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

RE: Casual observation for Michael!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... Actually, for purposes of my poll question which I have put on about half-dozen lists, my term is more particularly defined as 5,000 - 50,000 years. FWIW,
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael, you wrote:

      > The issue you seem to have
      > cornered is that the earth is
      > less than 10K years old.

      Actually, for purposes of my poll question which I have put on about
      half-dozen lists, my term is more particularly defined as 5,000 - 50,000
      years. FWIW, I don't think anyway has voted "False" to the poll
      question. All voters have voted "TRUE" concerning the existence of the
      YEC!

      You continued:

      > I let you have your victory.

      I appreciate the sentiment, but the victory was mine without your
      concession. :o)

      The rest of your appeal for the discussion to continue on the ancient
      evidence appears to have been directed at Todd, so I will leave that to
      you and him to pursue.

      However, you did also quip:

      > Let us see how Goliath the
      > GRAS is now!

      The "Goliath of GRAS" will stand without framing the issue as you have.
      The "GRAS" premises and conclusion only require a showing that the "few
      thousand years ago six days event (the YEC position) is inconsistent
      with the evidence. Millions and billions of years are not required, as
      Todd has already attempted to explain.

      Michael, would you agree that there is empirical evidence that the
      earth/universe is at least 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years old? If
      not, why not? Do you deny such empirical evidence exists or just how do
      you explain it away with no good reason if you are not inclined to
      defend YEC dogma?

      That would be enough to defeat the YEC folk addressed in the "GRAS".

      Got to go. Back at you later.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • Michael
      The issue you seem to have cornered is that the earth is less than 10K years old. Well then, in like manner, let s discuss the same about the 4.6 billion
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The issue you seem to have cornered is that the earth is less than 10K years
        old. Well then, in like manner, let's discuss the same about the 4.6
        billion figure! Are you game?

        I let you have your victory. So, Todd, Robert's "expert," let us discuss
        "your" evidence that the earth is in excess of plus one billion years old.
        You are so willing to discuss that the earth is plus 10K years, according to
        you, prove this as true; well, now Todd, let us discuss the other side. Are
        you game?

        I said that you are willing to take the negative. Now, take the
        affirmative. You said that you think the earth is greater than 4 plus
        billion years old, right? Yes. You did. Now, let's see you prove it in
        this casual conversation.

        Let us see how Goliath the GRAS is now! Good luck, bye the way.

        Bring your evidence!

        V/r

        Michael
      • Michael
        Hello Robert, YEC proofs to you = less than 10K. Is that your only evidence? The OEC disdain is only due to the equating with hypothesis with fact! That is
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Robert,

          YEC proofs to you = less than 10K. Is that your only evidence? The OEC
          disdain is only due to the equating with hypothesis with fact! That is the
          truth.

          Could the proofs of YEC only provide that the earth is less than 1 billion
          years old? Just as your proofs show that the YEC is less than 10K years
          old? Well, could this not be a possibility? If not, why not?

          Yes, I am not going to defend YEC dogma. Are you going to defend OEC?
          Bring it my Brother! Bring it.

          You said, "If you are not going to defend YEC dogma, there is no reason to
          believe
          anything you have seen supports you allegation that you figure YEC and
          the rest of the world of science are on equal footing."

          My dear friend: this sums it all up! I am not trying to stand on the dogma
          of the YEC, OEC, or science. This is why: 1 Corinthians 1:17-30! You read
          it and you "try" to do the math.

          My friend, you say, "for all you know, the "GRAS" is both valid and sound as
          well." I believe that many do believe this. I agree, but, as I said, I do
          not accept the proposition. It may be sound and true in the logic of your
          mind, but it still may even delude you! Tell me that you are smarter than
          those in Paul's time when he wrote 1 Corinthians 1:17ff.

          [There is ungetoverable evidence of the age of things.] No, not unless you
          are the creator. Is this your position? By the way, what is
          "ungetoveralbe"? That must be one of my words! \:-)

          But, you say: "Were that not the case, we might reasonably expect you to
          bring forth
          your favorite(s) YEC dogma for consideration."

          Now, as I said, you like to take the negative. Why not continue to take the
          positive! Bring it!

          v/r

          Michael
        • Michael
          [Actually, for purposes of my poll question which I have put on about half-dozen lists, my term is more particularly defined as 5,000 - 50,000 years. FWIW, I
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            [Actually, for purposes of my poll question which I have put on about
            half-dozen lists, my term is more particularly defined as 5,000 - 50,000
            years. FWIW, I don't think anyway has voted "False" to the poll
            question. All voters have voted "TRUE" concerning the existence of the
            YEC!]

            Well, now you are dealing with a YEC that wants you to take the affirmative
            that the earth is greater than just ONE BILLION YEARS OLD!!!!! Can you
            handle it? YOU ALL ARE THE ONES that think that the earth is greater
            "approximately" than this amount.

            Well, like I said, you don't want to take the affirmative on this! Come on!
            You have empiracle evidence on your side, right? Well, let's do it! BRING
            IT!

            All you need to do is affirm: "The earth is, according to empiracle
            evidence, at lease greater than one billion years old." Will you affirm
            this? I bet one million YEC scientist would love to take this!

            Again, you say "FACT" is on your side, so why not take it? BRING IT! Are
            you willing TODD?

            v/r

            Michael
          • Michael
            [The GRAS premises and conclusion only require a showing that the few thousand years ago six days event (the YEC position) is inconsistent with the
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              [The "GRAS" premises and conclusion only require a showing that the "few
              thousand years ago six days event (the YEC position) is inconsistent
              with the evidence.]

              Now, you are arguing much more than this, it appears. Am I not right? You
              are arguing that the earth is more than one billion years old. It is time
              to come out of the tent!

              [Michael, would you agree that there is empirical evidence that the
              earth/universe is at least 100,000 (one hundred thousand) years old?]

              Yes! There is also empirical evidence that the earth is less than 30K years
              old; less than one million years old; less than ....[we can go on]

              My issue is with the notion that has been propagated in the name of this
              gras that suggests that empirical evidence "proves" that the earth is
              "approximately" 4.6 billion years old. I want to see this evidence.

              Your expert seems to think that this is at least in the range, right?

              v/r

              Michael
            • rlbaty@webtv.net
              ... Michael, A little respect is due here; please refer to it as GRAS , GRAS, Gras, or Goliath of Gras ; not just gras! I ll stick with my defense of the
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael, you wrote:

                > My issue is with the notion that
                > has been propagated in the name
                > of this gras that suggests that
                > empirical evidence "proves" that
                > the earth is "approximately" 4.6
                > billion years old. I want to see
                > this evidence.

                Michael,

                A little respect is due here; please refer to it as "GRAS", GRAS, Gras,
                or "Goliath of Gras"; not just gras!

                I'll stick with my defense of the "GRAS" as a sound argument that goes
                to the issue just about every one who has considered it can recognize
                concerning the popular YEC movement. It makes no suggestion as to any
                proof for a 4.6 billion year old earth.

                Todd should be pursuing a discussion of the evidence issue with you.

                As a casual matter of conversation as to the relevance of GRAS, I am
                interested in what some folks are going to do about the premise
                concerning the evidence.

                I don't think informed folks can deny its existence. I think informed
                YEC even admit to its existence.

                It is what they do with it that really gets to the problem.

                They can claim it is fake or that things just look old, or some such
                thing, but they don't really deny that it exists.

                If you want to see the evidence simply presented, I would suggest you go
                out tonight and try to get a glimpse of some stars.

                Todd appears prepared to deal with you further as to that and I commend
                you to his care; should he decide to stay in the discussion.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • rlbaty@webtv.net
                ... Todd might take you up on that, but that is not the subject and relevance of the GRAS . By definition, if you are affirming that the earth is at least one
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael, you wrote:

                  > Well, now you are dealing with
                  > a YEC that wants you to take
                  > the affirmative that the earth is
                  > greater than just ONE BILLION
                  > YEARS OLD!!!!!

                  > Can you handle it?

                  > All you need to do is affirm:
                  > "The earth is, according to
                  > emperical evidence, at lease
                  > greater than one billion years
                  > old." Will you affirm this? I bet
                  > one million YEC scientist would
                  > love to take this!

                  Todd might take you up on that, but that is not the subject and
                  relevance of the "GRAS".

                  By definition, if you are affirming that the earth is at least one
                  billion years old, as you indicate, you are with me and the "GRAS".
                  We'll just shake on that and you can take up the other time/age
                  differences with Todd.

                  Can you see if you can get James to affirm with you that the earth is at
                  least one billion years old?

                  Neither I nor Todd (if I may presume to speak for him) would engage you
                  with a negative on that.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • rlbaty@webtv.net
                  ... Again, if, as you indicated, your affirmative position is that the empirical evidence supports a billion year old earth, you are with me and the GRAS in
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael, you wrote:

                    > My friend, you say, "for all you
                    > know, the "GRAS" is both valid
                    > and sound as well."

                    > I believe that many do believe
                    > this. I agree, but, as I said, I do
                    > not accept the proposition.

                    Again, if, as you indicated, your affirmative position is that the
                    empirical evidence supports a billion year old earth, you are with me
                    and the GRAS in opposition to the YEC folk the GRAS was intended to
                    address, and does, indeed, address.

                    You may have other issues, but if that is your position, we don't have
                    much to fuss about that I can tell concerning the GRAS or the reality of
                    the evidence concerning the age of things.

                    So it seems to me.

                    I'll look forward to you taking such matters up with Todd. I'd like to
                    hear more of what you are all about in rebuttal to Todd's position.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    Hi, Michael. Whether the road is 10,000 miles long, or 15,000 miles long, or 22,819 miles long, or something else is completely irrelevant to whether or not we
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, Michael.

                      Whether the road is 10,000 miles long, or 15,000 miles long, or
                      22,819 miles long, or something else is completely irrelevant to
                      whether or not we know that it is CERTAINLY quite a bit longer than
                      just 1 mile long. If we KNOW that the road is 32 miles long, then we
                      also KNOW that the idea that road is only 1 mile long is a false.

                      In the case of SN1987A we have an example of an event that took place
                      approximately 168,000 years ago. This is at least 158,000 years too
                      long for the YEC position. Examples like SN1987A demonstrate that the
                      YEC position has been FALSIFIED by our observations of the real world.

                      I myself have no idea how old the earth is, nor how old the universe
                      is. With respect to whether or not the YEC position has been
                      falsified, I don't need to know those things - as I have told you and
                      carefully explained to you repeatedly. In order to know that the YEC
                      position is false, all we need to know is whether or not the universe
                      and the earth have been around substantially longer than just ten
                      thousand years. The 168,000 years ago of SN1987A is substantially
                      longer than 10,000 years (and that's just one clear example).

                      This has nothing to do with GRAS (per se). This has to do with what
                      the world that we live in is really like. And with whether or not
                      people who *say* they respect truth really have the courage to accept
                      it.

                      Young earth creationism is false, and people who know that it is
                      false have the duty to say so. I, a young earth creationist, learned
                      the truth, modified my beliefs accordingly, and dared to say so.

                      I further state that Robert's metaphor of David and Goliath is wrong.
                      (Sorry, Robert!) This is because of the mighty hold that religious
                      tradition and religious prejudice has in the Church Of Christ. In the
                      COC young earth creationism is clearly the Goliath. David is the one
                      who realizes the flawed nature of YEC. The stones are the pieces of
                      truth by which this flawed nature is realized.

                      With respect to geological considerations (rather than astronomy), I
                      would also ask you to visit a cemetary in the near future, and be
                      sure to choose one that has been around for at least a couple of
                      hundred years. Walk around the cemetary and find the oldest
                      tombstones about which the dates are legible. Estimate how much the
                      lettering has been eroded down (a quarter inch? three-eights inch?),
                      and the time until today from the date of death on the tombstone.

                      Regards,
                      Todd S. Greene
                      http://www.creationism.cc/


                      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1316):
                      > The issue you seem to have cornered is that the earth is less
                      > than 10K years old. Well then, in like manner, let's discuss the
                      > same about the 4.6 billion figure! Are you game?
                      >
                      > I let you have your victory. So, Todd, Robert's "expert," let us
                      > discuss "your" evidence that the earth is in excess of plus one
                      > billion years old. You are so willing to discuss that the earth
                      > is plus 10K years, according to you, prove this as true; well,
                      > now Todd, let us discuss the other side. Are you game?
                      >
                      > I said that you are willing to take the negative. Now, take the
                      > affirmative. You said that you think the earth is greater than 4
                      > plus billion years old, right? Yes. You did. Now, let's see you
                      > prove it in this casual conversation.
                      >
                      > Let us see how Goliath the GRAS is now! Good luck, by the way.
                      >
                      > Bring your evidence!
                    • rlbaty50
                      ... Like others in persecuted minorities, I have attempted merely to conform the discussion to accommodate some of those involved. You may recall that GRAS
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                        <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

                        > I further state that Robert's metaphor of
                        > David and Goliath is wrong.

                        > (Sorry, Robert!)

                        > This is because of the mighty hold that
                        > religious tradition and religious prejudice
                        > has in the Church Of Christ.

                        > In the COC young earth creationism is clearly
                        > the Goliath.

                        Like others in persecuted minorities, I have attempted merely to
                        conform the discussion to accommodate some of those involved.

                        You may recall that "GRAS" itself was a term coined by our
                        own "mathewmaury", an opposition figure. Similarly, it
                        was "mathewmaury" who deemed the "GRAS" more recently as the "Goliath
                        of GRAS".

                        I think it kinda neat that he came up with such stuff and that it
                        fits.

                        As Bert and Trevor would insist; let's give honor to honor is due.

                        The metaphor is to be properly attributed to "mathewmaury". I'm just
                        following his lead on that.

                        In the context of your consideration, Todd, you may be right about
                        who is David and who is Goliath. However, I think "mathewmaury"'s
                        characterization was in the broader, real-life context.

                        I guess there is something here about "relativity".

                        I like it either way.

                        In the big pond "GRAS" is the Goliath awaiting some David with one or
                        more stones. The present candidate (James) appears to have left the
                        battlefield and we await his return. Michael appears to have
                        capitulated as far as I can tell. His apparent "agnosticism" about
                        such things as are relevant to the "GRAS" would seem to prevent him
                        from casting stones.

                        In the smaller pond which you refer to, Todd, "GRAS" is the David.
                        We're just waiting for folks to realize the Goliath has been slain.
                        He certainly is not showing any signs of life around here.

                        Perhaps it is the case that "David" has become the "Goliath".

                        It happened with Maury.
                        It happened with Mammoths.
                        It happened with Moon-dust.

                        Maybe now it is time to declare that it has happened with "GRAS"?

                        But, Todd, that declaration may be premature as you so indicate. We
                        will wait and see how the history on this evolves. I would hope that
                        James' secret expert would want to insure his good image in this
                        history. He doesn't want his image tarnished by letting some "leak"
                        occur at a possibly inopportune time. He needs to come forward now
                        and get on the right side of the logical evaluation of the "GRAS".

                        I wouldn't want him to find himself in the same position as Rudy and
                        others similarly situated.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty
                      • lipscombgene
                        ... 10K years ... 4.6 ... discuss ... years old. ... according to ... side. Are ... Gene: Is this really necessary? Tremendous amounts of evidence for the
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <dokimadzo@c...>
                          wrote:
                          > The issue you seem to have cornered is that the earth is less than
                          10K years
                          > old. Well then, in like manner, let's discuss the same about the
                          4.6
                          > billion figure! Are you game?
                          >
                          > I let you have your victory. So, Todd, Robert's "expert," let us
                          discuss
                          > "your" evidence that the earth is in excess of plus one billion
                          years old.
                          > You are so willing to discuss that the earth is plus 10K years,
                          according to
                          > you, prove this as true; well, now Todd, let us discuss the other
                          side. Are
                          > you game?

                          Gene: Is this really necessary? Tremendous amounts of evidence for
                          the antiquity (>1 billion years) of the earth and the cosmos exist
                          for anyone willing to do a quick internet search (aka AnyoneButMatt).
                          These references are not from "creation scientists" with degrees in
                          veterinary science who are writing about geology either.

                          The problem is this:

                          Young Earth Creationists read the text of the Bible and conclude that
                          the ONLY WAY it can be read is for the earth and the universe to be
                          somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000-10,000 years old. Therefore, ANY
                          AND ALL evidence to the contrary is either a) fabricated (this is the
                          conspiratorial aspect), b) explainable by the flood, or c) the result
                          of a mature creation with the appearance of age.

                          They have painted themselves into a corner with two choices: either
                          realize the earth/universe ARE much older than 6,000-10,000 years and
                          give up their faith, since after all, they believe the text can only
                          mean the earth is young, or shore up whatever shoddy arguments may
                          exist and hang on for dear life. Again, this is because the ONLY
                          alternative they have is a loss of faith.

                          A real shame they don't decide to have a reasonable chat with the
                          large number of ancient creationists out there. We're all right at
                          home with a high view of scripture AND an old age for things.

                          Alas, GRAS stands.

                          Gene
                        • Michael
                          [Whether the road is 10,000 miles long, or 15,000 miles long, or 22,819 miles long, or something else is completely irrelevant to whether or not we know that
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            [Whether the road is 10,000 miles long, or 15,000 miles long, or
                            22,819 miles long, or something else is completely irrelevant to
                            whether or not we know that it is CERTAINLY quite a bit longer than
                            just 1 mile long. If we KNOW that the road is 32 miles long, then we
                            also KNOW that the idea that road is only 1 mile long is a false.]

                            I agree. Again, I think the Genesis text teaches literal 24 hour
                            consecutive days. I "know" that the language demands this position. I
                            placed a quote on the other board that the mass majority of Hebrew ancient
                            language scholars, even though they may not believe the statements, admit
                            that the language demands this understanding.

                            I, also, am not here to strictly adhere to a 6-10K model. The absolute
                            certainty of your evidence, though, is not as solid as you have come to
                            think, though. It is not absolute fact that cannot be revised.

                            You know, I can even come up with other astronomers on the web that say
                            SN1987A is 190,000 light years away. You come up with 168,000. If this
                            were scientific fact then why the discrepency? You also give a plus or
                            minus variance for error. And this is fact? See?

                            [I myself have no idea how old the earth is, nor how old the universe is.]

                            Niether do I.

                            [With respect to whether or not the YEC position has been falsified, I don't
                            need to know those things].

                            I consider myself on the side of a young earth model, but do no limit myself
                            to just 6-10K years old. Your entire premise is dependent upon labeling yec
                            to equal under 10k. I am not convinced that all must accept 6-10K years old
                            to have an young earth model as opposed to a great antiquity model.

                            [...as I have told you and carefully explained to you repeatedly.]

                            And, I understood each and every time. Again, though, I refuse to fall into
                            the label you demand. Those that favor a young earth in contrast to the
                            multi-billion earth age do not necessarily all fall into the 6k-10K
                            category.

                            [In order to know that the YEC position is false, all we need to know is
                            whether or not the universe and the earth have been around substantially
                            longer than just ten thousand years.]

                            False. If the earth is just 500K years old, this is very young compared to
                            4.6 billion. This, comparatively and contrasted, can most definitely be
                            considered a young earth concept; and, it does not have to fall under 10K to
                            be considered yec.

                            [The 168,000 years ago of SN1987A is substantially longer than 10,000 years
                            (and that's just one clear example).]

                            No, it is not clear. Your math leaves out to many variables and ingnores to
                            much evidence. Therefore, it is definitely not a "clear example."

                            [And with whether or not people who *say* they respect truth really have the
                            courage to accept
                            it.]

                            I agree. To add to this, the equating mathematical probabilities with fact
                            and truth is what disturbs me, and the same thing you allude I am guilty of
                            I say you are standing on the same ground doing the same thing.

                            V/r

                            Michael
                          • Michael
                            [Michael appears to have capitulated as far as I can tell.] Umm. Maybe in one respect. Your definition of YEC means under 10K. Though your proof is not as
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jun 2, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [Michael appears to have capitulated as far as I can tell.]

                              Umm. Maybe in one respect. Your definition of YEC means under 10K. Though
                              your proof is not as much proof as you deem it to be, the math as it stands
                              makes it probable to the layman that the earth must be greater than 10K
                              years old.

                              Your proof, though, contains many assumptions built into the formula and,
                              therefore, cannot be considered absoute fact. It is not time to put this
                              evidence down and say "it is all settled!" It is not even time to say,
                              "though the age is not settled, it at least proves the proverbial road is
                              greater than one mile.

                              Your road analogy relies on a distance measurement. The distance you first
                              bring up is SN1987A. There are so many assumptions in your distance
                              calculation of 168K years that when you throw it around as fact and a
                              scientific proof it is disturbing.

                              V/r

                              Michael
                            • Todd S. Greene
                              Hi, Michael. With respect to the universe as a whole, SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy is merely a drop in the bucket. Well, no, actually, it s
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jun 6, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi, Michael.

                                With respect to the universe as a whole, SN1987A in the Large
                                Magellanic Cloud galaxy is merely a drop in the bucket. Well, no,
                                actually, it's much less than a drop in the bucket!

                                For example, the events that we observe in the Andromeda galaxy have
                                taken place more than about 2 million years in the past.

                                The Large Magellanic galaxy is the second closest galaxy to our Milky
                                Way galaxy. The Andromeda galaxy is a member of the 30-some odd
                                galaxies that are part of our "Local Group" of galaxies that our
                                Milky Way is a member of (in other words, Andromeda is a very close
                                galaxy). In the universe as a whole, there are BILLIONS of galaxies.
                                168,000 years is trivial. In the case of Andromeda we're talking
                                about over 2 million years in the past. In the case of, say, the
                                spiral galaxy NGC 4414 we're talking approximately 60 million years.
                                In the case of the spiral galaxy NGC 4603 we're talking about over
                                100 million years ago.

                                SN1987A is just one example, Michael. At 168,000 years ago SN1987A
                                happens to be a sufficient example concerning the fact that YEC is a
                                falsified idea about the world.

                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <dokimadzo@c...>
                                wrote (post #1346):
                                >> Whether the road is 10,000 miles long, or 15,000 miles long, or
                                >> 22,819 miles long, or something else is completely irrelevant to
                                >> whether or not we know that it is CERTAINLY quite a bit longer
                                >> than just 1 mile long. If we KNOW that the road is 32 miles
                                >> long, then we also KNOW that the idea that road is only 1 mile
                                >> long is a false.
                                >
                                > I agree. Again, I think the Genesis text teaches literal 24 hour
                                > consecutive days. I "know" that the language demands this
                                > position. I placed a quote on the other board that the mass
                                > majority of Hebrew ancient language scholars, even though they
                                > may not believe the statements, admit that the language demands
                                > this understanding.
                                >
                                > I, also, am not here to strictly adhere to a 6-10K model. The
                                > absolute certainty of your evidence, though, is not as solid as
                                > you have come to think, though. It is not absolute fact that
                                > cannot be revised.

                                I could understand the possibility of it being revised by a few
                                percent (due to the practical nature of empirical measurement). It is
                                the pretension that it might be wrong by something like 95% that is
                                just plain ridiculous. And remember that with SN1987A taking place in
                                the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy about 168,000 years ago we're
                                talking about something that has happened in the *very recent* past
                                relative to what else we observe about the universe.

                                >
                                > You know, I can even come up with other astronomers on the web
                                > that say SN1987A is 190,000 light years away. You come up with
                                > 168,000.

                                Go for it, Michael.

                                > If this were
                                > scientific fact then why the discrepency? You also give a plus or
                                > minus variance for error. And this is fact? See?

                                It *is* a fact. The range given is based on the imprecision of the
                                measurement of the angular diameter. Anyone who knows anything about
                                scientific measurement is familiar with this kind of thing. So what
                                is your point? If I say it is a fact that the sun is about 93 million
                                miles from the earth, I am obviously make a statement of
                                approximation. To dig into the details we would start talking about
                                ranges and elliptical orbits and levels of precision. But if somebody
                                came along and tried to pretend that, well, because of all of these
                                practical details that have to be taken into account, then it is
                                equally valid (oh, gee, sound?) to claim that the sun could really be
                                only about 1 million miles from the earth is patently ridiculous.

                                If you are trying to pretend that because we have a degree of
                                imprecision in the measurements of the angular diameter, and in the
                                estimate of the time between the onset of the explosion and when the
                                light reached the primary gas ring, that we then we can throw out the
                                measurements altogether and pretend that 6,000 might be okay rather
                                than 168,000, then you are merely being irrational. And you must not
                                forget that on top of SN1987A, you have the rest of the galaxies in
                                the universe (except one) which are all observed from more distant
                                times in the past.

                                >
                                >> I myself have no idea how old the earth is, nor how old the
                                >> universe is.
                                >
                                > Neither do I.
                                >
                                >> With respect to whether or not the YEC position has been
                                >> falsified, I don't need to know those things.
                                >
                                > I consider myself on the side of a young earth model, but do not
                                > limit myself to just 6-10K years old. Your entire premise is
                                > dependent upon labeling yec to equal under 10k. I am not
                                > convinced that all must accept 6-10K years old to have an young
                                > earth model as opposed to a great antiquity model.

                                Concerning the YEC position of six to ten thousand years, this
                                certainly is NOT something that *I* have labeled YECs with. This is
                                what they claim, and so this is what I address. As I quite thoroughly
                                documented in a previous post,

                                "What YECs Believe"
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1335

                                I am representing the YEC position quite accurately. Please don't go
                                backwards on me and make statements based on a false premise that
                                tries to pretend that this isn't so.

                                YECs argue for a young earth, and this is based on using the
                                genealogies as a chronology.

                                >
                                >> ...as I have told you and carefully explained to you repeatedly.
                                >
                                > And, I understood each and every time. Again, though, I refuse to
                                > fall into the label you demand. Those that favor a young earth in
                                > contrast to the multi-billion earth age do not necessarily all
                                > fall into the 6k-10K category.

                                Those who don't, then, already agree that the YEC position is false.
                                The six to ten thousand years is based on using the genealogies as a
                                chronology. You have to reject that to start advocating anything like
                                100,000 years or 500,000 years. And once you've already rejected the
                                YEC interpretation, then you have no basis whatsoever for your number
                                pulled out a hat.

                                >
                                >> In order to know that the YEC position is false, all we need to
                                >> know is whether or not the universe and the earth have been
                                >> around substantially longer than just ten thousand years.
                                >
                                > False. If the earth is just 500K years old, this is very young
                                > compared to 4.6 billion. This, comparatively and contrasted, can
                                > most definitely be considered a young earth concept; and, it does
                                > not have to fall under 10K to be considered YEC.

                                You are correct that 500,000 years is relatively young compared to
                                4.6 billion years. But it is still far greater than the YEC position
                                of six to ten thousand years. The 168,000 years ago of SN1987A is
                                already an example of the wrongness of the YEC position. But as I
                                have pointed out above, SN1987A is only one example. There are many,
                                many others, and they are from much farther in the distant past.

                                >
                                >> The 168,000 years ago of SN1987A is substantially longer than
                                >> 10,000 years (and that's just one clear example).
                                >
                                > No, it is not clear. Your math leaves out to many variables and
                                > ingnores to much evidence. Therefore, it is definitely not a
                                > "clear example."

                                Well, as I've explained in my post about SN1987A just prior to this
                                post, your statement here is nothing more than typical YEC
                                mischaracterization.

                                >
                                >> And with whether or not people who *say* they respect truth
                                >> really have the courage to accept it.
                                >
                                > I agree. To add to this, the equating mathematical probabilities
                                > with fact and truth is what disturbs me, and the same thing you
                                > allude I am guilty of I say you are standing on the same ground
                                > doing the same thing.

                                You are the one who has tried to pretend with earlier rhetoric that
                                the YEC notion of six to ten thousand years was perfectly okay, that
                                it has not been falsified by scientific examination of the real
                                world. Your pretension is wrong. It is the fact that false
                                pretensions like this are part of the standard approach of YEC
                                rhetoric that should disturb you. The fact that it doesn't is
                                revealing of your own approach.

                                Regards,
                                Todd S. Greene
                                http://www.creationism.cc/
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages
                              • Michael
                                Hi Todd, You wrote:
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jun 7, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Todd,

                                  You wrote: <<SN1987A is just one example, Michael. At 168,000 years ago
                                  SN1987A
                                  happens to be a sufficient example concerning the fact that YEC is a
                                  falsified idea about the world.>>

                                  What is the actual definition of YEC. I think this is flawed. Even if you
                                  prove that the earth is greater than 100K years old, i.e., if you do, you
                                  will never prove anything with regard to the antiquity you are trying to
                                  push forward. See? (p.s., since some have missed it before, I am not
                                  making a concession to the position).

                                  Now, to the point that the 190K figure: you say, "Go for it, Michael."

                                  Is that for real? Or, do you want to quote "experts" still?

                                  To discredit and distract, Todd uses such language, "Anyone who knows
                                  anything about
                                  scientific measurement..."

                                  Don't be afraid of this type of thing, even if your idea is wrong! I am not
                                  saying mine is, but this attitude closes minds to further discovery. It is
                                  just the same as can be seen throughout history with regard to true
                                  scientists of discovery!!!!

                                  My point, since you missed it, was that I do not throw out evidence! Think
                                  about that. I do not throw out evidence, when reviewing your evidence that
                                  suggests one "direction or another." Is that what you accused me of?

                                  You say such and such is a fact, and I come in to say "no"; and then now you
                                  say I am arguing in the wrong direction! Does this not show bias on your
                                  part? Be honest now!!!!

                                  Now, try harder to deal with the evidence I gave to you before I write about
                                  what you wrote!!! Believe me! You don't want me to.

                                  V/r

                                  Michael
                                • Todd S. Greene
                                  ... Hi, Michael. What are you talking about? I have already explained to you that SN1987A is merely *one example*, that SN1987A is in the Large Magellanic
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1387):
                                    > Hi Todd,
                                    >
                                    > You wrote: "SN1987A is just one example, Michael. At 168,000
                                    > years ago SN1987A happens to be a sufficient example concerning
                                    > the fact that YEC is a falsified idea about the world."
                                    >
                                    > What is the actual definition of YEC. I think this is flawed.
                                    > Even if you prove that the earth is greater than 100K years old,
                                    > i.e., if you do, you will never prove anything with regard to the
                                    > antiquity you are trying to push forward. See? (p.s., since some
                                    > have missed it before, I am not making a concession to the
                                    > position).

                                    Hi, Michael.

                                    What are you talking about? I have already explained to you that
                                    SN1987A is merely *one example*, that SN1987A is in the Large
                                    Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy, that the LMC is the second closest
                                    galaxy to our own Milky Way galaxy, and that there are BILLIONS of
                                    other galaxies in the universe. I even further pointed out the
                                    example of the Andromeda galaxy which is observed from more than 2
                                    million years in the past. (And I pointed out a couple of other
                                    examples of observations from dozens of millions of years in the
                                    past.) Why do you just blithely ignore these things that I've been
                                    pointing out to you? Do you think it's okay to bury your head in the
                                    sand about these things?

                                    >
                                    > Now, to the point that the 190K figure: you say, "Go for it,
                                    > Michael."
                                    >
                                    > Is that for real? Or, do you want to quote "experts" still?

                                    Oh, yes! I do very much expect you to substantiate remarks like this
                                    that you make. If you cannot substantiate your remark, then retract
                                    it. If you actually have something you can cite, then cite it,
                                    because I want to dig into the detail. If it is your desire to run
                                    away from the details, then please just admit this openly and
                                    honestly.

                                    >
                                    > To discredit and distract, Todd uses such language, "Anyone who
                                    > knows anything about scientific measurement..."
                                    >
                                    > Don't be afraid of this type of thing, even if your idea is wrong!
                                    > I am not saying mine is, but this attitude closes minds to further
                                    > discovery. It is just the same as can be seen throughout history
                                    > with regard to true scientists of discovery!!!!
                                    >
                                    > My point, since you missed it, was that I do not throw out
                                    > evidence! Think about that. I do not throw out evidence, when
                                    > reviewing your evidence that suggests one "direction or another."
                                    > Is that what you accused me of?
                                    >
                                    > You say such and such is a fact, and I come in to say "no"; and
                                    > then now you say I am arguing in the wrong direction! Does this
                                    > not show bias on your part? Be honest now!!!!

                                    Do not take me out of context, Michael, as you seem so wont to do.
                                    Here is the whole section of our discussion of this:

                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                    >>> You know, I can even come up with other astronomers on the web
                                    >>> that say SN1987A is 190,000 light years away. You come up with
                                    >>> 168,000.
                                    >>
                                    >> Go for it, Michael.
                                    >>
                                    >>> If this were
                                    >>> scientific fact then why the discrepency? You also give a plus
                                    >>> or minus variance for error. And this is fact? See?
                                    >>
                                    >> It *is* a fact. The range given is based on the imprecision of
                                    >> the measurement of the angular diameter. Anyone who knows
                                    >> anything about scientific measurement is familiar with this kind
                                    >> of thing. So what is your point? If I say it is a fact that the
                                    >> sun is about 93 million miles from the earth, I am obviously
                                    >> making a statement of approximation. To dig into the details we
                                    >> would start talking about ranges and elliptical orbits and levels
                                    >> of precision. But if somebody came along and tried to pretend
                                    >> that, well, because of all of these practical details that have
                                    >> to be taken into account, then it is equally valid (oh, gee,
                                    >> sound?) to claim that the sun could really be only about 1
                                    >> million miles from the earth is patently ridiculous.

                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                    I said that anyone who knows anything about scientific measurement is
                                    familiar with estimating the level of imprecision inherent in taking
                                    the measurements. I wrote quite truly. The value of 168,000 years ago
                                    is the mid-value of an estimate within the range of the level of
                                    precision of the measurements. The estimate of measurement
                                    imprecision is about 3.5% (either way), as I have already explained.
                                    *As I have already told you*, for SN1987A what is involved is the
                                    measurement of the time between the onset of the explosion and when
                                    the light energy initially reached the primary gas ring, and the
                                    measurement of the angular size of the primary gas ring. As I have
                                    told you, it is one thing to recognize that there is a certain amount
                                    of imprecision inherent to measuring things in the real world. We
                                    should indeed recognize this, *because* this is part of the facts
                                    I've been referring to. The YEC position involves throwing everything
                                    out and ignoring all of this and saying, "Well, it is equally valid
                                    to say that SN1987A took place less than 10,000 years ago," and this
                                    position is flatly wrong. I tell you again, if it is your desire to
                                    run away from the details, then please just admit this openly and
                                    honestly.

                                    >
                                    > Now, try harder to deal with the evidence I gave to you before I
                                    > write about what you wrote!!! Believe me! You don't want me to.

                                    You haven't given any evidence, Michael. This is what I've been
                                    asking you for, but you won't (can't) do it. All we've gotten from
                                    you so far is empty (and false) rhetoric. This is the problem with
                                    your position.

                                    Regards,
                                    Todd S. Greene
                                    http://www.creationism.cc/
                                  • Michael
                                    I bet you do. Why not, rather, deal with the truth of the remarks?
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jun 8, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      <<Oh, yes! I do very much expect you to substantiate remarks like this
                                      that you make.>>

                                      I bet you do. Why not, rather, deal with the truth of the remarks?
                                      Anyone can research the truth of the points of fact that I made.

                                      <<If it is your desire to run away from the details, then please just
                                      admit this openly and honestly.>>

                                      Hide? Does light bend? Do your calculations take this into account?
                                      Why not be open about this! Tell me who is HIDING NOW!

                                      You do admit that light bends and this is "observed," yet you ignore the
                                      argument that your 168K result in no way takes into account that this
                                      occurs. Why not comment on this?!!!!!!!!!!

                                      I grow tired of dealing with your ranting when you will not deal with
                                      the points made. I am sure you will say the same with me, but,
                                      remember, I am not affirming, but denying that your evidence "proves"
                                      anything. Your math is so flawed! Your evidence is flawed.

                                      V/r

                                      Michael
                                    • Todd S. Greene
                                      ... [Todd Greene wrote:] ... Hi, Michael. You are so funny! On this you are being so ridiculous that I m going to tell you quite forthrightly on this one: Cut
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jun 10, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1401):
                                        [Todd Greene wrote:]
                                        >> Oh, yes! I do very much expect you to substantiate remarks like
                                        >> this that you make.
                                        >
                                        > I bet you do. Why not, rather, deal with the truth of the remarks?
                                        > Anyone can research the truth of the points of fact that I made.

                                        Hi, Michael.

                                        You are so funny!

                                        On this you are being so ridiculous that I'm going to tell you quite
                                        forthrightly on this one: Cut out the stupid game. Put up or shut up.

                                        I don't have do deal with the truth of your remarks because your
                                        remarks are not truthful.

                                        The fact is that people like you usually don't know what you're
                                        talking about. You pretend all manner of things, and then when you
                                        are requested to substantiate your false claims and dig into the
                                        details you refuse to do so. This is not Christian behavior, Michael,
                                        and I know that you know this. If you are not capable of
                                        substantiating your claims with some serious references to what you
                                        are allegedly referring to (and I know that you are not), then just
                                        be honest about it.

                                        >
                                        >> If it is your desire to run away from the details, then please
                                        >> just admit this openly and honestly.
                                        >
                                        > Hide? Does light bend? Do your calculations take this into
                                        > account? Why not be open about this! Tell me who is HIDING NOW!

                                        Light does bend, and light is also deflected. I already pointed this
                                        out. I already pointed out how in the case of SN1987A the deflection
                                        of light is actually *critical* to the observations.

                                        First of all, you are the one who is pretending that light is being
                                        bent or deflected when it is actually observed to be NOT being bent
                                        or deflected. So who is it who is *assuming* what they want to
                                        *assume*, rather than acknowledge what is *observed*? That would be
                                        you, Michael.

                                        Second, you (and James, who has been parroting this after you) don't
                                        seem to realize that your point - even if it happened to be case -
                                        would not change the time involved. When light is bent or deflected,
                                        then the fact is that it actually has *even farther* to travel, and
                                        this takes *more time*, not less.

                                        You guys are so amusing in how you attempt to throw out all of this
                                        obfuscation, while not even realizing that it backfires on you!

                                        >
                                        > You do admit that light bends and this is "observed," yet you
                                        > ignore the argument that your 168K result in no way takes into
                                        > account that this occurs. Why not comment on this?!!!!!!!!!!

                                        I *did* comment on this. Oh, wait, that's right, you're still
                                        pretending that my post on this doesn't exist:

                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1376

                                        >
                                        > I grow tired of dealing with your ranting when you will not deal
                                        > with the points made.

                                        I grow tired of you purposely pretending that this post doesn't exist:

                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1376

                                        > I am sure
                                        > you will say the same with me, but, remember, I am not affirming,
                                        > but denying that your evidence "proves" anything. Your math is so
                                        > flawed! Your evidence is flawed.

                                        If it really is, then I would appreciate you pointing out some of the
                                        flaws. Empty rhetoric doesn't substantiate anything.

                                        Regards,
                                        Todd S. Greene
                                        http://www.creationism.cc/
                                      • Michael
                                        Hide? Does light bend? Do your calculations take this into account? That is what I stated. The response I received:
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jun 21, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          "Hide? Does light bend? Do your calculations take this into account?"

                                          That is what I stated. The response I received:

                                          <<Light does bend, and light is also deflected...">>

                                          Then, in the very next paragraph did I not read this:

                                          <<First of all, you are the one who is pretending that light is being
                                          bent or deflected when it is actually observed to be NOT being bent
                                          or deflected.>>

                                          Well, which is it?

                                          Then we see that "it IS actually observed to be NOT being bent OR
                                          deflected." [emphasis mine]

                                          Please, if you cannot see the reality of this matter then please continue in
                                          fantasy world!!!!!!

                                          V/r

                                          Michael
                                        • Todd S. Greene
                                          Hi, Michael. It is fascinatingly amazing to me how you make the comments below three days *after* I have specifically showed you what is wrong with those
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jun 21, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi, Michael.

                                            It is fascinatingly amazing to me how you make the comments below
                                            three days *after* I have specifically showed you what is wrong with
                                            those comments.

                                            I already explained the fallacy of your comments to you (and you
                                            yourself already acknowledged that the light from SN1987A is observed
                                            to be not warped anyway) in post #716 to the "Bereanlikespirit" group:

                                            From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bereanlikespirit/message/716 :

                                            | It's amazing to
                                            | me that you really, really think that just because a car can turn
                                            | left, then this means that it *must* turn left at every corner
                                            | where it can turn left. This is the absurdity of your argument
                                            | about the fact that light can bend. I have already pointed out to
                                            | you the FACT that it is OBSERVED that the light from SN1987A is
                                            | NOT warped by some kind of intense gravity fields between SN1987A
                                            | and earth, but it is YOU who PURPOSELY CHOOSES to ignore the FACT
                                            | that this is what is OBSERVED TO BE THE CASE. We know light can
                                            | bend (and this makes something like the fifth or sixth time, or
                                            | more, that I've stated this). So what? That's not the issue. The
                                            | issue is: "Is the light from SN1987A OBSERVED to have been
                                            | warped?" The answer to this question is unequivocally negative.
                                            | There a many examples of astronomical observations of the path of
                                            | light being warped, but SN1987A simply is not one of them. (And I
                                            | also note here how you continued to ignore my request of you to
                                            | explain even how such bending would affect the time involved
                                            | anyway. As I already pointed out to you - and which you, as
                                            | usual, ignored - is that such warping doesn't alter the time
                                            | involved, or if anything it makes it take even *longer*, not
                                            | shorter, than if it were to follow a straight path.) So much the
                                            | worse for your position.
                                            |
                                            | I close this post by just quoting some of your own words about
                                            | this issue:
                                            |
                                            | "...there is no such black hole in the path of SN1987A and earth.
                                            | I agree...."
                                            | [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bereanlikespirit/message/701 ]
                                            |
                                            | "I will, however, agree that the calculations [about SN1987A] and
                                            | the radius is ballpark...."
                                            | [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1342 ]

                                            My words were very clear and straightforward. I'm not writing in
                                            Sanskrit or Cyrillic. It's just plain English. All you have to do is
                                            read it. If you don't understand English very well, then just be
                                            honest with us and say so. Of course, if you're just purposely
                                            sticking your head in the sand, then maybe it's time to get the sand
                                            out of your ears.

                                            Regards,
                                            Todd S. Greene
                                            http://www.creationism.cc/


                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1475):
                                            > "Hide? Does light bend? Do your calculations take this into
                                            > account?"
                                            >
                                            > That is what I stated. The response I received:
                                            >
                                            >> Light does bend, and light is also deflected..."
                                            >
                                            > Then, in the very next paragraph did I not read this:
                                            >
                                            >> First of all, you are the one who is pretending that light is
                                            >> being bent or deflected when it is actually observed to be NOT
                                            >> being bent or deflected.
                                            >
                                            > Well, which is it?
                                            >
                                            > Then we see that "it IS actually observed to be NOT being bent OR
                                            > deflected." [emphasis mine]
                                            >
                                            > Please, if you cannot see the reality of this matter then please
                                            > continue in fantasy world!!!!!!
                                          • Michael
                                            No
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jun 22, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              <<(and you yourself already acknowledged that the light from SN1987A is
                                              observed to be not warped anyway) in post #716 to the "Bereanlikespirit"
                                              group:>>

                                              No Todd. I said that there was not a black hole between SN1987A and earth.
                                              I stated what you state. If the light were warped away by a black whole we
                                              would never have seen the star to begin with.

                                              Are you trying to be honest with what I say, or just trying to make out of
                                              context disparaging comments about it in order to make it appear that you
                                              have answered the points?

                                              You say:

                                              <<It is fascinatingly amazing to me how you make the comments below three
                                              days *after* I have specifically showed you what is wrong with those
                                              comments.>>

                                              Maybe that is because you did NOT show anything. All I have seen is you
                                              side stepping the observed FACT that light bends and how your math model
                                              ignores this observed FACT. You have done NOTHING to show that this is
                                              wrong. Indeed, you have not disputed one fact I set forth.

                                              Again, if you want a formal debate on this then please forward a
                                              proposition. Then we will see how the rhetoric and the facts bear out every
                                              one of my points and facts I have already given you.

                                              V/r

                                              Michael
                                            • Todd S. Greene
                                              ... Hi, Michael. Indeed. If the light were warped, we would observe it to be warped. In fact, what we observe is that the light is not warped. It is you who
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Jun 23, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1488):
                                                >> (and you yourself already acknowledged that the light from
                                                >> SN1987A is observed to be not warped anyway) in post #716 to
                                                >> the "Bereanlikespirit" group:
                                                >
                                                > No Todd. I said that there was not a black hole between SN1987A
                                                > and earth. I stated what you state. If the light were warped away
                                                > by a black whole we would never have seen the star to begin with.

                                                Hi, Michael.

                                                Indeed. If the light were warped, we would observe it to be warped.
                                                In fact, what we observe is that the light is not warped. It is you
                                                who denies what is observed, and who then choose to offer a
                                                speculation that is contradicted by what is observed. How typical.

                                                >
                                                > Are you trying to be honest with what I say, or just trying to
                                                > make out of context disparaging comments about it in order to make
                                                > it appear that you have answered the points?

                                                You acknowledged that we do not in fact observe something that you
                                                speculated might have occurred. I did indeed emphasize your
                                                acknowledgement.

                                                >
                                                > You say:
                                                >
                                                >> It is fascinatingly amazing to me how you make the comments
                                                >> below three days *after* I have specifically showed you what is
                                                >> wrong with those comments.
                                                >
                                                > Maybe that is because you did NOT show anything.

                                                When you make this statement you are flatly lying. I have made
                                                several posts where I have provided you with online references to
                                                observations of SN1987A. You have absolutely no right to totally
                                                ignore my references and then falsely pretend that I never provided
                                                them. It is sinful for a Christian to behave like this, and you know
                                                it.

                                                > All I have
                                                > seen is you side stepping the observed FACT that light bends

                                                Here you lie again. I have correct this false statement of yours a
                                                number of times. Every time that you repeat this false statement
                                                after I have specifically and explicitly corrected you on it, you are
                                                lying because now you know better and yet you continue to purposely
                                                make a false statement.

                                                > and how your
                                                > math model ignores this observed FACT.

                                                The match doesn't need to take into account anything that is observed
                                                to not be the case. Again, just because a car has the capability of
                                                making left turn, this does not mean that it actually does take a
                                                left turn at every corner. You are simply being illogical.

                                                > You have done
                                                > NOTHING to show that this is wrong. Indeed, you have not disputed
                                                > one fact I set forth.

                                                Now you're just lying again.

                                                Here is what I wrote, and I'll simply quote it here again (the part
                                                that you have so conveniently snipped out of what I wrote):

                                                From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bereanlikespirit/message/716 :

                                                | It's amazing to
                                                | me that you really, really think that just because a car can turn
                                                | left, then this means that it *must* turn left at every corner
                                                | where it can turn left. This is the absurdity of your argument
                                                | about the fact that light can bend. I have already pointed out to
                                                | you the FACT that it is OBSERVED that the light from SN1987A is
                                                | NOT warped by some kind of intense gravity fields between SN1987A
                                                | and earth, but it is YOU who PURPOSELY CHOOSES to ignore the FACT
                                                | that this is what is OBSERVED TO BE THE CASE. We know light can
                                                | bend (and this makes something like the fifth or sixth time, or
                                                | more, that I've stated this). So what? That's not the issue. The
                                                | issue is: "Is the light from SN1987A OBSERVED to have been
                                                | warped?" The answer to this question is unequivocally negative.
                                                | There a many examples of astronomical observations of the path of
                                                | light being warped, but SN1987A simply is not one of them. (And I
                                                | also note here how you continued to ignore my request of you to
                                                | explain even how such bending would affect the time involved
                                                | anyway. As I already pointed out to you - and which you, as
                                                | usual, ignored - is that such warping doesn't alter the time
                                                | involved, or if anything it makes it take even *longer*, not
                                                | shorter, than if it were to follow a straight path.) So much the
                                                | worse for your position.
                                                |
                                                | I close this post by just quoting some of your own words about
                                                | this issue:
                                                |
                                                | "...there is no such black hole in the path of SN1987A and earth.
                                                | I agree...."
                                                | [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bereanlikespirit/message/701 ]
                                                |
                                                | "I will, however, agree that the calculations [about SN1987A] and
                                                | the radius is ballpark...."
                                                | [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1342 ]

                                                >
                                                > Again, if you want a formal debate on this then please forward a
                                                > proposition. Then we will see how the rhetoric and the facts bear
                                                > out every one of my points and facts I have already given you.

                                                You are so funny! We *have been* debating it, Michael. Now you have
                                                merely been reduced to blatantly lying about what I have and have not
                                                written and pointed out. Just keep running away from the truth,
                                                Michael. This is precisely how you guys demonstrate the fallacies of
                                                your position *and* your lack of respect for truth, such that you are
                                                reduced to blatant and willful misrepresentation because you are so
                                                zealously dedicated to your falsified human traditions.

                                                Very sincerely,
                                                Todd S. Greene
                                                http://www.creationism.cc/
                                              • Michael
                                                Hello Todd, You said: [Indeed. If the light were warped, we would observe it to be warped.] Yes, but not if it were bent. We are not speaking of distortion.
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jun 24, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hello Todd,

                                                  You said:

                                                  [Indeed. If the light were warped, we would observe it to be warped.]

                                                  Yes, but not if it were "bent." We are not speaking of distortion.

                                                  You then, in response to what I stated, said:

                                                  [You acknowledged that we do not in fact observe something that you
                                                  speculated might have occurred]

                                                  Will you do the same? You repeatedly stated that the event of SN1987A was
                                                  entirely observed and this is why your mathematical model stands! Still
                                                  want to go down this road?

                                                  Then you state that I am [quote] "flatly lying" [end quote]. Well, no one
                                                  doubts that you have made several posts trying to show the legitimacy of
                                                  your claims. Yet, to now, arrogantly, state that this "proves" anything, or
                                                  that your affirmations "prove" anything, is not me lying. I do not accept
                                                  that you proved your case and am willing to debate this with you formally.
                                                  That is not lying, but, rather, giving you the chance (and me) to put our
                                                  money (slang term) where our mouths are.

                                                  Also, just because I chose not to answer every single little point you
                                                  brought up in a casual conversation, does not mean that YOU WIN! It does
                                                  not mean I win. This was not a formal discussion.

                                                  You know what you have to do to gain one. JUST DO IT. (go NIKE!).

                                                  You have yet to refute the facts I presented. If you want to try then I
                                                  will consider your proposition. If your proposition shows how I will have
                                                  represented a falsehood then I will admit it and our discussion is over.

                                                  V/r

                                                  Michael
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.