plainly show
that McDonald is not telling the truth. For example:
Todd wrote:
| Not ignored, Jerry - there you go making insinuations again.
| (1) YOU are the one who deliberately ignored discussing this
| in a proper discussion forum ("Maury_and_Baty" Yahoo
| discussion group). (2) You need to be more specific about
| what you're referring to. (3) You need to read the "SN 1987A"
| entry at Wikipedia, which is pretty good. ALSO, at the bottom
| of that page is a link to a detailed discussion about SN1987A
| by Richard McCray. Read that too.
---
Todd wrote:
| No, the problem is that in your ignorance of the subject you
| don't even know what to ask. Try again. Did you read the
| references on SN1987A that I gave you?
---
Todd wrote:
| Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave
| you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth
| creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science,
| and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop
| acting like a little bratty child and read the references I
| already pointed you to.
---
Todd wrote:
| Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave
| you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth
| creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science,
| and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop
| acting like a little bratty child and read the references I
| already pointed you to. (If you'd read the McCray discussion,
| you'd already know.)
---
Todd wrote:
| Why do you think we should have seen the ring? Why do you
| assume that anyone even studied the star in enough detail to
| see the ring in the first place (before the explosion)? Out of
| the billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, how many have
| astronomers studied in any kind of detail? What does ANY of
| this have to do with the fact that SN1987A exploded about
| 168,000 years ago?
|
| Thanks again for demonstrating for everyone the illogical
| nature of YEC "argumentation."
---
Todd wrote:
| So, you, a young earth creationist, didn't realize that we
| can't see as much detail of stars that are relatively more
| distant than stars that are relatively close?
|
| Jerry, we noticed the ring when the explosion energy lit up
| the ring.
---
Jerry wouldn't accept that, writing:
| We can see the ring now, not because of the explosion, but
| because as Chaisson and McMillian said that it was expelled
| 40,000 years before the explosion. What we should be looking
| at is the expelled ring and the explosion shouldn't happen
| for some 40,000 years yet, or we should have been able to
| see it all along. We didn't, so there is a problem.
|
| In Christ Jesus
| Jerry D. McDonald
---
Todd wrote:
| Jerry, you are a seriously confused man ("incompetent" <- your
| word). Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever. The ring
| is irrelevant to the explosion. The star blew up. The fact that
| the star *happened* to have this gas ring around it before it
| blew up allowed us to determine the distance to the star
| *geometrically* (trigonometry). Thank you for again showing
| everyone how clueless about science young earth creationists
| really are. I'm serious about this. Thank you.
---
Todd wrote:
| Jerry, here's the direct question YOU deliberately ignored:
| SN1987A, having exploded about 168,000 years ago, is an
| example of an astronomical event we've learned about through
| astronomical science, that shows that the universe has been
| around at least about 158,000 years longer than you young earth
| creationists say is possible. Is this astronomy about SN1987A
| just part of an evolutionist conspiracy to prop up the idea of
| biological evolution, or is it science?
[Jerry McDonald refused to address this "direct question" when
he was taking part in the discussion on the Maury_and_Baty list
and before he banned us from his own list -- and then went to
the YouTube site and began making his comments that are
*completely irrelevant* to the subject of Todd Greene's video.]
---
Jerry McDonald wrote:
| I don't recall the question ever being asked: I am working on
| this, and from what I have seen you evolutionists have taken
| the evidence and put your evolutionary twists on it to make
| it appear as if it exploded 168,000 years ago. When I complete
| my study of it, I'll be able to respond to your question with
| a scientific answer.
[Jerry is lying here in saying that he doesn't remember the
question being asked. That is one of his typical tactics -- he
pretends as long as he doesn't respond to a question he has
"plausible deniability" of ever having read the message. I have
*several* messages written to McDonald that he "pretends" he has
never read.
But if Jerry McDonald "doesn't recall" being asked how it
is, if the Universe is only about 6,000 years old, that we can
see the light from a supernova that occurred 168,000 light-years
away, then why did Jerry McDonald run away from that discussion
on the Maury_and_Baty list, and then go to Todd's YouTube page
and try to change the subject away from biological evolution to
astronomy? (for a single *prime example* of how Jerry McDonald
has *studiously avoided* the subject of SN 1987A, see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13200 )]
---
And on November 13 I wrote:
> In Todd's YouTube comments, Jerry McDonald asks:
>
>| Stop playing games Todd and answer the question:
>| "Since we see the large shell of glowing gas that
>| was supposedly expelled 40,000 years before the
>| star went supernova, shouldn't we see that shell
>| for 40,000 years before we see the supernova"?
>
> 1) No. The "glowing gas" wasn't glowing until it was
> ionized by the explosion...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13395
---
And November 14:
>| What you have ignored is the fact that I have
>| pointed out that the red/yellow ring supposedly
>| was expelled from sk 69-202 40,000 years before
>| it went supernova. Why didn't we see the red/yellow
>| ring before 1987?
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_ZiVbMIO0
>
> Jerry seems determined to ignore the answer to this question,
> which is given in the references (Wikipedia and McCray) that
> Todd has already suggested he read, and that Jerry apparently
> is refusing to read. There are a lot more references out there
> that give the answer to this question as well.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13401
In spite of the above record, Jerry now claims:
> I could not get a proper response from an atheist, and it
> took a young earth creationist who is an astronomer to give
> me a satisfactory answer to my questions.
You liar! The Wikipedia article you wouldn't read answers
your question! The McCray article you wouldn't read answers
your question! Todd answered your question! I answered your
question!
YOU IGNORED IT!
And what did the young-earth creationist astronomer tell you?
EXACTLY THE SAME THING we all told you!
> The only thing that I can figure out is that Todd did not
> know the answer to my questions, not that this proves when
> the star exploded, but it is interesting to note that
> someone who claims that it exploded 168,000 years ago, and
> who took astronomy in college (which he claims led him into
> atheism) could not give a satisfactory answer to a simple
> question and it took a YEC (as we are affectionately called)
> to give me the answer.
Or maybe it's because the YouTube comments feature isn't set
up for explaining things like this, AND YOU BANNED US from
your discussion group and you won't post to Maury_and_Baty.
Todd and I have both commented on your unwillingness to discuss
SN 1987A in a proper discussion group, and how after refusing to
answer any questions about it here or on your Challenge II list
you went to YouTube and tried to change the subject from
biological evolution to SN 1987A.
Jerry, you just aren't a very honest person. I shudder to
think of you actually having been a cop. Cops like you are
part of what's wrong with America. You can't tell me that
you wouldn't get up on a stand and lie under oath. Ever since
you have been involved with us you have been demonstrating a
complete lack of integrity, just as you are here, starting with
your claim that you had to shut down your first Challenge list
because of Robert Baty and continuing right on to the present
day. One lie after the other, all the while signing your
posts with "In Christ Jesus".
> I wanted the reader to have this information because
> Mr. Hartzog used one quotation leaving the reader to wonder
> what he was talking about. Now you know!
Yeah, now the readers know that Jerry McDonald is still being
his same old deceitful, dishonest self.
Jerry McDonald wouldn't discuss SN 1987A here on these lists,
he banned us from his list, and then he went to Todd's YouTube
video about biological evolution and rather than discuss the
substance of Todd's video he engaged in some very unseemly
behavior.
He repeatedly referred to the gas rings around SN 1987A as
"glowing", even though we told him the gas was never glowing
until eight months after the explosion. He refused to accept
that it was the explosion that lit up the gas until Danny
Faulkner told him the same thing, and now McDonald is trying
to make out like nobody but a young-earth creationist could
answer his question.
The quotation I provided, with the link, was sufficient for
those on the Maury_and_Baty list to know what I am talking about,
and I never expected my response to Jerry McDonald's "scientific
explanation" to show up on McDonald's website, or believe me, I
would have been a lot more thorough in exposing this liar.
> Now lets get into looking at Mr. Hartzog's response to my
> article.
>
> Mr. Hartzog writes:
>
>| One thing to keep in mind is that NOTHING Jerry McDonald
>| has posted in Todd's "Comments" section, and nothing that
>| McDonald has posted in the "Comments" section of his own
>| YouTube video, has been even remotely relevant to showing
>| us why "evolution isn't science". SN 1987A certainly doesn't
>| have anything to do with it.
>
> Mr. Hartzog, like his colleague Todd Greene (and others as
> well) doesn't seem to understand that there are seven phases
> of evolution.
Todd Greene's video is very clearly about biological evolution.
Todd very plainly references several scientific journals that
regularly publish research into *biological evolution*. NONE of
what Todd was talking about in his video was about "cosmic
evolution" or "stellar evolution" or "planetary evolution" or
anything else -- it deals specifically with *biological
evolution*.
It doesn't matter if there are *a hundred* phases of "evolution";
Todd is talking about biology and Jerry McDonald is not. Jerry
McDonald, of his own free will and volition, went to a YouTube
video about scientific research into biological evolution and
started trying to talk about SN 1987A instead, after he avoided
discussing SN 1987A in an appropriate forum, and *Jerry McDonald
STILL has not offered one single thing* to show that research into
biological evolution is not science.
