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

SN 1987A: McDonald's "scientific explanation" not scientific at all

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... No, Jerry D. McDonald, your scientific explanation for how we can see the light from the supernova SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years away, if the Universe is
    Message 1 of 37 , Dec 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > Jerry D. McDonald

      No, Jerry D. McDonald, your "scientific explanation" for how
      we can see the light from the supernova SN 1987A, 168,000
      light-years away, if the Universe is only a few thousand years
      old, is NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL. Writers of unabashed science
      FICTION produce tales with more scientific credibility than
      what you have come up with this time.

      What McDonald offers here is a mix of fantasy, delusion and
      outright ignorance, with a heaping spoonful of typical McDonald
      dishonesty thrown in. The bulk of McDonald's answer doesn't
      have anything at all to do with explaining distant starlight,
      rambling all over the place instead. I started not to even
      respond to it, and if it wasn't such an exemplary specimen of
      the kind of irrational argumentation we have to deal with out
      young-earth creationists, I would not have.


      McDonald begins:

      > In looking at Rick Hartzog's response to my article entitled
      > SN 1987A he begins with this quotation [from Jerry]:
      >| I didn't admit to being wrong about the date that SN 1987A
      >| exploded. Read what I said: "He assured me that I am in
      >| error on why the gas rings were not detected." I am still
      >| convinced of a young earth and universe. The only thing I
      >| have admitted error about was why the gas rings had not
      >| been detected. I am in the process of writing an article on
      >| SN 1987A and will put it on my website when I am finished.
      > http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4
      > Which he took from a Youtube comment I had made on Todd Greene's
      > video "Creationists Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science," and I
      > felt it essential to let the reader know what this quotation was
      > about. (1) I am not a scientist and especially one trained in
      > astronomy, but I do know how to read.

      McDonald's claim that he knows how to read is offset by his
      apparent lack of comprehension of what he does read, e.g., the
      quotes from Copi I have requested on logical validity (which he
      has never yet provided), the quotes from Freeman and Herron about
      macro-evolution I requested (which he has never yet provided),
      and McDonald's utterly idiotic interpretation of Exodus 12:29.
      (see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/221
      or, if not available, I comment on that here:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13094 )

      Most recently McDonald has shown, by misrepresenting to Russell
      Humphreys what I have said, that his lack of reading comprehension
      is further complicated by his own eagerness to bear false witness
      against those with whom he disagrees. (I will be posting the
      documentation of that after this message.)

      McDonald also knows how NOT to read, or at least how to *pretend*
      he hasn't read, the relevant material that has been repeatedly
      recommended to him on a number of subjects (such as Copi's and
      others' explanation of logical validity), just as he did again
      here with the explanation of why the gas rings around SN 1987A
      weren't seen until months after the supernova was observed.

      You'll see...

      > In the book Astronomy Today by Chaisson & McMillian, in their
      > discussion of SN 1987A,
      >| "Theory predicts that the expanding remnant of SN 1987A is
      >| now on the verge of being resolvable by optical telescopes.
      >| The accompanying photographs show the barely resolvable
      >| remnant (at the right) surrounded by a much larger shell of
      >| glowing gas (in yellow). Scientists reason that the
      >| progenitor of the supernova expelled this shell during its
      >| red-giant phase, some 40,000 before the explosion" (p. 563).
      > I asked Todd Greene, on the comments section of his youtube
      > video, why astronomers didn't pick up the glowing red/yellow
      > ring before the explosion if it had been there for 40,000 years.
      > All I could get out of Greene was that the star wasn't studied
      > that much, but I pointed out that the star had been catalogued
      > as sk 69o 202 decades before the explosion. Greene could not
      > give me a satisfactory response, so I included this information
      > in my original article. I then sent the article to Dr. Russell
      > Humphreys and astronomer Danny Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner explained
      > to me that the reason that it had not been detected is because
      > it had not yet been ignited until the star went supernova.

      WRONG, McDonald! Todd told you to read the Wikipedia and the
      McCray articles. *I* told you the gas rings were ionized by
      the explosion! *Todd* told you the gas rings were ionized by
      the explosion! Todd asked you *again and again* if you had
      read the articles he pointed you to yet!


      Now you come here pretending that nobody could answer your
      question, which is blatantly false; you KNOW it is false,
      and you DELIBERATELY LIE about it.

      > Well, this made sense, so I changed the article and left that
      > part out. However, on Todd Greene's youtube comments list I
      > made the statement that Mr. Faulkner had corrected me about why
      > astronomers didn't pick up the gas ring and Mr. Greene thanked me
      > for my correction. He then replied with the following statement:
      >| Jerry, I appreciate you acknowledging that what I have been
      >| correct in what I've been telling you all along about your
      >| comments being wrong and irrelevant. Therefore, just as I've
      >| been telling you, you have yet to deal with the fact that
      >| SN1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago - which falsifies
      >| young earth creationism. And none of this is relevant to the
      >| video of this comments page.
      > http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4
      > The response you read at the beginning of Rick's article (and this
      > one as well) is in response to the above statement. I encourage
      > you to go to the Youtube comment section provided by the link and
      > see how Todd Greene evaded the questions that I asked for at
      > least 2 days.

      Yeah, be sure to read these messages, which will plainly show
      that McDonald is not telling the truth. For example:

      Todd wrote:

      | Not ignored, Jerry - there you go making insinuations again.
      | (1) YOU are the one who deliberately ignored discussing this
      | in a proper discussion forum ("Maury_and_Baty" Yahoo
      | discussion group). (2) You need to be more specific about
      | what you're referring to. (3) You need to read the "SN 1987A"
      | entry at Wikipedia, which is pretty good. ALSO, at the bottom
      | of that page is a link to a detailed discussion about SN1987A
      | by Richard McCray. Read that too.


      Todd wrote:

      | No, the problem is that in your ignorance of the subject you
      | don't even know what to ask. Try again. Did you read the
      | references on SN1987A that I gave you?


      Todd wrote:

      | Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave
      | you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth
      | creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science,
      | and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop
      | acting like a little bratty child and read the references I
      | already pointed you to.


      Todd wrote:

      | Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave
      | you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth
      | creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science,
      | and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop
      | acting like a little bratty child and read the references I
      | already pointed you to. (If you'd read the McCray discussion,
      | you'd already know.)


      Todd wrote:

      | Why do you think we should have seen the ring? Why do you
      | assume that anyone even studied the star in enough detail to
      | see the ring in the first place (before the explosion)? Out of
      | the billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, how many have
      | astronomers studied in any kind of detail? What does ANY of
      | this have to do with the fact that SN1987A exploded about
      | 168,000 years ago?
      | Thanks again for demonstrating for everyone the illogical
      | nature of YEC "argumentation."


      Todd wrote:

      | So, you, a young earth creationist, didn't realize that we
      | can't see as much detail of stars that are relatively more
      | distant than stars that are relatively close?
      | Jerry, we noticed the ring when the explosion energy lit up
      | the ring.


      Jerry wouldn't accept that, writing:

      | We can see the ring now, not because of the explosion, but
      | because as Chaisson and McMillian said that it was expelled
      | 40,000 years before the explosion. What we should be looking
      | at is the expelled ring and the explosion shouldn't happen
      | for some 40,000 years yet, or we should have been able to
      | see it all along. We didn't, so there is a problem.
      | In Christ Jesus
      | Jerry D. McDonald


      Todd wrote:

      | Jerry, you are a seriously confused man ("incompetent" <- your
      | word). Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever. The ring
      | is irrelevant to the explosion. The star blew up. The fact that
      | the star *happened* to have this gas ring around it before it
      | blew up allowed us to determine the distance to the star
      | *geometrically* (trigonometry). Thank you for again showing
      | everyone how clueless about science young earth creationists
      | really are. I'm serious about this. Thank you.


