Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1309Re: The empirical fact of antiquity - for Michael

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1276):
      > Hello Todd,
      > I am catching up on the messages so please be patient with me. I
      > work long hours and do not have a great deal of time to keep up
      > on a daily basis.

      Hi, Michael.

      No problem.

      >> Analogy: Let's say you and I have a dispute concerning the
      >> length of a particular road that we both know about. Here's the
      >> nature of the dispute: You claim that the road stretches only
      >> about 6,000 feet long (a little over a mile). I say, "Well, I'm
      >> not sure just how long the road is, but I'm quite certain that
      >> the road is considerably longer than a mile...
      > Your analogy is a good one if it actually described the situation
      > between us. I do not hold to a claim that the earth is 6-10K
      > years old.

      Then what do you hold? You certainly wouldn't be the first young
      earth creationist why ends up getting real shy when met by a critic
      of young earth creationist ideas who happens to know a little about
      what he's talking about.

      Besides, this, with respect to YEC itself and your argument that the
      YEC model is just as "okay" as the antiquity model, my analogy is a
      great one. It describes the situation perfectly, and gives a picture
      of just how silly the YEC position really is.

      > David, in the Bereanlikespirit club, however, made a bold
      > statement that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
      > 4.6 billion years old. It appears that you do not hold this
      > position as factual (I suppose you can tell me if you do or not).

      I agree that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
      approximately 4.6 billion years. I come down on the "approximately"
      side of the fence. If it happened to be the case that the earth was
      really 3.8 billion years old or 5.3 billion years old, I couldn't
      care less. What I've been pointing out to you is that estimations of
      the actual age of the earth are totally irrelevant with respect to
      whether or not the YEC position is a false idea about the world. Why?
      As I have already pointed out to you WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING
      AT ALL about how old the earth actually is. ALL WE NEED TO KNOW FOR
      SURE is whether or not the earth has been in existence substantially
      longer than 10,000 years, and this we do know. YEC is a false idea
      about the real world, so when people like you start arguing that YEC
      is a good scientific model (or, say, at least as good as the
      antiquity model), then I will discuss why your argument is flatly

      > Now, you do go on to say in your analogy you are quite certain
      > there is no evidence that suggests the earth is less than 10,000
      > years old. How high of a figure would you consider? Would you
      > suggest that this same evidence also indicates that the earth is
      > older than 50K years? 100K years? What is the threshold of your
      > certainty? Is it one billion, or 2, or 3?

      I know that the earth, and the universe, has been around for AT LEAST
      millions of years. That is all I need to know personally in order to
      declare quite openly and publically that young earth creationism is a
      position that is falsified by the empirical facts.

      The difference between the knowing this about the earth, and about
      the universe, has to do with the nature of the area of scientific
      investigation. With geology you have to deal with piecing together a
      lot of detailed information about the past. This is different from
      astronomy, because in the case of astronomy, yes you still have to
      piece a lot of detailed information together, but with astronomical
      observation we literally OBSERVE for ourselves firsthand the distant
      past that YECs claim doesn't exist.

      > Since you state that you are quite certain then I presume that
      > you can quite certainly give a ball-park figure with regard to
      > the age of the earth.

      Golly, Michael, why do you keep ignoring what I've pointed out to you
      so clearly and even helped you to understand with the road analogy.
      ACTUALLY IS. With respect to knowing whether or not YEC is a false
      idea about the real world, all we need to know for certain is that
      the earth, and the universe, have been in existence substantially
      longer than 10,000, and we do know this for certain. In the case of
      the universe, we know this by direct observation.

      > You also said:
      >> With the particular example of the supernova SN1987A
      >> that I have explained to you...
      > Sorry, I have not gotten a chance to read this from the other
      > club. I will get to it this weekend or early next week and post
      > my remarks to this then.

      Sure you did. In the Bereanlikespirit group you replied to at least
      one of my posts in which I explicitly stated the SN1987A example for
      you and provided you with online references. I resposted this post to
      this group: repost #1:


      Why are you ignoring what I stated in this post?

      >> Yet this is precisely the argument that you've been making with
      >> respect to the antiquity of the universe...
      > The antiquity of the earth is what is under discussion, and, no,
      > this is not really the argument that I have been making.

      You have argued that the YEC "model" is just as good as the
      antiquity "model". I know that your argument is wrong, and I have
      explained to you why it is wrong.

      > The argument is
      > not that your odometer reads 32 miles, but is whether the odometer
      > you are using is accurate. See?

      Actually, your argument has been much stronger than that. You have
      argued that there is no odometer. Any odometer that cannot
      distinguish the difference between 1 mile and 32 miles - and 1,000
      miles - is completely useless.

      I have simply pointed out that the odometer (actually, there are many
      different odometers) is quite good enough to know that we have
      traveled much, much farther than 1 mile. It is you who are disputing
      this. Even while you completely ignore the clear and specific SN1987A
      example that I have pointed out to you that proves that your argument
      is wrong.

      > I am quite certain that the radiometric dating methods used
      > produce the results you rely upon, but whether those results are
      > factual is what I question.

      I haven't been talking about radiometric dating methods. I don't need
      to know a thing about radiometric dating to know that young earth
      creationism is false. The geologists of 200 years ago didn't need to
      know anything about radiometric dating methods either.

      Thousands of feet of solid rock don't erode in 10,000 years - and,
      no, not even in a global flood that lasts for a year. The YEC notion
      is absurd in geology, which is why it hasn't been taken seriously in
      geological science for about 200 hundred years.

      > In your analogy
      > you have as your evidence something that can be actually
      > measured. You then equate this with your evidence and its
      > measurements. Ok, let's discuss, one at a time, the measurements
      > you are using-let's see your odometer readings! I bet I can roll
      > them back for you.

      I already did, Michael, but you've keep ignoring it:


      The case of supernova SN1987A is the explosion of a star that took
      place 168,000 years ago. Since in the case of SN1987A we know that
      the universe has been in existence for at least 168,000 years, we
      know that the YEC "model" is a false idea about the real world.

      Todd S. Greene
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic