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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.