      Todd wrote:

      | Jerry, here's the direct question YOU deliberately ignored:
      | SN1987A, having exploded about 168,000 years ago, is an
      | example of an astronomical event we've learned about through
      | astronomical science, that shows that the universe has been
      | around at least about 158,000 years longer than you young earth
      | creationists say is possible. Is this astronomy about SN1987A
      | just part of an evolutionist conspiracy to prop up the idea of
      | biological evolution, or is it science?

      [Jerry McDonald refused to address this "direct question" when
      he was taking part in the discussion on the Maury_and_Baty list
      and before he banned us from his own list -- and then went to
      the YouTube site and began making his comments that are
      *completely irrelevant* to the subject of Todd Greene's video.]


      Jerry McDonald wrote:

      | I don't recall the question ever being asked: I am working on
      | this, and from what I have seen you evolutionists have taken
      | the evidence and put your evolutionary twists on it to make
      | it appear as if it exploded 168,000 years ago. When I complete
      | my study of it, I'll be able to respond to your question with
      | a scientific answer.

      [Jerry is lying here in saying that he doesn't remember the
      question being asked. That is one of his typical tactics -- he
      pretends as long as he doesn't respond to a question he has
      "plausible deniability" of ever having read the message. I have
      *several* messages written to McDonald that he "pretends" he has
      never read.

      But if Jerry McDonald "doesn't recall" being asked how it
      is, if the Universe is only about 6,000 years old, that we can
      see the light from a supernova that occurred 168,000 light-years
      away, then why did Jerry McDonald run away from that discussion
      on the Maury_and_Baty list, and then go to Todd's YouTube page
      and try to change the subject away from biological evolution to
      astronomy? (for a single *prime example* of how Jerry McDonald
      has *studiously avoided* the subject of SN 1987A, see:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13200 )]


      And on November 13 I wrote:

      > In Todd's YouTube comments, Jerry McDonald asks:
      >| Stop playing games Todd and answer the question:
      >| "Since we see the large shell of glowing gas that
      >| was supposedly expelled 40,000 years before the
      >| star went supernova, shouldn't we see that shell
      >| for 40,000 years before we see the supernova"?
      > 1) No. The "glowing gas" wasn't glowing until it was
      > ionized by the explosion...



      And November 14:

      >| What you have ignored is the fact that I have
      >| pointed out that the red/yellow ring supposedly
      >| was expelled from sk 69-202 40,000 years before
      >| it went supernova. Why didn't we see the red/yellow
      >| ring before 1987?
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_ZiVbMIO0
      > Jerry seems determined to ignore the answer to this question,
      > which is given in the references (Wikipedia and McCray) that
      > Todd has already suggested he read, and that Jerry apparently
      > is refusing to read. There are a lot more references out there
      > that give the answer to this question as well.


      In spite of the above record, Jerry now claims:

      > I could not get a proper response from an atheist, and it
      > took a young earth creationist who is an astronomer to give
      > me a satisfactory answer to my questions.

      You liar! The Wikipedia article you wouldn't read answers
      your question! The McCray article you wouldn't read answers
      your question! Todd answered your question! I answered your


      And what did the young-earth creationist astronomer tell you?
      EXACTLY THE SAME THING we all told you!

      > The only thing that I can figure out is that Todd did not
      > know the answer to my questions, not that this proves when
      > the star exploded, but it is interesting to note that
      > someone who claims that it exploded 168,000 years ago, and
      > who took astronomy in college (which he claims led him into
      > atheism) could not give a satisfactory answer to a simple
      > question and it took a YEC (as we are affectionately called)
      > to give me the answer.

      Or maybe it's because the YouTube comments feature isn't set
      up for explaining things like this, AND YOU BANNED US from
      your discussion group and you won't post to Maury_and_Baty.

      Todd and I have both commented on your unwillingness to discuss
      SN 1987A in a proper discussion group, and how after refusing to
      answer any questions about it here or on your Challenge II list
      you went to YouTube and tried to change the subject from
      biological evolution to SN 1987A.

      Jerry, you just aren't a very honest person. I shudder to
      think of you actually having been a cop. Cops like you are
      part of what's wrong with America. You can't tell me that
      you wouldn't get up on a stand and lie under oath. Ever since
      you have been involved with us you have been demonstrating a
      complete lack of integrity, just as you are here, starting with
      your claim that you had to shut down your first Challenge list
      because of Robert Baty and continuing right on to the present
      day. One lie after the other, all the while signing your
      posts with "In Christ Jesus".

      > I wanted the reader to have this information because
      > Mr. Hartzog used one quotation leaving the reader to wonder
      > what he was talking about. Now you know!

      Yeah, now the readers know that Jerry McDonald is still being
      his same old deceitful, dishonest self.

      Jerry McDonald wouldn't discuss SN 1987A here on these lists,
      he banned us from his list, and then he went to Todd's YouTube
      video about biological evolution and rather than discuss the
      substance of Todd's video he engaged in some very unseemly

      He repeatedly referred to the gas rings around SN 1987A as
      "glowing", even though we told him the gas was never glowing
      until eight months after the explosion. He refused to accept
      that it was the explosion that lit up the gas until Danny
      Faulkner told him the same thing, and now McDonald is trying
      to make out like nobody but a young-earth creationist could
      answer his question.

      The quotation I provided, with the link, was sufficient for
      those on the Maury_and_Baty list to know what I am talking about,
      and I never expected my response to Jerry McDonald's "scientific
      explanation" to show up on McDonald's website, or believe me, I
      would have been a lot more thorough in exposing this liar.

      > Now lets get into looking at Mr. Hartzog's response to my
      > article.
      > Mr. Hartzog writes:
      >| One thing to keep in mind is that NOTHING Jerry McDonald
      >| has posted in Todd's "Comments" section, and nothing that
      >| McDonald has posted in the "Comments" section of his own
      >| YouTube video, has been even remotely relevant to showing
      >| us why "evolution isn't science". SN 1987A certainly doesn't
      >| have anything to do with it.
      > Mr. Hartzog, like his colleague Todd Greene (and others as
      > well) doesn't seem to understand that there are seven phases
      > of evolution.

      Todd Greene's video is very clearly about biological evolution.
      Todd very plainly references several scientific journals that
      regularly publish research into *biological evolution*. NONE of
      what Todd was talking about in his video was about "cosmic
      evolution" or "stellar evolution" or "planetary evolution" or
      anything else -- it deals specifically with *biological

      It doesn't matter if there are *a hundred* phases of "evolution";
      Todd is talking about biology and Jerry McDonald is not. Jerry
      McDonald, of his own free will and volition, went to a YouTube
      video about scientific research into biological evolution and
      started trying to talk about SN 1987A instead, after he avoided
      discussing SN 1987A in an appropriate forum, and *Jerry McDonald
      STILL has not offered one single thing* to show that research into
      biological evolution is not science.

      > I have pointed this out to Mr. Greene on more than one
      > occasion, but he still doesn't seem to get it.

      Oh, we get it all right. Jerry is engaging in typical creationist
      double-talk, where everything under the sun that he doesn't like
      is all just part of the "evolutionist conspiracy". And watch how
      McDonald contradicts himself as we go through this section of his

      > According to Chaisson & McMillian (both of which are
      > evolutionists)...

      No, Jerry; they're *astronomers*.

      And by the way; it's McMillan, not "McMillian". You have the
      book; you've been quoting from a few selected paragraphs now
      for weeks; and you've never even figured out how to spell the
      last name of one of the authors. I hope you didn't spend all
      that money on this astronomy textbook only to not learn anything
      from it.

      > ...wrote the following two statements:
      >| "Life in the Universe
      >| With this human-centered view clearly evident, Figure 28:1
      >| identifies seven major evolutionary phases that have
      >| contributed to development of life on our planet:
      >| particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical,
      >| biological (bold mine jdm), and cultural evolution. Matter
      >| formed from energy in the early universe, then cooled and
      >| clumped to form galaxies and stars. Within in galaxies,
      >| generation after generation of stars formed and died,
      >| seeding the interstellar medium with heavy elements so that,
      >| when our Sun formed billions of years after the first star
      >| blazed, the rocky planet Earth formed along with it.
      >| Eventually on Earth, life appeared and slowly evolved into
      >| the diverse environment we see today. Together, these
      >| evolutionary phases represent the grand sweep of cosmic
      >| evolution--the continuous transformation of matter and energy
      >| that has led to the appearance of life on our planet"
      > (Astronomy Today, p. 760).
      > Then on page 765 of the same book we read:
      >| "The fossil record leaves no doubt that biological organisms
      >| have changed over time--all scientists accept the reality of
      >| biological evolution. As conditions on Earth shifted and
      >| Earth's surface evolved, those organisms that could best take
      >| advantage of their new surroundings succeeded and thrived --
      >| often at the expense of organisms that could not make the
      >| necessary adjustments and consequently became extinct"
      > (Ibid, p. 765).
      > It is easily noted that Chaisson & McMillian both say that
      > biological evolution is but one phase of "cosmic" evolution.
      > Stellar evolution, and planetary evolution are two other
      > phases and they are part of the same evolutionary doctrine
      > that biological evolution is. Greene & Company (Hartzog
      > included) don't want to admit this because then they would
      > be forced to deal with all of the pitfalls of evolution
      > beginning with the "Big Bang" theory.

      OK, Jerry. You want to make "evolution" apply to everything
      under the sun, when Todd's video is very clearly talking about
      biological evolution? So let's say all kinds of evolution then.

      You still haven't shown that it is not science.

      You have not shown that cosmic evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that particulate evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that galactic evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that stellar evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that planetary evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that chemical evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that biological evolution is not science.
      You have not shown that cultural evolution is not science.

      So call it all "evolution" if you want to -- you're just making
      your job a whole lot tougher.

      You were supposed to be showing why "evolution isn't science",
      and then you changed the subject to SN 1987A, so now you are
      also supposed to be explaining how light travels across 168,000
      light years of space in less than 10,000 years.

      And now, rather than deal with those two things, you are trying
      to change the subject again. I think you're biting off a bit
      more than you can chew. Chaisson and McMillan speak of cosmic
      evolution, in your quote above, as being the "continuous
      transformation of matter and energy". Will you deny that
      matter and energy are undergoing continuous transformation?

      Can you scientifically show, Jerry McDonald, now that you have
      embraced this all-encompassing definition of "evolution" as the
      "continuous transformation of matter and energy", that these
      continuous transformations do not take place? Ooops!
      Creationists love to half-quote the laws of thermodynamics --
      thermodynamics says these transformations of matter and energy
      are continuously taking place -- therefore, creationists must
      accept "evolution" after all, wouldn't you say?

      "Pitfalls of the Big Bang"? Who cares? Whether it was a Big
      Bang or a Splendid Splurt the Universe is still going to be
      billions of years old and billions of light-years to the horizon.
      Just because you hate the Big Bang doesn't give your 6,000 year
      old Universe any scientific credibility.

      > While the comments on Greene's comment section (or on my own)
      > had nothing to do with biological evolution they had everything
      > to do with stellar evolution.

      Exactly. And nothing in Todd's video has anything whatsoever
      to do with stellar evolution. Which is one of the things that
      has been pointed out to you a number of times.

      But you decided you wanted to talk about SN 1987A instead, so
      now it is your job to tell us how we see the light from a
      supernova that took place 160,000 years before the young-earth
      creationists claim there was even a Universe.

      > Greene advertised several books on his video as proving
      > evolution...

      WRONG! Todd Greene gave examples of several SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
      that report the results of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH dealing with
      various aspects of the theory of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, proving
      that the claim that "evolution isn't science" is just creationist
      delusion! Research into biological evolution is legitimate
      scientific inquiry, conducted according to the standards of real

      You, Jerry McDonald, are completely ignorant of science and of
      the scientific method, and you are incompetent to be making
      claims about what qualifies as science and what is not science.

      You will demonstrate your ignorance and incompetence again and
      again in this article to which I am now replying. And by the
      end of this article you will have degenerated into utter lunacy.

      > ...one of which was the book The Age of the Earth, by G. Brent
      > Darlymple which is a book on geology. When Greene and I were
      > planning on debating the issue of the age of the universe and
      > the earth I bought that book upon his recommendation. When he
      > found out he argued that the book didn't prove evolution that
      > it had nothing to do with evolution because evolution has
      > nothing to do with geology. I asked him why he advertised it
      > as proving evolution and his response was that it was a lazy
      > oversight, but he was not going to remove it that he would
      > make another video explaining this lazy oversight (a video
      > that we are still waiting for I might add). So I guess Todd
      > is just too lazy to remove a lazy oversight and thereby
      > perpetuates something that he says is not true, namely that
      > Darlymple's book The Age of the Earth promotes and proves
      > evolution. Biological evolution is not the only kind of
      > evolution that we have.

      Whine whine whine.

      The TRUTH, dear readers, is that the McDonald-Greene debate was
      supposed to have been about the age of the Earth, not about
      biological evolution. You don't have to talk about biological
      evolution at all to thoroughly prove the antiquity of the Earth
      and the Universe. Todd told Jerry *from the very beginning* that
      he would not debate Jerry McDonald about biological evolution,
      because (1) biological evolution is irrelevant to proving the
      age of the Earth and the Universe, and (2) Jerry McDonald is
      not capable of discussing evolutionary theory "strictly from
      a scientific viewpoint".

      Dalrymple's book didn't have anything to do with why the debate
      was called off. It was because Jerry McDonald insisted he would
      be discussing biological evolution, which is another example of
      Jerry McDonald's irrationality -- he thinks, as his proposed
      proposition stated, that a "refutation of evolution" would prove
      the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. That, in itself,
      shows Jerry McDonald's scientific incompetence.

      > There is such an animal as stellar evolution and this is
      > the category or phase under which the discussion of SN 1987A
      > falls. I am sorry that Greene & Company cannot understand
      > this much about it, but such is not my fault.

      What McDonald doesn't seem to understand is that the comments
      section of a YouTube video about biological evolution is not
      the place to try carrying on a debate about a supernova that
      took place 168,000 years ago.

      For all the comments that have been posted to the pages of
      Todd's and Jerry's YouTube videos, NONE OF THEM have anything
      to do with showing why "evolution isn't science". No, to
      the contrary, the overall effect is of Jerry McDonald showing
      everyone he doesn't know what science is in the first place.

      (Most recently McDonald has posted this question to the
      comments section of his own video: "If mammals evolved from
      reptiles, why do we still have reptiles?" That is an example
      of how clueless McDonald is, and why Todd Greene refused to
      debate him in public on the subject of biological evolution.)

      > Greene is the one with the college education, not me. I
      > only attended a two year course in a preacher's training
      > school, but it seems that I know more about evolution than
      > Greene does.

      No, it doesn't seem that way at all. How it appears, Jerry,
      and I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster toward
      you in light of your recent behavior, is that you are simply
      too ignorant of what you are talking about to even realize
      how stupid what you are saying really is.


      And that is putting it in the very best possible light, because
      if you are NOT as totally ignorant of science as what you
      appear to be, then you are even more dishonest than I have
      previously thought. As I have said of certain other young-earth
      creationist preachers, some of the stuff they say is so stupid
      it really makes you wonder whether it is through ignorance or
      deliberate intent to deceive that they make these comments.

      And here's the WORST part: they are absolutely INCAPABLE of
      learning! They REFUSE to overcome their lack of understanding;
      they are DEFIANTLY ignorant and have every intention of REMAINING
      that way, and of CONTINUING to preach their error while they
      PROUDLY wear their incompetence like a badge of honor!

      > No, Greene understands that there are seven phases of
      > evolution and that biological evolution is but one of them.
      > He argues that evolution has nothing to do with geology, and
      > for once I would agree with him, but then he states that the
      > fossil record proves evolution, and (unless I am way off base)
      > the fossil record is a part of geology. I don't think I am
      > off base here unless Chaisson & McMillian are off as well
      > because they stated "the fossil record leaves no doubt that
      > biological organisms have changed over time -- all scientists
      > accept the reality of biological evolution" (Ibid).

      I had posted the message linked here well before Jerry McDonald
      posted this reply to me, so it is his own fault he is continuing
      with this same line of argumentation:

      But Jerry contradicts himself here with his own double-talk;
      if "planetary evolution" is a fair topic for the comments
      section of a YouTube video about biological evolution, then
      "evolution" most certainly does have something to do with
      geology. So now, Jerry, you are going to have to show that
      "geology isn't science" as well. But you RE-contradict
      yourself again, a little later in this message.

      I could save McDonald a lot of time and heartache and personal
      embarrassment here if he would just take a little advice --
      but I know he won't, so never mind...

      > Now while SN 1987A does not directly deal with biological
      > evolution, it does deal with stellar evolution which is
      > another one of those seven phases of evolution. Nowhere on
      > Mr. Greene's video does he single out "biological evolution."

      Except of course that all the journals Todd references, as well
      as the webpage on his Creationism site which he refers to in
      the video, are ALL about biology or palaeontolgy. NOTHING he
      referred to was about "stellar evolution" or cosmology or
      chemistry or culture or anything else:

      Check it out.

      Do you see Todd pointing out articles from any astrophysical
      journals in his video, or on the above page which his video
      references? No. But no matter, have it your way -- you have
      invalidated your protestations of Dalrymple's book being included
      in the video, because you say geology is part of the evolutionist
      conspiracy, too.

      Except here is another quote from Jerry McDonald's YouTube page:

      > Geology, physics and/or chemistry are all considered
      > science because they are testable by the empirical senses.
      > Evolution is not testable by the empirical senses.
      > Therefore it is not science.
      > In Christ Jesus
      > Jerry D. McDonald

      Now, Jerry has already referred to his selected quote (above)
      from Chaisson and McMillan a number of times, in which the
      "seven phases of cosmic evolution" are listed. Geology is
      "planetary evolution", and here McDonald says geology is
      science. Physics is embodied in "particulate evolution",
      "stellar evolution" and "galactic evolution", and McDonald here
      acknowledges that physics is science. Chemistry, of course, has
      to do with "chemical evolution" listed above, and McDonald says
      chemistry is science. So of those seven phases of cosmic
      evolution, McDonald has just admitted that five of the seven
      are science, leaving out only biological and cultural evolution.

      But notice McDonald's misunderstanding here (or, more accurately,
      deliberate misrepresentation) -- "testable by the empirical
      senses". This is another example of young-earth creationist
      dishonesty. Why would McDonald think that evolution is not
      testable by the empirical senses?

      Here is a hypothesis: If species change over time, there must
      be a means by which changes are passed from parents to offspring.

      And empirical verification of that hypothesis: Genetics.

      Here is another hypothesis: If changes are passed on to offspring,
      there must be a means of preserving beneficial modifications in
      the population.

      And empirical verification of that hypothesis: Natural selection.

      There is so much empirical evidence for biological evolution that
      it has been called the "cornerstone of modern biology". But what
      does the lying young-earth creationist preacher Jerry McDonald
      claim? That evolution is not "testable by the empirical senses"!
      How can he *possibly* make such a claim? Because in his deliberate
      pigheadedness he modifies his definition of "empirical evidence"
      to mean that you have to witness, with your own eyes, the
      creationist definition of "macro-evolution" taking place -- a cow
      giving birth to a pig or some such idiocy.

      > He simply says "evolution," and when you use the word
      > "evolution" without giving specifics it is generally taken that
      > you are talking about all of evolution beginning with the Big
      > Bang theory.

      Only to a screwed-up young-earth creationist! Most people, when
      they hear the word "evolution", understand it as having to do
      with the way that species change over time.

      But to people like Jerry McDonald, all of science is "evolution",
      but then again, "evolution isn't science". Huh? Yes, you heard
      me right -- to young-earth creationists, science is evolution
      but evolution isn't science. And round and round and round they

      > If you go to the comments section of Mr. Greene's video you
      > will see that I did deal with evolution and that I showed the
      > relevance that SN 1987A had to the video.

      I have been to the comments section of Mr. Greene's video and
      saw no such thing.

      > It deals with stellar evolution, and Todd just uses the word
      > "evolution." Mr. Greene's problem came in when I started
      > buying books written by evolutionary scientists to use against
      > him. He realized that I was buying some of the books that he
      > advertised on both his video and his website. He had to
      > admit that Chaisson & McMillian were professional astronomers,
      > there was no way that he could deny that, but they teach that
      > SN 1987A does deal with evolution; stellar evolution, which
      > indirectly will lead to biological evolution. As far as my
      > own Youtube video is concerned, it deals pretty much with the
      > same material as my video is in direct response to Greene's
      > video.

      More McDonald double-talk. More McDonald word games. Jerry,
      you are habitually dishonest.

      Anybody should be able to tell from Todd's video that it is about
      biological evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with stellar
      evolution. When Todd told you that geology doesn't have anything
      to do with evolution, he was trying to make you understand that
      geologists do not rig their findings to fit a timeframe that will
      accommodate biological evolution. He was trying to make you
      understand that the age of the Earth, as established by geological
      science, is not dependent in any way on biological processes or

      Yes, Jerry, as we all know, there are fossils in the rocks and
      these fossils were some of the earliest recognized evidence that
      the Earth's plants and animals do change over time -- periods of
      time that are *thousands* of times longer than young-earthers
      can even imagine for the age of the Earth. But you can strip all
      the fossil-bearing strata completely off the face of the Earth
      and you will still be left with an ancient Earth. Or just look
      at the Moon! -- it doesn't have any fossils on it at all, as far
      as we know, but it is 4.5 billion years old, too. You can take
      the Earth out of the Universe completely, so that there is no
      evidence of life anywhere as far as we know, and the Universe
      will still be much much older than any few thousand years.

      The imaginary McDonald-Greene debate was supposed to have been
      about the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe, as
      established by astronomical and geological science and "strictly
      from a scientific standpoint" (McDonald's own words). The
      debate was called off because McDonald refused to debate if
      biological evolution wasn't included in his proposition, and
      Todd refused to allow a debate that was supposed to be about
      the age of the Earth get sidelined into the incredible waste of
      time in trying to explain to Jerry McDonald why cows don't give
      birth to pigs, and why, if mammals came from reptiles we still
      have reptiles. It is very unlikely that Jerry McDonald even
      knows what "allele frequency" means, yet there he was, wanting to
      debate about biological evolution, when he actually thinks that
      the fact that we have never seen a cow give birth to a pig is
      a good argument against macro-evolution!

      > Mr. Hartzog continues...
      >| But Jerry McDonald promised us that he was working on a
      >| "scientific" explanation to the problem of how, if the
      >| Universe is only 6,000 years old, we can see the light from
      >| SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years away.
      >| What Jerry has now posted to his website is itself light-years
      >| away from being any kind of scientific explanation, but I think
      >| it is a very fitting demonstration of Jerry McDonald's
      >| incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science and
      >| what is not science.
      > Of course he doesn't think that my explanation is not scientific.

      Oh, yes I do, McDonald. I KNOW your explanation is not scientific.

      It is fantasy based on NOTHING. Where is your evidence? You
      presented NOTHING in your last article and you present more
      NOTHING in this article. You claim a MASSIVE gravitational time
      dilation event in the vicinity of the Earth a few thousand years
      ago. Based on WHAT? There is NO evidence for it and ABUNDANT
      evidence against it. You are proposing, as a "scientific
      explanation", something that is absolutely not supported by any
      science, or even a modicum of common sense.

      > He says that this is a very fitting demonstration of my
      > incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science
      > and what is not. All right, maybe he would like to show
      > us why my explanation is not scientific.

      You will show that yourself, and show it abundantly, before
      the end of this message.

      > Is it because time dilation is not scientific?
      > Notice what he says about time dilation?
      >| Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it,
      >| and Jerry is so incompetent that he thinks that means what
      >| Humphreys is saying makes any sense. Well, it doesn't.
      >| Time dilation is a relativistic effect related to gravity
      >| and/or velocity, i.e., when it is observed it is observed
      >| for a *reason*. There is no *reason* for Humphreys to call
      >| on time dilation as one of the effects of the Flood -- if
      >| he wants to just claim outlandish miracles as the reason we
      >| can see distant starlight, just call it a miracle, withdraw
      >| from the creation-science game, and let that be that.
      > The actual order of who came up with the time dilation in my
      > article is different from what Mr. Hartzog tells us. He says
      > "Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it...."
      > Actually it was Dr. Humphreys who first mentioned time dilation
      > on the CRSnet. Someone had asked whether time dilation was a
      > theory or if it was factual. Mr. Faulkner responded with his
      > post that it is an observable fact, and Dr. Humphreys added to
      > that when he wrote about the GPS systems in our vehicles.

      Maybe so, but that's not the way you presented it in your article.
      You quoted Faulkner, and then you quoted Humphreys' agreement with
      Faulkner's comment. And it doesn't matter who brought the subject
      up; "time dilation" is nothing but relativity. Einstein told us
      about it a hundred years ago. Is relativity scientific? Yes, it
      is. Is Humphreys' use of a "time dilation" scenario during the
      Flood year scientific? NO, IT IS NOT!

      Jerry thinks that all that is needed is for "time dilation" to be
      a scientific fact, and that means Humphreys nonsense is believable.

      Well, goats are a scientific fact, too, and so are dandelions. I
      can say the local galaxy used to be full of dandelions until a
      giant cosmic goat came through and ate them all up, and that is
      *just as scientific* as Humphreys' claim, has just as much evidence
      to support it, and merits Jerry McDonald believing it just as much
      as Humphreys' claim does.

      Humphreys' claim is FANTASY based on NOTHING. There is no
      supporting science, no evidence, just wild imagination. My cosmic
      goat ate the dandelion that was going to become Russell Humphreys'
      "time dilation" mechanism, before any time dilation occurred.

      So there.

      The "giant cosmic goat theory" explains the total lack of any
      evidence for Humphreys' "white hole" or for any massive
      gravitational field within the vicinity of the Earth a few
      thousand years ago, and as for the goat, after it ate all the
      interstellar dandelions around here, it just wandered off.

      So there.

      > It might not hurt Mr. Hartzog to purchase a copy of Dr.
      > Humphreys book Starlight and Time and read up on what
      > Dr. Humphreys says about time dilation:

      Why? Do you think Humphreys is the only one who knows about
      relativity? From what I have "read up on", Humphreys completely
      blows it. DANNY FAULKNER KNOWS Humphreys blew it, and the
      authors of the other CEN article I cited know it, too. Why
      didn't Jerry include the link to that CEN article when he
      posted my last message to his website? (I include that link
      again at the end of this message.)

      Humphreys' "White Hole" cosmology has already been debunked by
      a number of people who are far more proficient than I am in
      general and special relativity. Simply speaking, Humphreys'
      cosmology is unworkable, both from any kind of young-earth
      perspective (because only the Earth is "young", while the
      rest of the Universe is billions of years old, and the stars
      aren't necessarily created on the fourth day) and from the
      standpoint of physics (it just doesn't work).

      As one physicist put it, once you fix all the mathematical
      errors in Humphreys' "white hole" cosmology you are left with a
      standard Big Bang model.

      So if you don't mind, Jerry, I won't be throwing my money away
      on pseudoscience nonsense. That stuff is written to sell to
      people like you, not me.

      McDonald quotes Humphreys:

      >| "Gravity Distorts Time
      >| Let me first briefly outline where I am heading. The
      >| theory utilizes Einstein's theory of relativity, which
      >| is the best theory of gravity we have today. General
      >| relativity (GR) has been well-established experimentally,
      >| and is the physics framework for all modern cosmologies.
      >| According to GR, gravity affects time. Clocks at a low
      >| altitude should tick more slowly than clocks at a high
      >| altitude--and observations confirm this effect, which
      >| some call gravitational time dilation. (Not to be confused
      >| with the better-known 'velocity' time dilation in Einstein's
      >| special relativity theory.)" > (Starlight and Time, p. 11).

      Typical creationist misdirection. Just because we know about
      relativistic effects does not in any way suggest that starlight
      is traveling hundreds of thousands of light-years across space
      in one "Earth year". Humphreys says General Relativity is the
      "physics framework for all modern cosmologies". Do you see
      any modern cosmologists proposing that Time is or has been
      moving along a million times slower here on Earth than elsewhere
      in the Universe? Of course not. Do you think it is because
      those modern cosmologists forgot to take relativity into

      As I said in my previous post, time dilation happens for a
      *reason* -- differences in gravitational fields and/or velocity.
      Jerry McDonald (and Russell Humphreys) seems to be unable to
      provide a reason, and subsequently any evidence, for time
      dilation in the region of the Earth during the Creation week
      and again during the Flood year.

      How can a "scientific explanation" that offers NO EVIDENCE,
      and is thoroughly REJECTED by science, be a "scientific
      explanation"? Welcome to young-earth fantasyland!

      > So it doesn't make any sense when Dr. Humphreys made the
      > following statement?
      >| Time dilation is well-verified by experiments, and now
      >| it is a part of some technology. For example (and counter
      >| to some urban myths), the Global,Positioning System (GPS)
      >| navigational satellites have to very carefully account for
      >| both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation
      >| in order to provide accurate position information to us on
      >| the ground. Otherwise your Magellan GPS (if you have one)
      >| might guide you into North Carolina instead of to the
      >| grocery store across town :o) Russ"
      > (CRSNET@... Supernova 1987a and Time Dilation,
      > Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:55:28 - 0700).
      > No, that made perfect sense! What didn't make sense to
      > Mr. Hartzog was Dr. Humphreys' application to time dilation
      > during the Genesis flood (otherwise known as the Noahic flood).

      Look, McDonald: Humphreys' "time dilation" doesn't make any sense
      to *anyone* -- not just me. Humphreys has known since 1994 that
      his theory won't hold water, and here it is all these years later
      and you are still endorsing it. It is dishonest of Humphreys
      to take advantage of you like that. Snake oil won't cure what
      ails you, McDonald.

      > To Mr. Hartzog there has to be a natural explanation for
      > everything. There has to be an empirical answer for everything.