> I have pointed this out to Mr. Greene on more than one
> occasion, but he still doesn't seem to get it.
Oh, we get it all right. Jerry is engaging in typical creationist
double-talk, where everything under the sun that he doesn't like
is all just part of the "evolutionist conspiracy". And watch how
McDonald contradicts himself as we go through this section of his
response.
> According to Chaisson & McMillian (both of which are
> evolutionists)...
No, Jerry; they're *astronomers*.
And by the way; it's McMillan, not "McMillian". You have the
book; you've been quoting from a few selected paragraphs now
for weeks; and you've never even figured out how to spell the
last name of one of the authors. I hope you didn't spend all
that money on this astronomy textbook only to not learn anything
from it.
> ...wrote the following two statements:
>
>| "Life in the Universe
>| With this human-centered view clearly evident, Figure 28:1
>| identifies seven major evolutionary phases that have
>| contributed to development of life on our planet:
>| particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical,
>| biological (bold mine jdm), and cultural evolution. Matter
>| formed from energy in the early universe, then cooled and
>| clumped to form galaxies and stars. Within in galaxies,
>| generation after generation of stars formed and died,
>| seeding the interstellar medium with heavy elements so that,
>| when our Sun formed billions of years after the first star
>| blazed, the rocky planet Earth formed along with it.
>| Eventually on Earth, life appeared and slowly evolved into
>| the diverse environment we see today. Together, these
>| evolutionary phases represent the grand sweep of cosmic
>| evolution--the continuous transformation of matter and energy
>| that has led to the appearance of life on our planet"
> (Astronomy Today, p. 760).
>
> Then on page 765 of the same book we read:
>
>| "The fossil record leaves no doubt that biological organisms
>| have changed over time--all scientists accept the reality of
>| biological evolution. As conditions on Earth shifted and
>| Earth's surface evolved, those organisms that could best take
>| advantage of their new surroundings succeeded and thrived --
>| often at the expense of organisms that could not make the
>| necessary adjustments and consequently became extinct"
> (Ibid, p. 765).
>
>
> It is easily noted that Chaisson & McMillian both say that
> biological evolution is but one phase of "cosmic" evolution.
> Stellar evolution, and planetary evolution are two other
> phases and they are part of the same evolutionary doctrine
> that biological evolution is. Greene & Company (Hartzog
> included) don't want to admit this because then they would
> be forced to deal with all of the pitfalls of evolution
> beginning with the "Big Bang" theory.
OK, Jerry. You want to make "evolution" apply to everything
under the sun, when Todd's video is very clearly talking about
biological evolution? So let's say all kinds of evolution then.
You still haven't shown that it is not science.
You have not shown that cosmic evolution is not science.
You have not shown that particulate evolution is not science.
You have not shown that galactic evolution is not science.
You have not shown that stellar evolution is not science.
You have not shown that planetary evolution is not science.
You have not shown that chemical evolution is not science.
You have not shown that biological evolution is not science.
You have not shown that cultural evolution is not science.
So call it all "evolution" if you want to -- you're just making
your job a whole lot tougher.
You were supposed to be showing why "evolution isn't science",
and then you changed the subject to SN 1987A, so now you are
also supposed to be explaining how light travels across 168,000
light years of space in less than 10,000 years.
And now, rather than deal with those two things, you are trying
to change the subject again. I think you're biting off a bit
more than you can chew. Chaisson and McMillan speak of cosmic
evolution, in your quote above, as being the "continuous
transformation of matter and energy". Will you deny that
matter and energy are undergoing continuous transformation?
Can you scientifically show, Jerry McDonald, now that you have
embraced this all-encompassing definition of "evolution" as the
"continuous transformation of matter and energy", that these
continuous transformations do not take place? Ooops!
Creationists love to half-quote the laws of thermodynamics --
thermodynamics says these transformations of matter and energy
are continuously taking place -- therefore, creationists must
accept "evolution" after all, wouldn't you say?
"Pitfalls of the Big Bang"? Who cares? Whether it was a Big
Bang or a Splendid Splurt the Universe is still going to be
billions of years old and billions of light-years to the horizon.
Just because you hate the Big Bang doesn't give your 6,000 year
old Universe any scientific credibility.
> While the comments on Greene's comment section (or on my own)
> had nothing to do with biological evolution they had everything
> to do with stellar evolution.
Exactly. And nothing in Todd's video has anything whatsoever
to do with stellar evolution. Which is one of the things that
has been pointed out to you a number of times.
But you decided you wanted to talk about SN 1987A instead, so
now it is your job to tell us how we see the light from a
supernova that took place 160,000 years before the young-earth
creationists claim there was even a Universe.
> Greene advertised several books on his video as proving
> evolution...
WRONG! Todd Greene gave examples of several SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
that report the results of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH dealing with
various aspects of the theory of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, proving
that the claim that "evolution isn't science" is just creationist
delusion! Research into biological evolution is legitimate
scientific inquiry, conducted according to the standards of real
science.
You, Jerry McDonald, are completely ignorant of science and of
the scientific method, and you are incompetent to be making
claims about what qualifies as science and what is not science.
You will demonstrate your ignorance and incompetence again and
again in this article to which I am now replying. And by the
end of this article you will have degenerated into utter lunacy.
> ...one of which was the book The Age of the Earth, by G. Brent
> Darlymple which is a book on geology. When Greene and I were
> planning on debating the issue of the age of the universe and
> the earth I bought that book upon his recommendation. When he
> found out he argued that the book didn't prove evolution that
> it had nothing to do with evolution because evolution has
> nothing to do with geology. I asked him why he advertised it
> as proving evolution and his response was that it was a lazy
> oversight, but he was not going to remove it that he would
> make another video explaining this lazy oversight (a video
> that we are still waiting for I might add). So I guess Todd
> is just too lazy to remove a lazy oversight and thereby
> perpetuates something that he says is not true, namely that
> Darlymple's book The Age of the Earth promotes and proves
> evolution. Biological evolution is not the only kind of
> evolution that we have.
Whine whine whine.
The TRUTH, dear readers, is that the McDonald-Greene debate was
supposed to have been about the age of the Earth, not about
biological evolution. You don't have to talk about biological
evolution at all to thoroughly prove the antiquity of the Earth
and the Universe. Todd told Jerry *from the very beginning* that
he would not debate Jerry McDonald about biological evolution,
because (1) biological evolution is irrelevant to proving the
age of the Earth and the Universe, and (2) Jerry McDonald is
not capable of discussing evolutionary theory "strictly from
a scientific viewpoint".
Dalrymple's book didn't have anything to do with why the debate
was called off. It was because Jerry McDonald insisted he would
be discussing biological evolution, which is another example of
Jerry McDonald's irrationality -- he thinks, as his proposed
proposition stated, that a "refutation of evolution" would prove
the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. That, in itself,
shows Jerry McDonald's scientific incompetence.
> There is such an animal as stellar evolution and this is
> the category or phase under which the discussion of SN 1987A
> falls. I am sorry that Greene & Company cannot understand
> this much about it, but such is not my fault.
What McDonald doesn't seem to understand is that the comments
section of a YouTube video about biological evolution is not
the place to try carrying on a debate about a supernova that
took place 168,000 years ago.
For all the comments that have been posted to the pages of
Todd's and Jerry's YouTube videos, NONE OF THEM have anything
to do with showing why "evolution isn't science". No, to
the contrary, the overall effect is of Jerry McDonald showing
everyone he doesn't know what science is in the first place.
(Most recently McDonald has posted this question to the
comments section of his own video: "If mammals evolved from
reptiles, why do we still have reptiles?" That is an example
of how clueless McDonald is, and why Todd Greene refused to
debate him in public on the subject of biological evolution.)
> Greene is the one with the college education, not me. I
> only attended a two year course in a preacher's training
> school, but it seems that I know more about evolution than
> Greene does.
No, it doesn't seem that way at all. How it appears, Jerry,
and I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster toward
you in light of your recent behavior, is that you are simply
too ignorant of what you are talking about to even realize
how stupid what you are saying really is.
Sorry.
And that is putting it in the very best possible light, because
if you are NOT as totally ignorant of science as what you
appear to be, then you are even more dishonest than I have
previously thought. As I have said of certain other young-earth
creationist preachers, some of the stuff they say is so stupid
it really makes you wonder whether it is through ignorance or
deliberate intent to deceive that they make these comments.
And here's the WORST part: they are absolutely INCAPABLE of
learning! They REFUSE to overcome their lack of understanding;
they are DEFIANTLY ignorant and have every intention of REMAINING
that way, and of CONTINUING to preach their error while they
PROUDLY wear their incompetence like a badge of honor!
> No, Greene understands that there are seven phases of
> evolution and that biological evolution is but one of them.
> He argues that evolution has nothing to do with geology, and
> for once I would agree with him, but then he states that the
> fossil record proves evolution, and (unless I am way off base)
> the fossil record is a part of geology. I don't think I am
> off base here unless Chaisson & McMillian are off as well
> because they stated "the fossil record leaves no doubt that
> biological organisms have changed over time -- all scientists
> accept the reality of biological evolution" (Ibid).
