Re: Maybe against my better judgment, but still...
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l"
<w_w_c_l@...> wrote (in part, full text below):
>Another snippet from McDonald's exposition of SN 1987A, and
> | Except for a couple of little snippets that I'm not going to
> | be able to resist pointing out to everyone ahead of time,
> | I have no plans of responding to your [Jerry McDonald's]
> | responses to my last message until you get finished.
> | Completely. Right down to the links at the bottom of the
> | message.
how it is that we are able to see events that happened
hundreds of thousands of light-years away, and therefore
hundreds of thousands of years in the past, if the Universe
is only a few thousand years old:
Recall that McDonald has been quoting (repeatedly, even though
irrelevantly) from Chaisson and McMillan, *Astronomy Today*
for several weeks now, the same few quotes over and over while
basically ignoring *everything* that this astronomy textbook
has to say about the age of the Universe and the distance to
stars and how stars are formed and, well, everything. And all
this time McDonald has been consistently misspelling the last
name of one of the authors, and I finally pointed this out:
>> And by the way; it's McMillan, not "McMillian".McDonald:
> You're right, it isn't McMillian, it is McMillan! I made aUm, by the way, it's Cosell, not "Cozel"...
> simple error in spelling his name. I do sincerely apologize
> for that devastating mistake. Is that the best you've got?
> That reminds me of the Holmes-Cobb fight in 82. Holmes was
> beating Cobb so bad that it made Holmes look bad. It was so
> terrible that this was the last fight that Howard Cozel
> ever narrated...
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
> I had written (in another thread, in part):
> > While it is possible I suppose, at least in theory, that
> > Belle, Missouri, has been sucked into one of those "time
> > dilation" regions, out here in the rest of the Universe
> > it is beginning to seem like a pretty long while since
> > Jerry McDonald promised us his "scientific explanation"
> > for how, if the Universe is only a few thousand years old,
> > we can see events like SN 1987A, a supernova that occurred
> > 168,000 light-years away and therefore, according to
> > standard astronomy, 168,000 years in the past.
> Jerry McDonald has been pecking away at my response to his
> NOT SCIENTIFIC article in which he was supposed to be
> explaining for us how we're able to see starlight and actual
> events like supernovae from hundreds of thousands of light-years
> away and hundreds of thousands of years in the past if the
> Universe is only a few thousand years old, and has now posted to
> his Challenge II website the second installment of his reply to
> my message "SN 1987A: McDonald's 'scientific explanation' not
> scientific at all". Yesterday I received the following e-mail
> from Jerry:
> | Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:25:04 -0800 (PST)
> | From: "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@>
> | Subject: Time Dilation envelope
> | To: "Rick Hartzog" <w_w_c_l@>
> | Rick,
> | Your feeble efforts to get me back on the list are useless.
> | I am in the process of responding to your feeble attempt of
> | a response to my defense of my original article. It is
> | taking some time however because of the length. I do have
> | two installments at
> | http://www.challenge2.org/hartzogsfantasies1.html
> | and
> | http://www.challenge2.org/hartzogsfantasies2.html
> | As best as I can tell it will take at least two more installments
> | to get everything in your post answered, formatted and published
> | on my website. You don't have to wait very long, and no we are
> | not in a time dilation envelope here in Belle. However, my time
> | is very demanding. I am starting Challenge (the electronice and
> | paper version) back up which goes out this month, plus Back To
> | The Bible has to go out this month. Then I have school at that
> | apostate OABS two days per week now, my regular duties in
> | preaching and teaching my son how to be a preacher. I also have
> | made a new years resolution to spend more quality time with my
> | wife since I have not spend as much with her as I would like to
> | have over the last few years because of my illnesses. So I will
> | get to you when I can, but there are two installments that you
> | can start on, if you are really that bored.
> | In Christ Jesus
> | Jerry D. McDonald
> | P.S. I wrote Dr. Cohen, as you well know by now, to clarify
> | some things. I'll certainly be glad to send you a copy of what
> | he says.
> "Feeble"? Am I to inherit, in Robert's absence, the complaints
> of feebleness traditionally directed toward him? I think we have
> commented before on what seems to be the "Baty curse", that such
> accusations of feebleness seem to have a way of flying back home
> to roost.
> I replied to McDonald's e-mail as follows:
> | > Your feeble efforts to get me back on the list are useless.
> | > I am in the process of responding to your feeble attempt of
> | > a response to my defense of my original article. It is
> | > taking some time however because of the length. I do have
> | > two installments at
> | >
> | > http://www.challenge2.org/hartzogsfantasies1.html
> | > and
> | > http://www.challenge2.org/hartzogsfantasies2.html
> | I have read them.
