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

RE: Casual observation for Michael!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.