      No, not really. Just everything that pretends to be science.
      That's what science is. And that is why "young-earth creation-
      science" is not science. It does not offer empirically-verifiable
      answers. It fails all testable hypotheses. *It is not
      self-correcting*. If you would just say "I believe what I believe
      because the Bible tells me so," and let it go at that, then fine;
      then we could talk about whether that is really what the Bible is
      trying to tell you; but as soon as you start making claims about
      the real world, and pretending that there is any science that
      supports those claims, your "scientific" claims become subject to
      scientific verification. The real-world claims of "young-earth
      creation-science" FAIL on every count.

      > This is why he said
      >| Humphreys ignores the fact that there must be a *continuum*
      >| of space-time between events. Humphreys doesn't seem to be
      >| aware that what he tells Jerry acknowledges that the Universe
      >| has been in existence for millions and billions of years,
      >| while the Earth has (supposedly) been enclosed in some kind of
      >| unconnected space-time envelope. And the *mechanism* for this
      >| space-time envelope, *apparently*, is "supernatural" --
      >| meaning there is NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION for it!

      And what is Jerry McDonald's response to my comment here?

      Begin irrelevant rant:

      > Mr. Hartzog claims to be part of the Worldwide Church of
      > Latitudinarianism, I am not really sure what that is because
      > the word Latitudinarianism means "not insistent on strict
      > conformity to a particular doctrine or standard...tolerant
      > of variations of religious opinion or doctrine" (Merriam-
      > Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p. 703).
      > Now while I am not really sure what this church is, it seems
      > that it is supposedly tolerant of other religious opinions or
      > doctrines. Maybe this is the church that Ann Coulter writes
      > about in her book The Church of Liberalism, but that seems to
      > be a church for atheists, something like the Unitarian Church.
      > At any rate, I have often wondered, in the brief time I have
      > known Mr. Hartzog, if he believes in any thing that deals with
      > the supernatural. Does he believe in the supernatural, or does
      > he believe only in what he can see, hear, smell, touch, and or
      > taste? I wonder how he would explain the existence of a
      > conscience since he cannot see it, hear it, smell it, touch it
      > or taste it? Where is his scientific explanation for a
      > conscience? I often wonder how he would be able to explain
      > concepts such as love and hate as you cannot see them, hear them,
      > touch them, smell them, or taste them?
      > He ridicules me for speaking of the supernatural and says that
      > there is no scientific explanation for it. Well, there is no
      > scientific explanation for many things. I don't know of a
      > scientific explanation for gravity. We know that it works, we
      > can observe something falling and hitting the floor. We can
      > observe the GPS satellites having to very carefully account for
      > both gravitational and velocity time dilation in order to get
      > you to where you need to go. But I don't know if anyone knows
      > why gravity will make clocks tick slower on earth than they do
      > above the earth. We know it happens, but do we have a scientific
      > explanation beyond gravity for it happening that way?

      I'm not going to respond to any of that. Jerry McDonald is
      supposed to be telling us why "evolution isn't science", and he
      is supposed to be explaining to us how, if the Universe is only
      a few thousand years old, we see light from objects and events that
      are hundreds of thousands and millions of light-years distant.

      He is absolutely free to say that it is because of a miracle if
      he wants to, thereby admitting that he has no "scientific
      explanation" for it, and that would be fine -- then we could go
      off into a philosophical discussion about what kind of God would
      pull "apparent age" tricks on His created beings.

      If this post wasn't going to be so long already I would take
      time to answer some of these irrelevancies and self-contradictions
      from McDonald, but for now I think most readers will be able to
      see them for themselves. I will only note that this is one of
      McDonald's worn-out tactics -- when faced with a question he can't
      answer he will often go off into one of these irrelevant rants
      and try to draw attention away from the fact that HE CAN'T ANSWER

      > Science can only explain so much.

      That doesn't mean that everything that is unexplained is

      > For example science cannot explain any part of Darwinian
      > Evolution.


      > This evolution cannot be verified because it is not testable.


      > You can't observe it going on with any of your five empirical
      > senses.


      > Of course evolutionists claim that you can but when you
      > ask for specific examples the best they can do is to come
      > up with things like you can put two different breeds of
      > cattle together and get a hybrid, but the fact is what they
      > give birth to is still a cow. It isn't a money or a cat,
      > or even a human; it is a cow. Corn always yields corn, beans
      > always yields beans and so on. There is scientific evidence
      > for that, but where is the scientific evidence for say two
      > cattle of different breeds giving birth to something that is
      > at least part non-cow? Oh, they say, the change is so gradual
      > that you could walk right up to it and never notice the change!
      > O, ok, then how do you know it is changing? In order for
      > macro-evolution to be observable you are going to have to
      > notice (at some time during the process) where some offspring
      > is part cow and part something that is not a cow, otherwise it
      > is not scientifically provable or explainable. You have to be
      > able to observe it for it to be scientifically testable. This
      > is why the evolutionist says that there is no difference
      > between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, but this is about
      > as absurd as saying that there is no difference between a cow
      > and a monkey. The only things that the cow and the monkey have
      > in common is the fact that they both live, they both breathe
      > and they are both mammals, and the only thing that
      > macro-evolution has in common with micro-evolution is that they
      > both involve changing. However, micro-evolution is restricted
      > to small changes within a kind while macro-evolution, supposedly,
      > has no such restrictions, that these changes can occur between
      > kinds. Now micro-evolution is scientifically observable, but
      > macro-evolution isn't. Yet, it seems that Mr. Hartzog will
      > accept macro-evolution as factual and scientific even though
      > there is NO scientific evidence available nor has there ever
      > been any such evidence available. No one has ever seen a
      > missing link (the crossover from ape to human)! History only
      > goes back so far! Writing only goes back so far! 6,000 to
      > 10,000 years at the most is as far as we can find writing,
      > paintings ect.,. If humans (cavemen) dwelt on this earth
      > 3 million years ago, where is the scientific evidence for it.
      > Radiocarbon dating? I don't think so! What about radioisotope
      > dating? Again, I don't think so! Both of these can only go so
      > far and the rest has to be decided on assumption.


      Will you please try sticking to the subject at hand?

      If you wanted to talk about the sort of things you are rambling
      on about in the above paragraph, of which you very obviously don't
      have any comprehension, why didn't you ever answer this message
      instead of running away from it and banning me from your list?

      (The above message was originally posted to Jerry McDonald's
      Challenge II list, but now that I am banned from Jerry's list
      because Jerry can't answer questions, I can't provide the link,
      since Jerry's list does not have public archives. So if Jerry
      has ever attempted a response to that message there is no way
      of me knowing about it.)

      We are not talking about how biological evolution works right now,
      Jerry. Nor am I going to be distracted into trying to straighten
      out all the errors in your paragraph above. I completely agree
      that the creationist description of evolutionary theory is not
      science, but you were supposed to have been dealing with
      evolutionary theory *as it really is*, not as creationists try to
      portray it.

      Your job is much more narrow at the moment. You are supposed to
      be (1) telling us why "evolution isn't science" and (2) giving us
      a scientific explanation of how we can see the light from SN 1987A,
      168,000 light-years away.

      How about doing that? I'm tired of you leaping from one subject to
      the next, everytime you get your tail in a crack and can't back up
      your stupid claims.

      > Now I have said all that to say this, Mr. Hartzog argues that
      > Dr. Humphreys makes assumptions and that I am so incompetent
      > that I swallow it because Dr. Humphreys cannot show scientific
      > evidence that this happened during the flood.

      No, I didn't say Humphreys had assumed any thing. I said Humphreys
      just *made stuff up*. I pointed out that the baloney Humphreys is
      feeding you about a massive time dilation region in our galaxy a
      few thousand years ago IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to a number of
      Humphreys' other claims -- and I'm not the only one who knows it

      And yes, your FAILURE to recognize those contradictions does
      show your ineptitude and incompetence.

      You've said all that to AVOID saying what you *need* to be saying,
      McDonald. What you are supposed to be doing is telling us why
      "evolution isn't science", and how we see the light from a
      supernova that took place 168,000 years ago.

      > According to Hartzog this is all just my "mis"interpretation
      > of the Genesis record.

      Well, I do say you misinterpret Genesis (along with substantial
      chunks of the rest of the Bible). But that isn't what we are
      talking about right now. You've already bailed out of that
      discussion, and then you banned me from your list.

      I had written:

      >| It is hardly "bias" to assume that the laws of physics
      >| have remained the same throughout the time and space of
      >| the Universe. There is absolutely no evidence which would
      >| lead one to suppose otherwise. Furthermore, the estimate
      >| of when the gas ring was expelled is not based on the
      >| speed of light at all.
      >| Jerry continues:
      >|> In their mind there is no other explanation. When creationists
      >|> try to get them to see that there are alternatives they sneer
      >|> at us and say that we are unscientific.
      >| There is no evidence that suggests any other explanation is
      >| needed. There is no evidence that the speed of light has
      >| changed since the explosion took place. The "alternatives"
      >| that Jerry wants are not based on any evidence either, other
      >| than the young-earthers' interpretation of Genesis. So yes,
      >| the reason Jerry wants a different explanation is a completely
      >| UNSCIENTIFIC reason, and the explanation he offers us here
      >| is completely UNSCIENTIFIC as well. Call it sneering if you
      >| want to, but young-earth creation-science is not science.
      > In the first place it is bias to assume things that they
      > have not seen, heard, smelled, touched, and or tasted.

      I have not seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted ANY evidence
      that the speed of light has changed. And neither has Russell

      I *have* seen evidence that the speed of light has NEVER changed,
      at least not by any appreciable fraction of a percent, ever since
      the beginning of the Universe. And so has Russell Humphreys.

      I have not seen, heard, tasted, touched, or even smelled ANY
      evidence that there was any kind of massive gravity well in this
      region of our galaxy a few thousand years ago, and NEITHER HAS
      RUSSELL HUMPHREYS. Russell Humphreys and I are both aware of
      substantial evidence that NO SUCH EVENT took place anywhere
      around here a few thousand years ago. I don't ignore that
      evidence, but Russell Humphreys does.

      Now, what were you saying about bias?

      Russell Humphreys just *made something up* for which there is
      NO evidence nor is there ANY supporting science! HE MADE IT UP,
      JERRY! It's fantasy! Do you understand that? It isn't real.
      It's something from Humphreys' imagination, and it doesn't work
      in the real world! Do you understand?

      > The very idea that there is no evidence that suggests that any
      > other explanation is needed, is absurd unless Mr. Hartzog has
      > experienced everything.

      That's a ridiculous statement, McDonald. If I wake up to the
      smell of coffee brewing, and I walk in the kitchen and there's a
      pot of coffee brewing, I don't have to go searching all through
      the entire house to make sure the smell of coffee brewing is
      actually coming from the coffee that is brewing. No other
      explanation is needed. There's the coffee.

      There's the supernova. There's the speed of light. Here's
      how long it took for us to see it. Why do *you* need any other

      > Does Mr. Hartzog know everything about physics and the universe?
      > No, so he cannot say with any scientific truth at all that there
      > is no evidence that the speed of light has ever changed.

      Then show the evidence. If it is evidence it is able to be
      presented. If a murder is committed you can't just convict
      anyone you feel like convicting because you say that there
      "may be" evidence somewhere out there that this person did it;
      you have to find the evidence and if you *don't* find the evidence

      Again, McDonald's statements here show his UTTER INCOMPETENCE
      to be making any kind of pronouncements about science.

      > Now, if he wants to make an assumption based upon what we have
      > experienced with our empirical senses, that is one thing, but
      > it is quite another thing to say that there IS NO EVIDENCE
      > that the speed of light has changed since the explosion took
      > place, unless Mr. Hartzog knows all things in every part of the
      > universe.

      Jerry, it is hard for me to maintain patience with such
      imbecility. Really it is.

      But this may be an opportunity for me to demonstrate the
      fallacy of the creationist definition of "empirical evidence" --
      only that which you can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

      We have, scientifically speaking, a massive amount of empirical
      evidence that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
      But that is well beyond the faculties of human senses -- if you
      aim a flashlight at an object a hundred yards away and turn it
      on, you have no way of knowing, from that, whether the speed of
      light is 186,000 miles per second, or 93,000, or 372, 000, or
      even just 1,000 miles per second. You can't, with your "empirical
      senses", tell the difference.

      So, according to the young-earth creationist definition of
      "empirical evidence", they have no way of knowing the speed of

      And remember, the young-earth creationists don't just say you
      have to be able to "empirically" experience the *evidence* of a
      phenomenon with your five senses; they say you have to "empirically"
      experience *the phenomenon itself*! If you don't *see* the murder
      committed, if you don't *see* the brick go through the window, then
      according to them you have no "empirical evidence". This is one of
      Jerry McDonald's most firmly held ERRORS about science, which is
      wrong on such a fundamental level that OF COURSE Jerry McDonald
      is going to be incompetent to determine what is science and what
      is not.

      > Mr. Hartzog continues...
      >| Humphreys ignores the fact that there must be a *continuum*
      >| of space-time between events. Humphreys doesn't seem to be
      >| aware that what he tells Jerry acknowledges that the
      >| Universe has been in existence for millions and billions
      >| of years, while the Earth has (supposedly) been enclosed in
      >| some kind of unconnected space-time envelope. And the
      >| *mechanism* for this space-time envelope, *apparently*, is
      >| "supernatural" -- meaning there is NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION
      >| for it!
      > Mr. Hartzog's ignorance of Dr. Humphreys' understanding of the
      > age of the universe is understandable since he probably hasn't
      > read the good Dr.'s book Starlight and Time.

      I don't have to read Starlight and Time to know what Humphreys
      "understands" about the age of the Universe, because Humphreys
      didn't get his "understanding" about the age of the Universe
      from any kind of science. He got it from a narrow-minded
      cult-like reading of the Bible, and no where else. I've seen
      plenty of Humphreys' so-called "science" that he promotes as
      evidence for a young Earth. The salt in the sea. Not enough
      stone age skeletons. The Earth's magnetic field. Not enough
      mud on the seafloor. And so on, ALL RIDICULOUS. NONE of
      Humphreys' evidences are valid means of determining the age of
      the Earth. Most of them are completely irrational as well, and
      only a nincompoop would accept them. No offense.

      > In this book Dr. Humphreys addresses both of the so-called
      > problems that Mr. Hartzog thinks he has found.

      No, Jerry, he doesn't. He blows it. And you are such a
      scientific illiterate that you don't know whether Humphreys
      deals with anything or not. You are going around, as usual,
      making claims in subjects about which you are ignorant and
      incompetent and inept and deluded, and not only are you
      wrong, you are DEFIANTLY WRONG! It's like you're saying, "I'm
      an idiot, and proud of it!"

      > The word "continuum" that Mr. Hartzog uses simply means
      > "a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence or
      > progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees"
      > (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition,
      > p. 270).

      And if light is traveling a thousand times faster in one part of
      the Universe than the other, then there has to be a *sequence*,
      a *progression of values* in the speed of light between the two

      Humphreys himself said "depending on where I draw the boundaries".
      In other words, he can draw them wherever he wants to, because
      they are based on NOTHING! Humphreys says certain light-paths
      would be nearly vertical. I can't tell, from Humphreys' childish
      illustration, exactly what he means by that, but if he's saying
      that ALL the radiation from ALL the UNIVERSE reaches Earth in
      NO TIME, then the Earth gets FRIED. End of story.

      > So when Mr. Hartzog tells us that that Dr. Humphreys has
      > "ignored the fact that there must be a 'continuum' of
      > space-time events" he is saying that Dr. Humphreys is purposely
      > ignoring the sequence or progression of the elements of the
      > space-time events. To Mr. Hartzog this sequence of events comes
      > from the "big bang" and everything continues from there on.
      > Well, Dr. Humphreys did not ignore any such thing. In his book
      > Starlight and Time he devotes the whole second chapter to
      > dealing with the continuum of space-time events, from the moment
      > of creation until the end of the creation week.

      That's neither here nor there. Noah's "clock" wasn't running
      during the Creation week. The space-time continuum that Humphreys
      must describe is between the Earth during Noah's time and the
      explosion of SN 1987A. Humphreys would have to somehow describe
      a space-time warp and the mechanism that could produce such a
      warp without utterly destroying the entire Milky Way galaxy.

      As we get a little farther down in this message, it will be
      seen how preposterous Humphreys' proposal really is, and what
      incredible nonsense Jerry McDonald is willing to accept as
      support for his young-earth views.

      > Even the "big bang" theory had a beginning, it had to start
      > somewhere. However, it can't be right because it violates the
      > first law of thermodynamics which states that "energy is a
      > thermodynamic property" and "that during an interaction, energy
      > can change from one form to another but the total amount of energy
      > remains constant. That is, energy cannot be created or destroy<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • w_w_c_l
      ... Interesting! I distinctly remember that in the first Baty-McDonald debate Jerry McDonald used at least *three* young-earth creation- science arguments:
      Message 37 of 37 , Jan 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        In "McDonald's Second Rebuttal," message #13821, Jerry wrote:

        > (Robert) seems to think that I hold to the position
        > that YEC is science, I'm really sorry, but I don't
        > hold to that position. I also don't hold to the
        > position that OEC is science. I also don't hold to
        > the position that evolution is science. None of it is
        > science because none of it can be tested scientifically.
        > He is the one who says that YEC is claimed to be science,
        > I never have. In our first debate I said that I wasn't
        > dealing with science because it isn't a scientific subject.


        I distinctly remember that in the first Baty-McDonald debate
        Jerry McDonald used at least *three* "young-earth creation-
        science" arguments: the "Field of Botany" argument, the
        "Sea's Missing Salt" argument, and the "World's Oldest Coral
        Reef" argument!

        I also clearly remember that Jerry's son, Thomas McDonald,
        appeals to the "Field of Botany" argument and the "Rapid
        Growth of Coral Reefs" argument in *his* very recent article
        about the age of the Earth!

        Jerry McDonald also has an article about the kingdom of Ai
        which purports to show, "scientifically", where and when Ai
        really was.

        But now Jerry is effectively admitting that he, like us,
        doesn't really believe any of that nonsense anyway.

        Maybe he should explain to son Thomas that there is NO
        scientific evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand
        years old, because the last sentence of Thomas's article
        says otherwise!

        Thomas says:

        >| "Thus by just looking at the Bible, and real world
        >| evidence we can see that the Earth can be no more
        >| than a few 1,000 [sic] years old."

        Jerry, where did your son get such notions?

        But Jerry also says:

        > There is no "empirical evidence" which shows that
        > there are some things more than 10,000 years old.

        Since Jerry, as he has revealed over and over again, doesn't
        even know what "empirical evidence" is, this claim from him
        is completely without merit -- not to mention completely
        false. There are mountains and mountains of genuine, valid,
        scientific, empirical evidence that the Earth and Universe
        are far, far older than any 10,000 years -- evidence which
        Jerry McDonald simply says does not exist. Jerry can try
        to weasel around with what "empirical" means all he wants;
        whether Jerry can experientially "sense" all that evidence
        or not, everybody else can.

        Yet Jerry claims:

        > None of it is science because none of it can be tested
        > scientifically.

        Now... this is from some guy who has never had a college
        science class in his life, and who it seems very doubtful
        did very well in any science classes he had in high school
        (if any), pretending he is going to tell us what science is,
        and what can and cannot be scientifically tested, and what
        constitutes empirical evidence, *and expect somebody to
        believe him*.

        Give me a break!

        I mean, really, Jerry: GIVE ME A BREAK!

        It most certainly *can* be scientifically tested whether
        the Earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It most
        certainly can be scientifically tested whether humans had
        agriculture and metallurgy and textiles and "cities" within
        the first one or two thousand years of their existence.

        And it most certainly can be scientifically tested whether
        there was some sort of massive "gravitational time dilation"
        going on in this part of the galaxy a few thousand years ago.

        Because Jerry also claims:

        > I used a model from Dr. Russell Humphreys to show how
        > the light could have traveled to earth in less time than
        > what natural laws would permit.

        I didn't THINK McDonald knew what he was talking about -- Ha!


        Humphreys' model does NOT propose to speed up light beyond
        "what natural laws would permit" -- oh, no no no! Humphreys'
        model proposes "gravitational time dilation" as the mechanism
        for "speeding up" the time it takes light to reach the Earth
        from distant stars -- a "naturalistic" explanation. Jerry
        himself, in his first article, asked rhetorically, "Is time
        dilation theory or is it fact?" and Jerry answered, "Yes,
        yes it is a fact of science," referring to the quotes from
        Danny Faulkner and Russell Humphreys on CRSnet, and *he then
        went on to claim that since there is a such thing as time
        dilation*, that it "dispenses with evolutionists [sic]
        teachings that SN 1987A took 168,000 light years [sic] to
        reach us"!

        And what was my response to that? I said:

        > Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it,
        > and Jerry is so incompetent that he thinks that means what
        > Humphreys is saying makes any sense. Well, it doesn't. Time
        > dilation is a relativistic effect related to gravity and/or
        > velocity, i.e., when it is observed it is observed for a
        > *reason*. There is no *reason* for Humphreys to call on
        > time dilation as one of the effects of the Flood -- if he
        > wants to just claim outlandish miracles as the reason we
        > can see distant starlight, just call it a miracle,
        > withdraw from the creation-science game, and let that be
        > that.

        So Jerry, trapped in a tight spot in the second Baty-McDonald
        debate, now renounces what he said in the first Baty-McDonald
        debate, and what his son Thomas says in a very recent article
        on the age of the Earth, and what Jerry so long ago promised
        he was going to give us -- the "scientific explanation" for
        how, if the Universe is only a few thousand years old, we see
        the light from objects and events (such as SN 1987A) that are
        hundreds of thousands of light-years away and hundreds of
        thousands of years in the past!

        I told McDonald *then*: arbitrarily calling on miracles to
        solve the problems with your young-earth scenarios is
        NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, and in his next article, which
        he titled "Not Scientific?", McDonald argued at length that
        yes he did too give a scientific explanation (from Humphreys)
        for distant starlight, at one point writing:

        >| (Mr. Hartzog) doesn't like scientific explanations for
        >| things such as this because he wants to be able to
        >| parrot off the same old rhetoric that creationists
        >| cannot make any scientific arguments for a young
        >| universe and earth.

        But what does McDonald tell us now? Why, he *parrots off the
        same old rhetoric* -- creationists cannot make any scientific
        arguments for a young Universe and Earth!

        Jerry, you are absolutely correct! There is NO SUCH THING
        as a scientific argument for a young Earth! There is not
        one single argument for the Earth and Universe being only
        a few thousand years old that will withstand honest
        scientific scrutiny.

        So where do we go from here, McDonald?

        Am I to infer after all this time that you WON'T be producing
        that "scientific explanation" for how we see the light from
        SN 1987A, after all?

        But we knew that already! So, what *will* you be talking
        about in installments 4 -10 of your "Hartzog's Fantasies"
        series? Not SN 1987A I guess!

        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.