> | > As best as I can tell it will take at least two more
> | > installments to get everything in your post answered,
> | > formatted and published on my website.
> | No comment.
> | > You don't have to wait very long, and no we are not in a
> | > time dilation envelope here in Belle.
> | So you've been dropping by the list "from time to time" I
> | take it. Good! What did I say I was waiting for?
> | > However, my time is very demanding. I am starting Challenge
> | > (the electronice and paper version) back up which goes out
> | > this month, plus Back To The Bible has to go out this month.
> | > Then I have school at that apostate OABS two days per week now,
> | > my regular duties in preaching and teaching my son how to be
> | > a preacher. I also have made a new years resolution to spend
> | > more quality time with my wife since I have not spend as much
> | > with her as I would like to have over the last few years
> | > because of my illnesses.
> | Irrelevant. Maybe you need to figure out what your priorities
> | are. I think Robert suggested -- or rather told you point
> | blank -- that there are a couple of pressing matters for you to
> | take care of immediately.
> | > So I will get to you when I can, but there are two
> | > installments that you can start on, if you are really
> | > that bored.
> | Oh, I'm started on them, all right. But I don't want to spoil
> | the surprise!
> | Except for a couple of little snippets that I'm not going to be
> | able to resist pointing out to everyone ahead of time, I have
> | no plans of responding to your responses to my last message
> | until you get finished. Completely. Right down to the links
> | at the bottom of the message.
> | So keep on plugging away at it, and meanwhile I'll keep
> | reminding everyone that we're still waiting, and entertain
> | myself with wisecracks about how slow things seem to be going
> | in Missouri.
> Jerry McDonald replied to that with not one, but two messages;
> sniping little comments intended, I am sure, to lure me off into
> an irrelevant private argument and give him an excuse not to be
> working on the task that is before him of completing his series
> of responses to my last message about SN 1987A (among several
> other pressing responsibilities he should be taking care of,
> sooner rather than later).
> Some of you may recall our old friend DB Willis, who got mad
> and left the list in the fall of 2006, and then started sending
> me personal e-mails.
> Jerry, I'll tell you just like I told David Willis: I have no
> intention of arguing back and forth with you in private exchanges.
> I am just vain enough to think that my time is a little more
> valuable than that. So from now on, you might as well consider
> anything that you send me I will view as being accompanied by your
> implied consent that it become part of the public record, and if
> I feel like posting it I will, and if I feel like responding to it
> I will do so publicly.
> Some may notice that I made no response in the above message to
> McDonald's "P.S." about him sending a message to Carl Cohen in
> regard to Cohen's endorsement of the formal logical validity of
> Robert's syllogism. I will address that in separate post, but
> friends, be forewarned: hang on to your hats! You ain't gonna
> believe this!
> But I did mention that there were a couple of things in
> McDonald's first two installments that I wasn't going to be
> able resist pointing out separately. Even against my better
> judgment, knowing as I do how any little opening may be seen as
> an excuse for McDonald to take off down a rabbit trail in an
> attempt to avoid his problem of distant starlight:
> In my response to Jerry McDonald's NOT SCIENTIFIC article which,
> by the way, is NOT even remotely a "scientific explanation" of
> how we're supposed to be able to see starlight and so on from
> hundreds of thousands of light-years away if the Universe is
> only a few thousand years old, and in fact for the most part
> doesn't deal with anything about starlight at all, I had written
> at one point:
> >> 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.
> McDonald's response to that (in "Hartzog's Fantasies 2") begins:
> > Show where Todd was talking JUST about biological
> > evolution. If that is all he was talking about why did
> > he show pictures of books and journals which deal with
> > fossils and plant evolution?
> I just felt like that was too good to pass up.
> Rick Hartzog
> Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
- In "McDonald's Second Rebuttal," message #13821, Jerry wrote:
> (Robert) seems to think that I hold to the positionInteresting!
> 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
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
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
>| "Thus by just looking at the Bible, and real worldhttp://www.challenge2.org/ageofearthbible.html
>| 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 thatSince Jerry, as he has revealed over and over again, doesn't
> there are some things more than 10,000 years old.
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 testedNow... 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
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 howI didn't THINK McDonald knew what he was talking about -- Ha!
> the light could have traveled to earth in less time than
> what natural laws would permit.
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
And what was my response to that? I said:
> Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it,http://www.challenge2.org/hartzogsresponse.html
> 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
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 forhttp://www.challenge2.org/notscientific.html
>| 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
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!
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism