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

Re: Bert Thompson et al's Critique of Big Bang Cosmology

Expand Messages
  • mathewmaury
    ... I had never heard of Bouw before your mention. I quickly lookup up this Dr. Bouw. He sounds quite intelligent. Did you know he has a PHD in astronomy? But
    Message 1 of 13 , May 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Todd Greene wrote:
      > Did anyone notice these young earth creationists citing
      > Gerardus Bouw in this article? Bouw is a modern-day
      > geocentrist. Look him up if you don't believe me.

      > [...] and there is absolutely no disagreement among
      > astronomers whatsoever regarding the fact that the
      > universe is expanding.

      I had never heard of Bouw before your mention. I quickly
      lookup up this Dr. Bouw. He sounds quite intelligent. Did
      you know he has a PHD in astronomy? But according to Todd's
      definition, he cannot be an astronomer! Because by Todd's
      definition, if a man disagrees with his expanding universe
      model, then he is no astronomer.

      I have noticed a lot of ad hominem ridicule (even on this
      list) instead of the merits of an idea. So what if a man
      believes the earth is the center of the universe, the Sun is
      not a star, man is not an animal, creation was accomplished
      in six days, etc? Does that man automatically have no
      understanding of truth that you do not possess? Or are his
      ideas unworthy of serious consideration because they are
      contrary to your own?

      One on this list expressed 'I really appreciate your time,
      talent and interest in commenting on what is going to be a
      series out of Apologetics Press'. Apologetics Press seems to
      be attempting to deal with the very assumptions that Todd
      makes in his time/space arguments. Does Todd intend to put
      up more than this '4 out of 5 scientists agree with me'
      defense?

      Believing God's account of creation in six days does not
      seem to be an option for Todd. Any belief in origins seems
      fine with Todd as long as it is not the Biblical account.
      Some claim to seek truth and yet avert their eyes when truth
      is presented to them.
    • rlbaty50
      ... My comments: I think that was me that expressed that note of appreciation, and I still have those sentiments. Of course, we know from past experience that
      Message 2 of 13 , May 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
        <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote, in part:

        > One on this list expressed
        > 'I really appreciate your time,
        > talent and interest in commenting
        > on what is going to be a series
        > out of Apologetics Press'.

        > Does Todd intend to put up more
        > than this '4 out of 5 scientists
        > agree with me' defense?
        >
        > Believing God's account of creation
        > in six days does not seem to be an
        > option for Todd.

        My comments:

        I think that was me that expressed that note of appreciation, and I
        still have those sentiments.

        Of course, we know from past experience that it is "mathewmaury" who
        is not going to "put up" any rebuttal on what Todd has actually
        offered by way of detail, independent of any and all personal
        references, or bring us one of his potential champions to make the
        case for him.

        And, methinks "mathewmaury" misstated his position in that last part
        up there.

        He should have written:

        > Believing anything other than
        > the YEC interpretation of
        > creation in six recent days
        > is not an option for "mathewmaury".

        I don't think anybody is particularly concerned about such a
        position, as Todd has emphasized many times and in many places.

        The problem is with those that propose they have a scientific case
        supporting their fallible, biblical interpretations. That is what
        Bert and his are trying to claim; against Todd's rebuttal.

        "GRAS" is still there, unassailed.

        And I suppose it is worthy of note, for the formal logical minds that
        watch such stuff, that ad hominem arguments (something "mathewmaury"
        also appeared to complaining about; I did not give that quote from
        him above) are not always fallacious. Ad hominem has an appropriate
        place in making some logical and practical arguments. I think it has
        a real important place when it comes to considering the claims of YEC
        leaders and supporters, as my own experiences have shown.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty50
        ... My comments: I did, and found his home page at: http://www.geocentricity.com/index.htm Sincerely, Robert Baty
        Message 3 of 13 , May 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
          <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

          > Did anyone notice these young
          > earth creationists citing
          > Gerardus Bouw in this article?
          > Bouw is a modern-day geocentrist.
          > Look him up if you don't
          > believe me.

          My comments:

          I did, and found his home page at:

          http://www.geocentricity.com/index.htm

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... Hi, Mat. Pardon me, I was writing in hyperbole, and I wouldn t expect you to understand any such thing! So let me clarify my statement that there is
          Message 4 of 13 , May 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Matthew Maury wrote (post #1111):
            > --- Todd Greene wrote:
            >> Did anyone notice these young earth creationists citing
            >> Gerardus Bouw in this article? Bouw is a modern-day
            >> geocentrist. Look him up if you don't believe me.
            >
            >> [...] and there is absolutely no disagreement among
            >> astronomers whatsoever regarding the fact that the
            >> universe is expanding.
            >
            > I had never heard of Bouw before your mention. I quickly
            > lookup up this Dr. Bouw. He sounds quite intelligent. Did
            > you know he has a PHD in astronomy? But according to Todd's
            > definition, he cannot be an astronomer! Because by Todd's
            > definition, if a man disagrees with his expanding universe
            > model, then he is no astronomer.

            Hi, Mat.

            Pardon me, I was writing in hyperbole, and I wouldn't expect you to
            understand any such thing!

            So let me clarify my statement that "there is absolutely no
            disagreement among astronomers whatsoever regarding the fact that the
            universe is expanding." Two points:

            First of all, when I refer to astronomers I'm talking about serious
            scientists in the field of astronomy and astrophysics who actually
            carry out scientific studies and analyses and publish this research
            in the professional science literature. Of these astronomers (and
            there are many thousands of them) there are a handful (literally - I
            believe there are less than 10) who seriously question the expansion
            of the universe. There are a couple of YECs who happen to have
            degrees in astronomy and who teach at Bible colleges. I'm sorry, but
            I don't consider these guys real scientists, because they don't
            engage in the serious scientific research that I just referred to.
            Getting a degree and teaching fringe "science" (actually, religious
            based beliefs decorated with "scientific" trappings) at some Bible
            college for the next thirty years doesn't make you a scientist.

            Second... well, let's continue after some more of your comments.

            >
            > I have noticed a lot of ad hominem ridicule (even on this
            > list) instead of the merits of an idea. So what if a man
            > believes the earth is the center of the universe, the Sun is
            > not a star, man is not an animal, creation was accomplished
            > in six days, etc? Does that man automatically have no
            > understanding of truth that you do not possess? Or are his
            > ideas unworthy of serious consideration because they are
            > contrary to your own?

            Some guy who promotes himself as providing commentary on astronomy
            that is supposed to be taken *seriously* doesn't teach silly ideas
            like geocentrism or that the sun isn't a star. So, second, if he
            *does*, then he demonstrates that there is something seriously wrong
            with his understanding - which is precisely why his comments can't be
            taken seriously. The problem is not that he is mistaken about some
            minor point. The problem is that he is badly mistaken - and
            obstinately in error - about basic issues that have long since been
            resolved in an unequivocal way. In other words, in advocating such
            bad ideas a person who does it demonstrates that there is something
            fundamentally wrong with his own attitudinal approach to the subject.

            The ideas about astronomy that a man who promotes geocentrism has are
            unworthy of serious consideration not because they are contrary to my
            beliefs, but because in denying the empirical fact that the earth
            orbits the sun he is showing that there is a fundamental problem with
            his thinking about the issue. (In other words, his attitude in this
            area is being affected by irrational considerations. Bouw's own
            rhetoric shows clearly that his concerns over geocentrism are
            motivated by certain religious beliefs concerning the Bible.)

            Moreover, in posts I made in previous months to this discussion group
            I discussed various scientific details - and you just ran away from
            them and refused to even deal with them, so I really wouldn't be
            trying to hypocritically pretend that I don't deal with scientific
            details if I were you.

            >
            > One on this list expressed 'I really appreciate your time,
            > talent and interest in commenting on what is going to be a
            > series out of Apologetics Press'. Apologetics Press seems to
            > be attempting to deal with the very assumptions that Todd
            > makes in his time/space arguments. Does Todd intend to put
            > up more than this '4 out of 5 scientists agree with me'
            > defense?

            Well, in reality, it's actually more like 999.9 out of a thousand
            astronomers agree that this is the case (the expansion of the
            universe). There're always some few guys way out on the fringe (cold
            fusion, anyone?). By the way, with respect to Halton Arp in
            particular, I believe - but I'm not sure - that Arp actually agrees
            with the expansion of the universe, but I wasn't able to quickly
            track anything on that down, his material being unfortunately
            *buried* on the internet with a bunch of "alternative science"
            gobbledygook. I believe Arp's issue is simply that there is more to
            the redshift phenomenon in certain cases than meets the eye. One
            would have to dig into the details about that more than I did to know
            for sure one way or the other.

            >
            > Believing God's account of creation in six days does not
            > seem to be an option for Todd.

            Actually it's your human account that I know by empirical observation
            to be wrong. God - should He even exist - would never say such stupid
            things about the real world since we can actually look at the real
            world and see that the universe has been in existence for hundreds of
            millions, even billions, of years. If God had taught us
            scientifically objective information about the universe, He would not
            have been teaching what is known to be wrong. For example, He would
            not teach us that the sun orbits the earth, since, in fact, the earth
            orbits the sun.

            > Any belief in
            > origins seems fine with Todd as long as it is not the Biblical
            > account.

            Any belief in origins is fine with me as long as it corresponds to
            what we already know by observation of the real world (reality)
            itself. If a belief contains claims about the real world that we see
            are wrong when we look at the real world to check them out, then
            either the belief must be modified to match what we learn or rejected
            altogether. In the case of young earth creationism, one of the most
            fundamental ideas of the belief is the empirically false idea that
            the world didn't exist more than several thousand years ago. Since
            most of YEC doctrine is based on this fundamental idea, eliminating
            this false idea of a young universe and young earth from the doctrine
            ends up actually destroying most of the doctrine.

            > Some claim to
            > seek truth and yet avert their eyes when truth is presented to
            > them.

            Exactly. And they're called "young earth creationists." This is why
            they look at the astronomical observations of such events as SN1987A
            and then try to pretend, with the ever popular apparent age argument,
            that what we observe is nothing more than an illusion of something
            that never really happened. The YEC approach is, "It doesn't matter
            to me whether or not we've observed these events from the distant
            past, I believe that the universe didn't exist more than several
            thousand years ago and that settles it. Don't bother me with the
            data." The majority of YECs that I encounter demonstrate by their own
            behavior that they are far more interested in their personal YEC
            belief than they are in the truth. Indeed, a lot of them even try to
            seriously argue that we should *ignore* what we observe about the
            real world. This alone shows me that those YECs who argue this are
            simply not interested in the truth.

            Regards,
            Todd S. Greene
            http://www.creationism.cc/
          • lipscombgene
            ... wrote: Gene: A lot more misinformed rantings... ... Gene: No, but if a man believes the earth is the center of the solar system, he is
            Message 5 of 13 , May 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
              <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:

              Gene: A lot more misinformed rantings...

              > I had never heard of Bouw before your mention. I quickly
              > lookup up this Dr. Bouw. He sounds quite intelligent. Did
              > you know he has a PHD in astronomy? But according to Todd's
              > definition, he cannot be an astronomer! Because by Todd's
              > definition, if a man disagrees with his expanding universe
              > model, then he is no astronomer.

              Gene: No, but if a man believes the earth is the center of the solar
              system, he is uninformed and wrong, whether he somehow has a Ph.D in
              Astronomy or not.

              > I have noticed a lot of ad hominem ridicule (even on this
              > list) instead of the merits of an idea. So what if a man
              > believes the earth is the center of the universe, the Sun is
              > not a star, man is not an animal, creation was accomplished
              > in six days, etc? Does that man automatically have no
              > understanding of truth that you do not possess? Or are his
              > ideas unworthy of serious consideration because they are
              > contrary to your own?

              Gene: When people espouse foolish or ignorant views (such as "The sun
              is not a star"), they lose a great deal of credibility on other
              matters. One of the primary researchers into the so-called "c-decay"
              hypothesis (that the speed of light was somehow faster in the past),
              also believes his findings explain how aliens in their spaceships can
              move in ways that violate the laws of physics. His support of aliens
              flying around lower whatever value he might bring to the discussion.
              Henry Morris, of ICR fame, believes that Satan and the Archangel
              Michael caused the craters on the moon during a cosmic battle. He
              also believes there is a hollow sphere at the center of the earth
              where the souls of the damned go for eternity. These nutty ideas
              reflect upon the OTHER ideas these people have. It's called source
              denigration. Look it up sometime.

              > Does Todd intend to put
              > up more than this '4 out of 5 scientists agree with me'
              > defense?

              Gene: He did, if you'll read his post. He pointed out that there is a
              great deal of information missing from the AP article, that they are
              quoting from old sources, etc. Reading is easier if your head is not
              in the sand.

              > Some claim to seek truth and yet avert their eyes when truth
              > is presented to them.

              Gene: You are the prime example of that with regard to the GRAS.
            • mathewmaury
              ... Would the man to whom you refer classify anything as a solar system ? The term seems to negate his beliefs. Would he not use appellations such as geo
              Message 6 of 13 , May 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Gene wrote :
                > if a man believes the earth is the center of the solar
                > system, he is uninformed and wrong.

                Would the man to whom you refer classify anything as a
                'solar system'? The term seems to negate his beliefs. Would
                he not use appellations such as 'geo system' or 'terra
                system'? Or perhaps 'revolving universe'? Does anyone on
                this list know?
              • lipscombgene
                ... Gene: Do you never tire of word games? That is all we seem to get from you. The sun is not a star . Man is not an animal . I misspoke above. I don t care
                Message 7 of 13 , May 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "mathewmaury"
                  <sqi7o0hh02@s...> wrote:
                  > --- Gene wrote :
                  > > if a man believes the earth is the center of the solar
                  > > system, he is uninformed and wrong.
                  >
                  > Would the man to whom you refer classify anything as a
                  > 'solar system'? The term seems to negate his beliefs. Would
                  > he not use appellations such as 'geo system' or 'terra
                  > system'? Or perhaps 'revolving universe'? Does anyone on
                  > this list know?

                  Gene: Do you never tire of word games? That is all we seem to get
                  from you. "The sun is not a star". "Man is not an animal".

                  I misspoke above. I don't care what term someone ignorant enough to
                  think that the sun revolves around the earth calls such a system.

                  Does not change the fact that they are so outrageously wrong as to
                  eliminate any credibility on topics of interest.

                  Deal with GRAS. Stop dealing with trivialities and useless side
                  issues.
                • mathewmaury
                  ... I was not expecting such a vociferous response to my simple query about what a geocentrist calls the collection of planets near to the earth. Perhaps the
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Gene wrote:
                    > Do you never tire of word games? That is all we seem to get
                    > from you. "The sun is not a star". "Man is not an animal".
                    >
                    > I misspoke above. I don't care what term someone ignorant
                    > enough to think that the sun revolves around the earth calls
                    > such a system.
                    >
                    > Does not change the fact that they are so outrageously wrong
                    > as to eliminate any credibility on topics of interest.
                    >
                    > Deal with GRAS. Stop dealing with trivialities and useless
                    > side issues.

                    I was not expecting such a vociferous response to my simple
                    query about what a 'geocentrist' calls the collection of
                    planets near to the earth.

                    Perhaps the info below will not be received with such
                    truculent bellicosity.

                    Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare were
                    produced in response to the familiar idea that if an
                    infinite number of monkeys are given typewriters for an
                    infinite amount of time, they will eventually produce the
                    complete works of Shakespeare.

                    The text was first produced in Paignton Zoo by a group of
                    Sulawesi Macaque monkeys.

                    Read about the book here:
                    http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/

                    See the entire book here (2.9 MB):
                    http://tinyurl.com/bfon

                    Buy your own copy of the book here:
                    http://www.kahve-house.com/society/shop/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.