I had posted the message linked here well before Jerry McDonald
posted this reply to me, so it is his own fault he is continuing
with this same line of argumentation:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13434
But Jerry contradicts himself here with his own double-talk;
if "planetary evolution" is a fair topic for the comments
section of a YouTube video about biological evolution, then
"evolution" most certainly does have something to do with
geology. So now, Jerry, you are going to have to show that
"geology isn't science" as well. But you RE-contradict
yourself again, a little later in this message.
I could save McDonald a lot of time and heartache and personal
embarrassment here if he would just take a little advice --
but I know he won't, so never mind...
> Now while SN 1987A does not directly deal with biological
> evolution, it does deal with stellar evolution which is
> another one of those seven phases of evolution. Nowhere on
> Mr. Greene's video does he single out "biological evolution."
Except of course that all the journals Todd references, as well
as the webpage on his Creationism site which he refers to in
the video, are ALL about biology or palaeontolgy. NOTHING he
referred to was about "stellar evolution" or cosmology or
chemistry or culture or anything else:
http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html
Check it out.
Do you see Todd pointing out articles from any astrophysical
journals in his video, or on the above page which his video
references? No. But no matter, have it your way -- you have
invalidated your protestations of Dalrymple's book being included
in the video, because you say geology is part of the evolutionist
conspiracy, too.
Except here is another quote from Jerry McDonald's YouTube page:
> Geology, physics and/or chemistry are all considered
> science because they are testable by the empirical senses.
> Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses.
> Therefore it is not science.
>
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry D. McDonald
Now, Jerry has already referred to his selected quote (above)
from Chaisson and McMillan a number of times, in which the
"seven phases of cosmic evolution" are listed. Geology is
"planetary evolution", and here McDonald says geology is
science. Physics is embodied in "particulate evolution",
"stellar evolution" and "galactic evolution", and McDonald here
acknowledges that physics is science. Chemistry, of course, has
to do with "chemical evolution" listed above, and McDonald says
chemistry is science. So of those seven phases of cosmic
evolution, McDonald has just admitted that five of the seven
are science, leaving out only biological and cultural evolution.
But notice McDonald's misunderstanding here (or, more accurately,
deliberate misrepresentation) -- "testable by the empirical
senses". This is another example of young-earth creationist
dishonesty. Why would McDonald think that evolution is not
testable by the empirical senses?
Here is a hypothesis: If species change over time, there must
be a means by which changes are passed from parents to offspring.
And empirical verification of that hypothesis: Genetics.
Here is another hypothesis: If changes are passed on to offspring,
there must be a means of preserving beneficial modifications in
the population.
And empirical verification of that hypothesis: Natural selection.
There is so much empirical evidence for biological evolution that
it has been called the "cornerstone of modern biology". But what
does the lying young-earth creationist preacher Jerry McDonald
claim? That evolution is not "testable by the empirical senses"!
How can he *possibly* make such a claim? Because in his deliberate
pigheadedness he modifies his definition of "empirical evidence"
to mean that you have to witness, with your own eyes, the
creationist definition of "macro-evolution" taking place -- a cow
giving birth to a pig or some such idiocy.
> He simply says "evolution," and when you use the word
> "evolution" without giving specifics it is generally taken that
> you are talking about all of evolution beginning with the Big
> Bang theory.
Only to a screwed-up young-earth creationist! Most people, when
they hear the word "evolution", understand it as having to do
with the way that species change over time.
But to people like Jerry McDonald, all of science is "evolution",
but then again, "evolution isn't science". Huh? Yes, you heard
me right -- to young-earth creationists, science is evolution
but evolution isn't science. And round and round and round they
go.
> If you go to the comments section of Mr. Greene's video you
> will see that I did deal with evolution and that I showed the
> relevance that SN 1987A had to the video.
I have been to the comments section of Mr. Greene's video and
saw no such thing.
> It deals with stellar evolution, and Todd just uses the word
> "evolution." Mr. Greene's problem came in when I started
> buying books written by evolutionary scientists to use against
> him. He realized that I was buying some of the books that he
> advertised on both his video and his website. He had to
> admit that Chaisson & McMillian were professional astronomers,
> there was no way that he could deny that, but they teach that
> SN 1987A does deal with evolution; stellar evolution, which
> indirectly will lead to biological evolution. As far as my
> own Youtube video is concerned, it deals pretty much with the
> same material as my video is in direct response to Greene's
> video.
More McDonald double-talk. More McDonald word games. Jerry,
you are habitually dishonest.
Anybody should be able to tell from Todd's video that it is about
biological evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with stellar
evolution. When Todd told you that geology doesn't have anything
to do with evolution, he was trying to make you understand that
geologists do not rig their findings to fit a timeframe that will
accommodate biological evolution. He was trying to make you
understand that the age of the Earth, as established by geological
science, is not dependent in any way on biological processes or
presuppositions.
Yes, Jerry, as we all know, there are fossils in the rocks and
these fossils were some of the earliest recognized evidence that
the Earth's plants and animals do change over time -- periods of
time that are *thousands* of times longer than young-earthers
can even imagine for the age of the Earth. But you can strip all
the fossil-bearing strata completely off the face of the Earth
and you will still be left with an ancient Earth. Or just look
at the Moon! -- it doesn't have any fossils on it at all, as far
as we know, but it is 4.5 billion years old, too. You can take
the Earth out of the Universe completely, so that there is no
evidence of life anywhere as far as we know, and the Universe
will still be much much older than any few thousand years.
The imaginary McDonald-Greene debate was supposed to have been
about the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe, as
established by astronomical and geological science and "strictly
from a scientific standpoint" (McDonald's own words). The
debate was called off because McDonald refused to debate if
biological evolution wasn't included in his proposition, and
Todd refused to allow a debate that was supposed to be about
the age of the Earth get sidelined into the incredible waste of
time in trying to explain to Jerry McDonald why cows don't give
birth to pigs, and why, if mammals came from reptiles we still
have reptiles. It is very unlikely that Jerry McDonald even
knows what "allele frequency" means, yet there he was, wanting to
debate about biological evolution, when he actually thinks that
the fact that we have never seen a cow give birth to a pig is
a good argument against macro-evolution!
> Mr. Hartzog continues...
>
>| But Jerry McDonald promised us that he was working on a
>| "scientific" explanation to the problem of how, if the
>| Universe is only 6,000 years old, we can see the light from
>| SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years away.
>|
>| What Jerry has now posted to his website is itself light-years
>| away from being any kind of scientific explanation, but I think
>| it is a very fitting demonstration of Jerry McDonald's
>| incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science and
>| what is not science.
>
> Of course he doesn't think that my explanation is not scientific.
Oh, yes I do, McDonald. I KNOW your explanation is not scientific.
It is fantasy based on NOTHING. Where is your evidence? You
presented NOTHING in your last article and you present more
NOTHING in this article. You claim a MASSIVE gravitational time
dilation event in the vicinity of the Earth a few thousand years
ago. Based on WHAT? There is NO evidence for it and ABUNDANT
evidence against it. You are proposing, as a "scientific
explanation", something that is absolutely not supported by any
science, or even a modicum of common sense.
> He says that this is a very fitting demonstration of my
> incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science
> and what is not. All right, maybe he would like to show
> us why my explanation is not scientific.
You will show that yourself, and show it abundantly, before
the end of this message.
> Is it because time dilation is not scientific?
> Notice what he says about time dilation?
>
>| Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it,
>| and Jerry is so incompetent that he thinks that means what
>| Humphreys is saying makes any sense. Well, it doesn't.
>| Time dilation is a relativistic effect related to gravity
>| and/or velocity, i.e., when it is observed it is observed
>| for a *reason*. There is no *reason* for Humphreys to call
>| on time dilation as one of the effects of the Flood -- if
>| he wants to just claim outlandish miracles as the reason we
>| can see distant starlight, just call it a miracle, withdraw
>| from the creation-science game, and let that be that.
>
>
> The actual order of who came up with the time dilation in my
> article is different from what Mr. Hartzog tells us. He says
> "Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it...."
> Actually it was Dr. Humphreys who first mentioned time dilation
> on the CRSnet. Someone had asked whether time dilation was a
> theory or if it was factual. Mr. Faulkner responded with his
> post that it is an observable fact, and Dr. Humphreys added to
> that when he wrote about the GPS systems in our vehicles.
Maybe so, but that's not the way you presented it in your article.
You quoted Faulkner, and then you quoted Humphreys' agreement with
Faulkner's comment. And it doesn't matter who brought the subject
up; "time dilation" is nothing but relativity. Einstein told us
about it a hundred years ago. Is relativity scientific? Yes, it
is. Is Humphreys' use of a "time dilation" scenario during the
Flood year scientific? NO, IT IS NOT!
Jerry thinks that all that is needed is for "time dilation" to be
a scientific fact, and that means Humphreys nonsense is believable.
Well, goats are a scientific fact, too, and so are dandelions. I
can say the local galaxy used to be full of dandelions until a
giant cosmic goat came through and ate them all up, and that is
*just as scientific* as Humphreys' claim, has just as much evidence
to support it, and merits Jerry McDonald believing it just as much
as Humphreys' claim does.
Humphreys' claim is FANTASY based on NOTHING. There is no
supporting science, no evidence, just wild imagination. My cosmic
goat ate the dandelion that was going to become Russell Humphreys'
"time dilation" mechanism, before any time dilation occurred.
So there.
The "giant cosmic goat theory" explains the total lack of any
evidence for Humphreys' "white hole" or for any massive
gravitational field within the vicinity of the Earth a few
thousand years ago, and as for the goat, after it ate all the
interstellar dandelions around here, it just wandered off.
So there.
> It might not hurt Mr. Hartzog to purchase a copy of Dr.
> Humphreys book Starlight and Time and read up on what
> Dr. Humphreys says about time dilation:
Why? Do you think Humphreys is the only one who knows about
relativity? From what I have "read up on", Humphreys completely
blows it. DANNY FAULKNER KNOWS Humphreys blew it, and the
authors of the other CEN article I cited know it, too. Why
didn't Jerry include the link to that CEN article when he
posted my last message to his website? (I include that link
again at the end of this message.)
Humphreys' "White Hole" cosmology has already been debunked by
a number of people who are far more proficient than I am in
general and special relativity. Simply speaking, Humphreys'
cosmology is unworkable, both from any kind of young-earth
perspective (because only the Earth is "young", while the
rest of the Universe is billions of years old, and the stars
aren't necessarily created on the fourth day) and from the
standpoint of physics (it just doesn't work).
As one physicist put it, once you fix all the mathematical
errors in Humphreys' "white hole" cosmology you are left with a
standard Big Bang model.
So if you don't mind, Jerry, I won't be throwing my money away
on pseudoscience nonsense. That stuff is written to sell to
people like you, not me.
McDonald quotes Humphreys:
>| "Gravity Distorts Time
>| Let me first briefly outline where I am heading. The
>| theory utilizes Einstein's theory of relativity, which
>| is the best theory of gravity we have today. General
>| relativity (GR) has been well-established experimentally,
>| and is the physics framework for all modern cosmologies.
>| According to GR, gravity affects time. Clocks at a low
>| altitude should tick more slowly than clocks at a high
>| altitude--and observations confirm this effect, which
>| some call gravitational time dilation. (Not to be confused
>| with the better-known 'velocity' time dilation in Einstein's
>| special relativity theory.)" > (Starlight and Time, p. 11).
Typical creationist misdirection. Just because we know about
relativistic effects does not in any way suggest that starlight
is traveling hundreds of thousands of light-years across space
in one "Earth year". Humphreys says General Relativity is the
"physics framework for all modern cosmologies". Do you see
any modern cosmologists proposing that Time is or has been
moving along a million times slower here on Earth than elsewhere
in the Universe? Of course not. Do you think it is because
those modern cosmologists forgot to take relativity into
account?
As I said in my previous post, time dilation happens for a
*reason* -- differences in gravitational fields and/or velocity.
Jerry McDonald (and Russell Humphreys) seems to be unable to
provide a reason, and subsequently any evidence, for time
dilation in the region of the Earth during the Creation week
and again during the Flood year.
How can a "scientific explanation" that offers NO EVIDENCE,
and is thoroughly REJECTED by science, be a "scientific
explanation"? Welcome to young-earth fantasyland!
> So it doesn't make any sense when Dr. Humphreys made the
> following statement?
>
>| Time dilation is well-verified by experiments, and now
>| it is a part of some technology. For example (and counter
>| to some urban myths), the Global,Positioning System (GPS)
>| navigational satellites have to very carefully account for
>| both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation
>| in order to provide accurate position information to us on
>| the ground. Otherwise your Magellan GPS (if you have one)
>| might guide you into North Carolina instead of to the
>| grocery store across town :o) Russ"
> (
CRSNET@... Supernova 1987a and Time Dilation,
> Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:55:28 - 0700).
>
> No, that made perfect sense! What didn't make sense to
> Mr. Hartzog was Dr. Humphreys' application to time dilation
> during the Genesis flood (otherwise known as the Noahic flood).
Look, McDonald: Humphreys' "time dilation" doesn't make any sense
to *anyone* -- not just me. Humphreys has known since 1994 that
his theory won't hold water, and here it is all these years later
and you are still endorsing it. It is dishonest of Humphreys
to take advantage of you like that. Snake oil won't cure what
ails you, McDonald.
> To Mr. Hartzog there has to be a natural explanation for
> everything. There has to be an empirical answer for everything.
No, not really. Just everything that pretends to be science.
That's what science is. And that is why "young-earth creation-
science" is not science. It does not offer empirically-verifiable
answers. It fails all testable hypotheses. *It is not
self-correcting*. If you would just say "I believe what I believe
because the Bible tells me so," and let it go at that, then fine;
then we could talk about whether that is really what the Bible is
trying to tell you; but as soon as you start making claims about
the real world, and pretending that there is any science that
supports those claims, your "scientific" claims become subject to
scientific verification. The real-world claims of "young-earth
creation-science" FAIL on every count.
> This is why he said
>
>| Humphreys ignores the fact that there must be a *continuum*
>| of space-time between events. Humphreys doesn't seem to be
>| aware that what he tells Jerry acknowledges that the Universe
>| has been in existence for millions and billions of years,
>| while the Earth has (supposedly) been enclosed in some kind of
>| unconnected space-time envelope. And the *mechanism* for this
>| space-time envelope, *apparently*, is "supernatural" --
>| meaning there is NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION for it!
And what is Jerry McDonald's response to my comment here?
Begin irrelevant rant:
> Mr. Hartzog claims to be part of the Worldwide Church of
> Latitudinarianism, I am not really sure what that is because
> the word Latitudinarianism means "not insistent on strict
> conformity to a particular doctrine or standard...tolerant
> of variations of religious opinion or doctrine" (Merriam-
> Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p. 703).
> Now while I am not really sure what this church is, it seems
> that it is supposedly tolerant of other religious opinions or
> doctrines. Maybe this is the church that Ann Coulter writes
> about in her book The Church of Liberalism, but that seems to
> be a church for atheists, something like the Unitarian Church.
> At any rate, I have often wondered, in the brief time I have
> known Mr. Hartzog, if he believes in any thing that deals with
> the supernatural. Does he believe in the supernatural, or does
> he believe only in what he can see, hear, smell, touch, and or
> taste? I wonder how he would explain the existence of a
> conscience since he cannot see it, hear it, smell it, touch it
> or taste it? Where is his scientific explanation for a
> conscience? I often wonder how he would be able to explain
> concepts such as love and hate as you cannot see them, hear them,
> touch them, smell them, or taste them?
>
> He ridicules me for speaking of the supernatural and says that
> there is no scientific explanation for it. Well, there is no
> scientific explanation for many things. I don't know of a
> scientific explanation for gravity. We know that it works, we
> can observe something falling and hitting the floor. We can
> observe the GPS satellites having to very carefully account for
> both gravitational and velocity time dilation in order to get
> you to where you need to go. But I don't know if anyone knows
> why gravity will make clocks tick slower on earth than they do
> above the earth. We know it happens, but do we have a scientific
> explanation beyond gravity for it happening that way?
I'm not going to respond to any of that. Jerry McDonald is
supposed to be telling us why "evolution isn't science", and he
is supposed to be explaining to us how, if the Universe is only
a few thousand years old, we see light from objects and events that
are hundreds of thousands and millions of light-years distant.
He is absolutely free to say that it is because of a miracle if
he wants to, thereby admitting that he has no "scientific
explanation" for it, and that would be fine -- then we could go
off into a philosophical discussion about what kind of God would
pull "apparent age" tricks on His created beings.
If this post wasn't going to be so long already I would take
time to answer some of these irrelevancies and self-contradictions
from McDonald, but for now I think most readers will be able to
see them for themselves. I will only note that this is one of
McDonald's worn-out tactics -- when faced with a question he can't
answer he will often go off into one of these irrelevant rants
and try to draw attention away from the fact that HE CAN'T ANSWER
THE QUESTION!
> Science can only explain so much.
That doesn't mean that everything that is unexplained is
unexplainable.
> For example science cannot explain any part of Darwinian
> Evolution.
False.
> This evolution cannot be verified because it is not testable.
False.
> You can't observe it going on with any of your five empirical
> senses.
False.
> Of course evolutionists claim that you can but when you
> ask for specific examples the best they can do is to come
> up with things like you can put two different breeds of
> cattle together and get a hybrid, but the fact is what they
> give birth to is still a cow. It isn't a money or a cat,
> or even a human; it is a cow. Corn always yields corn, beans
> always yields beans and so on. There is scientific evidence
> for that, but where is the scientific evidence for say two
> cattle of different breeds giving birth to something that is
> at least part non-cow? Oh, they say, the change is so gradual
> that you could walk right up to it and never notice the change!
> O, ok, then how do you know it is changing? In order for
> macro-evolution to be observable you are going to have to
> notice (at some time during the process) where some offspring
> is part cow and part something that is not a cow, otherwise it
> is not scientifically provable or explainable. You have to be
> able to observe it for it to be scientifically testable. This
> is why the evolutionist says that there is no difference
> between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, but this is about
> as absurd as saying that there is no difference between a cow
> and a monkey. The only things that the cow and the monkey have
> in common is the fact that they both live, they both breathe
> and they are both mammals, and the only thing that
> macro-evolution has in common with micro-evolution is that they
> both involve changing. However, micro-evolution is restricted
> to small changes within a kind while macro-evolution, supposedly,
> has no such restrictions, that these changes can occur between
> kinds. Now micro-evolution is scientifically observable, but
> macro-evolution isn't. Yet, it seems that Mr. Hartzog will
> accept macro-evolution as factual and scientific even though
> there is NO scientific evidence available nor has there ever
> been any such evidence available. No one has ever seen a
> missing link (the crossover from ape to human)! History only
> goes back so far! Writing only goes back so far! 6,000 to
> 10,000 years at the most is as far as we can find writing,
> paintings ect.,. If humans (cavemen) dwelt on this earth
> 3 million years ago, where is the scientific evidence for it.
> Radiocarbon dating? I don't think so! What about radioisotope
> dating? Again, I don't think so! Both of these can only go so
> far and the rest has to be decided on assumption.
Jerry,
Will you please try sticking to the subject at hand?
If you wanted to talk about the sort of things you are rambling
on about in the above paragraph, of which you very obviously don't
have any comprehension, why didn't you ever answer this message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13094
instead of running away from it and banning me from your list?
(The above message was originally posted to Jerry McDonald's
Challenge II list, but now that I am banned from Jerry's list
because Jerry can't answer questions, I can't provide the link,
since Jerry's list does not have public archives. So if Jerry
has ever attempted a response to that message there is no way
of me knowing about it.)
We are not talking about how biological evolution works right now,
Jerry. Nor am I going to be distracted into trying to straighten
out all the errors in your paragraph above. I completely agree
that the creationist description of evolutionary theory is not
science, but you were supposed to have been dealing with
evolutionary theory *as it really is*, not as creationists try to
portray it.
Your job is much more narrow at the moment. You are supposed to
be (1) telling us why "evolution isn't science" and (2) giving us
a scientific explanation of how we can see the light from SN 1987A,
168,000 light-years away.
How about doing that? I'm tired of you leaping from one subject to
the next, everytime you get your tail in a crack and can't back up
your stupid claims.
> Now I have said all that to say this, Mr. Hartzog argues that
> Dr. Humphreys makes assumptions and that I am so incompetent
> that I swallow it because Dr. Humphreys cannot show scientific
> evidence that this happened during the flood.
No, I didn't say Humphreys had assumed any thing. I said Humphreys
just *made stuff up*. I pointed out that the baloney Humphreys is
feeding you about a massive time dilation region in our galaxy a
few thousand years ago IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to a number of
Humphreys' other claims -- and I'm not the only one who knows it
because DANNY FAULKNER HAS POINTED OUT THE SAME THING!
And yes, your FAILURE to recognize those contradictions does
show your ineptitude and incompetence.
You've said all that to AVOID saying what you *need* to be saying,
McDonald. What you are supposed to be doing is telling us why
"evolution isn't science", and how we see the light from a
supernova that took place 168,000 years ago.
> According to Hartzog this is all just my "mis"interpretation
> of the Genesis record.
Well, I do say you misinterpret Genesis (along with substantial
chunks of the rest of the Bible). But that isn't what we are
talking about right now. You've already bailed out of that
discussion, and then you banned me from your list.
I had written:
>| It is hardly "bias" to assume that the laws of physics
>| have remained the same throughout the time and space of
>| the Universe. There is absolutely no evidence which would
>| lead one to suppose otherwise. Furthermore, the estimate
>| of when the gas ring was expelled is not based on the
>| speed of light at all.
>|
>| Jerry continues:
>|
>|> In their mind there is no other explanation. When creationists
>|> try to get them to see that there are alternatives they sneer
>|> at us and say that we are unscientific.
>|
>| There is no evidence that suggests any other explanation is
>| needed. There is no evidence that the speed of light has
>| changed since the explosion took place. The "alternatives"
>| that Jerry wants are not based on any evidence either, other
>| than the young-earthers' interpretation of Genesis. So yes,
>| the reason Jerry wants a different explanation is a completely
>| UNSCIENTIFIC reason, and the explanation he offers us here
>| is completely UNSCIENTIFIC as well. Call it sneering if you
>| want to, but young-earth creation-science is not science.
>
>
> In the first place it is bias to assume things that they
> have not seen, heard, smelled, touched, and or tasted.
I have not seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted ANY evidence
that the speed of light has changed. And neither has Russell
Humphreys.
I *have* seen evidence that the speed of light has NEVER changed,
at least not by any appreciable fraction of a percent, ever since
the beginning of the Universe. And so has Russell Humphreys.
I have not seen, heard, tasted, touched, or even smelled ANY
evidence that there was any kind of massive gravity well in this
region of our galaxy a few thousand years ago, and NEITHER HAS
RUSSELL HUMPHREYS. Russell Humphreys and I are both aware of
substantial evidence that NO SUCH EVENT took place anywhere
around here a few thousand years ago. I don't ignore that
evidence, but Russell Humphreys does.
Now, what were you saying about bias?
Russell Humphreys just *made something up* for which there is
NO evidence nor is there ANY supporting science! HE MADE IT UP,
JERRY! It's fantasy! Do you understand that? It isn't real.
It's something from Humphreys' imagination, and it doesn't work
in the real world! Do you understand?
> The very idea that there is no evidence that suggests that any
> other explanation is needed, is absurd unless Mr. Hartzog has
> experienced everything.
That's a ridiculous statement, McDonald. If I wake up to the
smell of coffee brewing, and I walk in the kitchen and there's a
pot of coffee brewing, I don't have to go searching all through
the entire house to make sure the smell of coffee brewing is
actually coming from the coffee that is brewing. No other
explanation is needed. There's the coffee.
There's the supernova. There's the speed of light. Here's
how long it took for us to see it. Why do *you* need any other
explanation? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE REALITY!
> Does Mr. Hartzog know everything about physics and the universe?
> No, so he cannot say with any scientific truth at all that there
> is no evidence that the speed of light has ever changed.
Then show the evidence. If it is evidence it is able to be
presented. If a murder is committed you can't just convict
anyone you feel like convicting because you say that there
"may be" evidence somewhere out there that this person did it;
you have to find the evidence and if you *don't* find the evidence
then YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.
Again, McDonald's statements here show his UTTER INCOMPETENCE
to be making any kind of pronouncements about science.
> Now, if he wants to make an assumption based upon what we have
> experienced with our empirical senses, that is one thing, but
> it is quite another thing to say that there IS NO EVIDENCE
> that the speed of light has changed since the explosion took
> place, unless Mr. Hartzog knows all things in every part of the
> universe.
Jerry, it is hard for me to maintain patience with such
imbecility. Really it is.
But this may be an opportunity for me to demonstrate the
fallacy of the creationist definition of "empirical evidence" --
only that which you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.
We have, scientifically speaking, a massive amount of empirical
evidence that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
But that is well beyond the faculties of human senses -- if you
aim a flashlight at an object a hundred yards away and turn it
on, you have no way of knowing, from that, whether the speed of
light is 186,000 miles per second, or 93,000, or 372, 000, or
even just 1,000 miles per second. You can't, with your "empirical
senses", tell the difference.
So, according to the young-earth creationist definition of
"empirical evidence", they have no way of knowing the speed of
light!
And remember, the young-earth creationists don't just say you
have to be able to "empirically" experience the *evidence* of a
phenomenon with your five senses; they say you have to "empirically"
experience *the phenomenon itself*! If you don't *see* the murder
committed, if you don't *see* the brick go through the window, then
according to them you have no "empirical evidence". This is one of
Jerry McDonald's most firmly held ERRORS about science, which is
wrong on such a fundamental level that OF COURSE Jerry McDonald
is going to be incompetent to determine what is science and what
is not.
> Mr. Hartzog continues...
>
>| Humphreys ignores the fact that there must be a *continuum*
>| of space-time between events. Humphreys doesn't seem to be
>| aware that what he tells Jerry acknowledges that the
>| Universe has been in existence for millions and billions
>| of years, while the Earth has (supposedly) been enclosed in
>| some kind of unconnected space-time envelope. And the
>| *mechanism* for this space-time envelope, *apparently*, is
>| "supernatural" -- meaning there is NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION
>| for it!
>
> Mr. Hartzog's ignorance of Dr. Humphreys' understanding of the
> age of the universe is understandable since he probably hasn't
> read the good Dr.'s book Starlight and Time.
I don't have to read Starlight and Time to know what Humphreys
"understands" about the age of the Universe, because Humphreys
didn't get his "understanding" about the age of the Universe
from any kind of science. He got it from a narrow-minded
cult-like reading of the Bible, and no where else. I've seen
plenty of Humphreys' so-called "science" that he promotes as
evidence for a young Earth. The salt in the sea. Not enough
stone age skeletons. The Earth's magnetic field. Not enough
mud on the seafloor. And so on, ALL RIDICULOUS. NONE of
Humphreys' evidences are valid means of determining the age of
the Earth. Most of them are completely irrational as well, and
only a nincompoop would accept them. No offense.
> In this book Dr. Humphreys addresses both of the so-called
> problems that Mr. Hartzog thinks he has found.
No, Jerry, he doesn't. He blows it. And you are such a
scientific illiterate that you don't know whether Humphreys
deals with anything or not. You are going around, as usual,
making claims in subjects about which you are ignorant and
incompetent and inept and deluded, and not only are you
wrong, you are DEFIANTLY WRONG! It's like you're saying, "I'm
an idiot, and proud of it!"
> The word "continuum" that Mr. Hartzog uses simply means
> "a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence or
> progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees"
> (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition,
> p. 270).
And if light is traveling a thousand times faster in one part of
the Universe than the other, then there has to be a *sequence*,
a *progression of values* in the speed of light between the two
places.
Humphreys himself said "depending on where I draw the boundaries".
In other words, he can draw them wherever he wants to, because
they are based on NOTHING! Humphreys says certain light-paths
would be nearly vertical. I can't tell, from Humphreys' childish
illustration, exactly what he means by that, but if he's saying
that ALL the radiation from ALL the UNIVERSE reaches Earth in
NO TIME, then the Earth gets FRIED. End of story.
> So when Mr. Hartzog tells us that that Dr. Humphreys has
> "ignored the fact that there must be a 'continuum' of
> space-time events" he is saying that Dr. Humphreys is purposely
> ignoring the sequence or progression of the elements of the
> space-time events. To Mr. Hartzog this sequence of events comes
> from the "big bang" and everything continues from there on.
> Well, Dr. Humphreys did not ignore any such thing. In his book
> Starlight and Time he devotes the whole second chapter to
> dealing with the continuum of space-time events, from the moment
> of creation until the end of the creation week.
That's neither here nor there. Noah's "clock" wasn't running
during the Creation week. The space-time continuum that Humphreys
must describe is between the Earth during Noah's time and the
explosion of SN 1987A. Humphreys would have to somehow describe
a space-time warp and the mechanism that could produce such a
warp without utterly destroying the entire Milky Way galaxy.
As we get a little farther down in this message, it will be
seen how preposterous Humphreys' proposal really is, and what
incredible nonsense Jerry McDonald is willing to accept as
support for his young-earth views.
> Even the "big bang" theory had a beginning, it had to start
> somewhere. However, it can't be right because it violates the
> first law of thermodynamics which states that "energy is a
> thermodynamic property" and "that during an interaction, energy
> can change from one form to another but the total amount of energy
> remains constant. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed"
> (Thermodynamics, An Engineering Approach, p. 2). Matter is made
> from energy and so according to the "big bang" theory energy sprang
> into existence from nothing (which violates the first law) and
> formed itself into matter which made the universe.
Um, no, Jerry; the Big Bang theory does not claim that energy sprang
into existence from "nothing". And it may be of interest to note
that there is a substantial number of Christians who see the Big
Bang, or a Universe with a definite *beginning*, as evidence *for*
a Creator, rather than against.
But we aren't talking about the Big Bang. What we are supposed
to be seeing is McDonald's "scientific explanation" of how we
see light from an event that occurred 168,000 years ago.
> Naturally matter cannot be created or destroyed, so it would
> take something above and beyond nature to do such a thing. I
> don't think the "big bang" qualifies as something that is above
> and beyond nature. In any case, Dr. Humphreys' position is that
> there is a sequence of events in space and time after the creation
> just as Mr. Hartzog's position is that there is a sequence of
> events in space and time after the "big bang."
Except Humphreys' sequence of space-time events during the Flood
year requires that there *either be no space-time continuum* between
the Earth and the rest of the Universe, OR the entire Milky Way
galaxy be sucked down into a black hole. And it's a double-edged
sword, in more ways than one. Without the continuum, how does the
water reach the Earth? But with the continuum, why doesn't all that
water fill up the entire solar system and extinguish the Sun and
collapse the galaxy? Why doesn't EVERYTHING out there in the
"heavens" get drawn into this massive gravitational field?
Please keep reading.
> Secondly, Dr. Humphreys' position is not that the earth is
> enclosed in some kind of unconnected space-time envelope.
Sure it is. You just don't know what you're talking about, nor
do you understand the implications of what Humphreys is trying
to feed you. Yes, Humphreys has ARBITRARILY put the Earth in an
UNCONNECTED region. He has described no mechanism for time dilation
in the region of the Earth during the Flood year. There is
NO CONTINUUM between the Earth and the rest of the Universe. As
soon as he describes a continuum, that will be the complete
destruction of the Earth and everything else.
> In direct application, Dr. Humphreys explained himself very
> thoroughly in both the statements made in the first article and
> in his book. Let us notice them:
>
>| "During the year Noah's clocks recorded he was aboard the ark,
>| the light from the explosion traveled most of the 160,000
>| light-years of distance to us. After Noah got out of the ark,
>| the photons carrying the image of the explosion were about 4300
>| light-years away from the earth. The visible-light photons
>| (gamma rays and neutrinos were also detected) carrying the image
>| of the explosion finally arrived here in January 1987"
> (
CRSNET@... Supernova 1987a and Time Dilation,
> Sat. 10, Nov. 2007, 18:16:02-0700 ).
>
> Then in a later post he wrote:
>
>| "The yellow triangular region at the left above the "4th Day
>| Timeless Zone" represents the 2nd time dilation event during
>| the year of the Genesis flood that I spent a few slides on at
>| the workshop. I also discussed it in some detail in my two
>| November 3 posts here, "Re: Accelerated Nuclear Decay and
>| Astronomy" and "Flood time dilation, Biblically." The blue
>| line shows the trajectory of photons reaching earth after the
>| flood.
Ah, but we know what the trajectory of photons *after* the
Flood is, don't we? What we need to see is the trajectory
of photons *during* the Flood. (And by the way, this idea of
accelerated nuclear decay during a "time dilation" event isn't
going to fly. Let's say Noah's "clock" was an atomic clock --
oops! Does McDonald understand why rapid radioactive decay
cannot take place in a time dilation region?)
>| You asked, 'Are you arguing for a great change in the speed of
>| light at the time of the flood ... to get light here quickly?'
>| --- Yes in the speed of light as measured by Noah's clocks.
>| The speed of light (or anything else) depends on whose clocks
>| you use. As measured by clocks outside the yellow time dilation
>| region, no. By stationary clocks all along the trajectory of
>| the photons reaching us after the flood, the photon speed
>| would be the same boring old 186,000 miles per second.
>|
>| In this scheme, nearby stars would go on nearly vertical paths
>| through the yellow time dilation region. Stars in the Magellanic
>| clouds might do so also, depending on how far out I put the apex
>| of the yellow triangle. But the Andromeda galaxy's nearly
>| vertical path would be outside the time dilation region. It would
>| experience roughly 500 Myr of rotation and winding-up from the time
>| it emerged out of the 4th day timeless zone to the time it emitted
>| the photons we now see from it.
>|
>| If the apex of the yellow zone extends beyond the Magellanic
>| clouds, then the star that became Supernova 1987a would have
>| exploded after emerging from the top side of the yellow zone.
>| Light from the explosion would follow the blue line in my graph.
>| Noah would have still been aboard the ark, and his clocks would
>| have been ticking slower than clocks outside that zone. If at
>| that time he could have (somehow) observed the photons from
>| SN1987a, he would have clocked them zooming in at much faster
>| than 186,000 miles per second"
> (
CRSNET@... Supernova 1987a and Time Dilation,
> Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:51:07-0700).
>
> In the statements above he deals directly with his model and
> shows how the clock that Noah was using (close to gravity) was
> slower than the clock in the heavens.
*WHAT* GRAVITY!?!
WHEN are you EVER going to answer that question!?!
> The Bible says that "the same day were all the fountains
> of the great deep broken up, and the widows of heaven
> were open" (Gen. 7:11).
>
>
> Now knowing Mr. Hartzog's methods of interpretation the
> way I do, he probably interprets that verse to mean that
> the rain simply came from the clouds, but if he would
> purchase Dr. Humphreys' book he would see that Dr. Humphreys
> explained what the heavens were. He states: "And God called
> the expanse 'heavens.' And there was evening, and there was
> morning, a second day. These heavens are interstellar space..."
> (Starlight and Time, p. 78). If the "heavens" are
> "interstellar space" and if the windows of heaven were open,
> and if there were waters above the heavens which had been
> separated from the waters below the heavens, the interstellar
> space had opened up and the waters above it came down to the
> earth through the interstellar space as it opened up. During
> the time that the heavens were opened water wasn't the only
> thing that came down. The flood was not just a cataclismic
> event for the earth, but for all of creation. It was at this
> time that Dr. Humphreys states that "the light from the
> explosion traveled most of the 160,000 light-years of distance
> to us. After Noah got out of the ark, the photons carrying the
> image of the explosion were about 4300 light-years away from
> the earth." It was during that year that the heavens were
> opened up that the light travelled towards earth at a very
> high rate of speed.
1) Jerry McDonald doesn't understand anything at all about
my "methods of interpretation".
2) The "windows of heaven" aren't "out there" somewhere;
they are right here with us, right now.
3) As I said before, I won't be throwing my money away on
any books by Russell Humphreys.
4) There is no evidence that a global Flood wiped out life on
Earth a few thousand years ago.
5) Neither Jerry McDonald nor Dr. D. Russell Humphreys tells
us how opening the windows of heaven is supposed to increase
the speed of light by a factor of thousands. A "very high
rate of speed", indeed! Ha! That would be hilarious
if it wasn't so pathetic, McDonald.
> As far as the age of the stars are concerned Dr. Humphreys
> dealt with that issue in his book as well:
>
>| "Early on the fourth day, God coalesces the clusters of atoms
>| into stars and thermonuclear fusion ignites in them. The
>| newly-formed stars find themselves grouped together in
>| galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As the fourth day proceeds
>| on earth, the more distant stars age billions of years, while
>| their light also has the same billions of years to travel to
>| earth. While the light is on its way, space continues to
>| expand, relativistically stretching out the light waves
>| (Appendix C) and shifting the wavelengths toward the red side
>| of the spectrum. Stars which are now farthest away have the
>| greatest redshift, because the waves have been stretched the
>| most. This progressive redshift is exactly what is observed"
> (Starlight and Time, pp. 37,38).
AND ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING EVERYONE?
Those Genesis "days" were long, undefined periods of time! The
Earth, and our Sun, and the Moon, and the rest of our solar system,
and our galaxy ALL aged "billions of years", right along with the
rest of the Universe! How did light travel billions of light-years
across space? Easy! It had billions of years to do it!
Humphreys refers to the cosmological redshift as if it is
confirmation of what he is saying, but what we should observe
if there was a time dilation event here a few thousand years ago
is a BLUESHIFT, NOT A REDSHIFT! The light that was traveling
at this "very high rate of speed" back a few thousand years ago
should STILL be blueshifted as far as I can tell. As far as I
can tell (and I'm really having to use my imagination to keep up
with Humphreys' wacky fantasy), Humphreys' proposal of a SECOND
time dilation event during the Flood *YEAR* contradicts what he
claims about time dilation during the Creation *WEEK*! Whatever
got redshifted during the Creation week was completely nullified
by this intense gravitational field during the Flood year!
But who can tell, really? It's all just fantasy anyway.
When you're just making stuff up, I guess you can make up
whatever you want to.
But, hey, wait just a minute... Don't I remember something about
McDonald rejecting the idea that the Universe is expanding?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13094
McDonald previously said there is "no evidence" for it, and
now he's quoting Humphreys' explanation of redshift! Hmmm!
> God caused these stars to age to the point that when Adam and
> Eve first looked at the night sky (after they were created on
> day six) they could observe starlight. These days were not
> long eons of time, but were six 24 hour days here on earth,
> but the stars aged (on day four) billions of earth years in one
> 24 hour day.
But the "days" MUST be long eons of time because the Earth and
the rest of the solar system aged billions of years, too! Our
Sun (which is also a star, by the way) aged billions of years.
The orbits of the planets aged billions of years. There is a
*continuum* between our local space and the rest of our galaxy,
and between our galaxy and the rest of the Universe, AS IS.
> If Mr. Hartzog has any problem with time dilation he need only
> remember that even Dr. Stephen Hawking upholds time dilation in
> his book A Brief History of Time in his discussion of the
> astronaut falling into a black hole.
I am not questioning the idea of general relativity or special
relativity. I am saying that relativity and "time dilation" do
not produce the magnitude of effect that Humphreys claims. It
just doesn't work that way. Stephen Hawking would be rolling on
the floor laughing at this nonsense. This isn't science, Jerry;
it is a ridiculous fantasy Humphreys cooked up to sell to people
whose faith is too insecure to accept the facts: the Earth and
Universe are much more ancient than any few thousand years, and
the Genesis creation account is allegorical, not literal.
>| In addition to this, depending on where Humphreys ARBITRARILY
>| decides to draw the boundaries of his slo-time envelope, it may
>| be IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Humphreys' claim that there are
>| not enough supernova remnants, or otherwise leave Humphreys
>| trying to explain why there appear to be about as many
>| supernova remnants in one galaxy as there are in the next one.
>
> Dr. Humphreys did not ARBITRARILY decide anything. He gave a
> plausible, scientific explanation of what happened during the
> flood.
Humphreys himself said "depending on how far out I put the apex
of the triangle". He can draw the boundary anywhere he wants
to ("arbitrarily") because there is no reason for him to draw it
in any particular place in the first place. Wherever he draws it,
he draws it WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE that constrains it to that region;
wherever he draws it he draws it IN CONTRADICTION to the evidence
that says there IS NO SUCH BOUNDARY AND NEVER HAS BEEN!
> Mr. Hartzog thinks that the flood only affected the earth, but
> it didn't. The scriptures tell us that the "windows of heaven
> opened up." When the windows of heaven opened up this means
> that the interstellar space was open and the light from
> distant stars would be able to travel at a much faster speed
> than normal during that year.
I don't see any sign of water having hit the Moon. How did
all that water from beyond the stars rain "down" onto the Earth
without flooding the Moon as well?
> Mr. Hartzog states that this explantion "may be IN DIRECT
> CONTRADICTION" to Dr. Humphrey's claim that there are not
> enough supernova remnants. In what way are they in DIRECT
> CONTRADICTION? Before I write anything else about DIRECT
> CONTRADICTIONS I will wait for Mr. Hartzog's response.
Your failure to immediately recognize the contradiction shows
just how clueless you are, McDonald. Get Danny Faulkner to
explain it to you, because he has already recognized it.
(By the way, have y'all noticed that it's "Dr." Humphreys but
"Mr." Faulkner to McDonald?)
Humphreys indicates that he can draw the boundary of the time
dilation events wherever he wants to, even including the Large
Magellanic Cloud if he so desires. Why then, are there about as
many supernova remnants in the galaxies *inside* the time
dilation envelope as *outside*, where Humphreys admits billions
of years of aging have occurred?
>| This is a criticism of "young-earth creation-science" I have
>| made before: every time they propose an explanation for
>| something it contradicts a dozen other of their "explanations".
>| They have no coherent model universe in which things fit together
>| in the way they do in the Universe as we know it explained by
>| the results of actual legitimate scientific investigation.
>
> I want Mr. Hartzog to show where this explanation contradicts
> anything that Dr. Humphreys has said.
If Noah's "clock" only measures one year, then there cannot be
millions and billions of years worth of radioactive decay taking
place in the Earth's rocks. Do you understand that, McDonald?
If Noah's "clock" only measures one year, then the local galaxy
should have far *fewer* supernova remnants than what it does.
(The "not enough supernova remnants" argument is ridiculously
outdated anyway, and the young-earth creationists who use it
pretend that all the supernova remnants that are out there have
already been found. Regardless, Humphreys' time dilation claims
contradict his own claim about the number of supernova remnants
we should see.)
If Noah's "clock" only measures one year while the Andromeda
galaxy goes through 500 million years of aging and the light
from SN 1987A crosses 160,000 light-years of space, then
galaxies are NOT "winding up too fast", as Humphreys claims
elsewhere.
If Noah's "clock" only measures one year while the rest of the
Universe ages billions of years, then there MUST BE SOMETHING
NEARBY that would indicate a MASSIVE gravitational field a
few thousand years ago. There is NOTHING. No sign of it.
> Let him show that a contradiction does indeed exist and we
> will deal with it.
There are your contradictions, above. Deal with them.
(Likely story, right, McDonald? You won't be dealing with
any of these things and I know it.) A "time dilation" event
in the region of the Earth during the Creation week and another
such event during the Flood year completely contradict Russell
Humphreys' claims of galaxies winding up too fast, too few
supernova remnants, and rapid radioactive decay of the Earth's
rocks during the Flood year. (Incidentally, Humphreys' and
Austin's "Catastrophic Tectonics" ALSO contradict the idea of
this rapid radioactive decay.)
But first I want you to deal with how we see the light from
SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years distant. (I don't expect
McDonald will be able to "deal with" any of these things
anyway, because there IS NO dealing with them. There is NO
EXPLANATION for any such contradictions in our physical
Universe.)
And don't forget, you were also supposed to be dealing with
showing why "evolution isn't science". I would suggest that
first you will need to find out what science is, and then you
will need to nail down a working definition of "evolution" to
see if you can understand how legitimate science would go about
investigating it.
> He doesn't like scientific explanations for things such as this
> because he wants to be able to parrot off the same old rhetoric
> that creationists cannot make any scientific arguments for a
> young universe and earth.
I'm still waiting to see a "scientific explanation". You
have not come anywhere close to offering any such thing.
Science explains evidence. You have no evidence to explain.
McDonald continues:
> Hartzog finally writes
>
>| Time dilation is a relativistic effect related to
>| gravity and/or velocity, i.e., when it is observed it
>| is observed for a *reason*. There is no *reason* for
>| Humphreys to call on time dilation as one of the
>| effects of the Flood -- if he wants to just claim
>| outlandish miracles as the reason we can see distant
>| starlight, just call it a miracle, withdraw from the
>| creation-science game, and let that be that.
>
> Yes time dilation is observed for a reason, but it isn't
> something that happens sometimes and doesn't happen some
> time. Time dilation is something that happens because of
> gravity. A clock closer to gravity moves slower than one
> does away from gravity. When the flood took place, as
> earlier stated, more was effected than just the earth.
>
> The heavens were opened up and the photons carrying the
> light were able to move at a much faster speed towards
> the point where the water was going; the earth.
WHY? WHY, WHY, WHY?
WHY, JERRY, WHY? Where do you get the idea that light was
able to travel faster than the speed of light, from what
you say here?
If opening the "windows of heaven" let water and light
travel at faster-than-light speeds to the Earth, why didn't
EVERYTHING ELSE travel at faster-than-light speeds to the
Earth? Did all that gravity affect only water and light,
but nothing else?
> The only reasons for the heavens to open up was so that
> water from outside of the firmament could get to the earth
> which was beneath the firmament. This is not a promotional
> for the "canopy theory," but this is where some of the water
> came from.
There is no evidence that there is a boundary of water out
there, McDonald. You are supposed to be giving us a
scientific explanation, not fantasy. Now you're telling me
that WATER traveled billions of light-years across space at
speeds MILLIONS of times the speed of light because of GRAVITY???
You're telling me that there was so much gravity in the region
of the Earth that *water fell to the Earth from beyond the
stars*??? That's crazy! If there was that much gravity around
the Earth it would have sucked the entire Milky Way galaxy down
on top of it. The entire Universe would have collapsed into
a black hole.
Will you please stop and THINK about what you're saying?
THINK about it, McDonald! A drop of water billions of light-years
away "falls" to the Earth at faster-than-light speeds, zipping
past SN 1987A so fast that it pulls the light along with it?
Gravitational time dilation so strong that water from out beyond
the stars is pulled to the Earth, but for some reason the Moon
and the planets stay right where they are? It's idiocy, I tell
you!
> Dr. Humphreys wrote
>
> "A last biblical problem is with how the waters of the Genesis
> flood ceased:
>
> Also the fountains of the deep and floodgates of the sky were
> closed, and the rains from the sly was restrained--Genesis 8:2
> Notice the account doesn't say the waters from above stopped
> themselves because there were none left to collapse. Instead
> it implies there were still some waters available, and that
> they had to be stopped by closing the floodgates of the sky
> (literally 'the windows of the heavesn'). In line with this,
> Malachi 3:10 implies that the 'windows of the heavens,'
> whatever they are, still exist" (Starlight and Time, p. 62).
What does Humphreys mean, "windows of heaven, whatever they are"?
No, no, no! How is that any different than saying "DAYS, whatever
they are"? All of this crazy talk just because you can't accept
that the Genesis "days" are not meant to be taken as literal
24-hour periods!
You do understand, don't you, that that is all that it takes to
fix everything? Just accept that those Genesis "days" are
figurative, and that the "death" brought into the world by sin
is spiritual, and you can put all this pseudoscience foolishness
behind you! Don't you get tired of looking like an idiot all
the time, because of the stupid stuff you post on the World
Wide Web?
> During the time that the floodgates were opened, the heavens
> were opened and this gave the light from sk 69o 202 the
> opportunity, after it exploded, to travel close enough to earth
> in order for it to have been seen in January 1987. When one
> looks at the fact that the flood affected not only the earth,
> but the heavens as well, it is easily seen how this light could
> have travelled far enough for us to see it in 1987.
You are telling me that water traveled through space faster than
the speed of light, faster even than light which was itself
somehow speeded up more than hundreds of thousands of times faster
than normal. WATER, McDonald! You are saying *water* traveled
billions of light-years across interstellar distances in a matter
of weeks!
Now, look: According to Humphreys, the gravitational time dilation
field around the Earth left light traveling through the rest of
the Universe at locally-relative speeds of 186,000 miles per
second, but which would have appeared to Noah, "if he could have
seen it," to be traveling much faster. According to Humphreys,
this allowed the light from SN 1987A to travel "most of the
distance" (over 160,000 light-years) to the Earth, and at the end
of the Flood the light was still 4300 light-years away.
Except for the unhandy little facts that there is no evidence of
such a gravitational field having ever existed anywhere around the
Earth, and that such a gravity field would have completely
destroyed everything in this region of space, all well and good.
We can just overlook that for a moment, because you have a much
bigger problem, even, than that: in 40 days within that same
year-long period when light only managed to make it *part* of the
way from SN 1987A to the Earth, 160,000 light-years or so, you
are saying that water traveled *billions* of light-years across
space. Now, you can play your "Miracle Card" here, your "get
out of a tight spot for free" card, if you want to, but before
you do you need to stop and seriously consider what kind of
false witness you are bearing against the Creator.
> Another thing to remember about Dr. Humphreys' statement above
> is God's promise to man, that he would never destroy the earth
> with water again. This implies that there is water, above the
> expanse (the heavens) left in which he could do this, but he
> won't.
The God I know does not require a reserve water supply out
beyond the stars with which he "could" flood the Earth. God
"could" flood the Earth with maple syrup if He wanted to, and
He wouldn't have to have a supply of it on hand to do it.
> Not scientific? Looks pretty scientific to me!
Which just goes to prove what I said the last time:
Jerry McDonald is completely incompetent to be making
judgment calls on what qualifies as science and what does not.
This is lunacy, McDonald, not science. You're insane.
You have gotten in so far over your head you're NEVER going to
be able to get out of this one.
> Was there supernatural intervention here? As far as the flood
> is concerned, the answer is yes. However time dilation was a
> natural result of the supernatural opening of the heavens. As
> such Dr. Humphreys' model is a scientific model whether
> Mr. Hartzog wants to admit it or not.
If you really believe that, McDonald, I can rest my case. You
are incompetent to be pretending to speak authoritatively about
anything in regard to science. For a drop of water out there
beyond the stars to be gravitationally drawn to Earth would take
a gravitational field so strong that it would collapse the
Universe. You can forget about the Earth being destroyed by
water; it would have been destroyed by planets, stars and galaxies
all being pulled down on top of it, long before the water ever got
here from those "windows of heaven".
> Now I am no scientist, and there are many things about science
> that I do not understand,
No fooling...
> ...but the objections that Mr. Hartzog has brought before us
> are easily answered by someone even though he isn't a scientist.
Easily answered if you consider this lunatic gibberish an
answer, I suppose. Look, McDonald, if this is the level of your
intelligence I am done with you. Over the past four months, you
have not been able to take part in a rational discussion about
*anything*. About the best thing I can say is that you are an
example of what "young-earth creation-science" does to a person's
thought processes. Children, if you don't want to wind up like
Mr. McDonald here, stay away from creation "science". It'll turn
your head into mush.
> I will gladly respond to anything that Mr. Hartzog has to say
> in response to this article...
Respond away, all you want to. But I'm telling you, if you don't
start talking sense I am done with you. Trying to conduct a
reasonable and intelligent discussion with you is just too
exasperating for me.
> ...but I challenge him to contact Dr. Humphreys, since he
> thinks that Dr. Humphreys is ignorant of science...
I never said Humphreys is ignorant of science. I say he is a
deliberate liar.
> ...and discuss this issue with him. That is a discussion
> that I would love to see. I'll gladly publish it on the
> Challenge website. How about it Rick, are you up to it?
Jerry, yes! I'm up to it! I've been wanting to get ahold
of Russell Humphreys for years. Please send him the invitation
to come to the Maury_and_Baty list and take on "Goliath" in a
public, for-the-record discussion on the evidence of age!
Oh please, please, please!
(I have diligently searched the internet for an e-mail address
for Humphreys, without success, so I have sent a personal
message to Jerry McDonald requesting the contact information.)
UPDATE!: HUMPHREYS DECLINES McDONALD'S CHALLENGE!!!
Details to follow!
Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
For your reading pleasure:
The Speed of Gravity:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
Hard and heavy criticism of Humphreys' cosmology:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_77-80.pdf
Dr. Danny Faulkner's criticism of Russell Humphreys'
"white hole" cosmology (in which Dr. Faulkner also points
out that Humphreys' cosmological model contradicts several
other young-earth "evidences" which Humphreys promotes):
"The Current State of Creation Astronomy":
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email