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

YEC-Related Tidbits Online

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Hi, everyone. Just surfing the internet a bit this morning, and I have some useful tidbits I thought I d pass along to you. Regards, Todd S. Greene
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, everyone.

      Just surfing the internet a bit this morning, and I have some useful
      tidbits I thought I'd pass along to you.

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

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

      In a post to talk.origins, someone with the pseudonym of "Harlequin"
      points this out:

      | ...astronomers can measure
      | the distance of some objects (like a certain type of supernova)
      | and its red-shift. Thus that the red-shift increases as a
      | function of distance is confirmed. Also why is there a very
      | strong correlation of brightness of Galaxies and their red-shift.
      | If the red-shift is real then one would expect that light of
      | distant galaxies or quasars must pass through hydrogen gas at
      | different distances (and hense different red-shifts). Since
      | hydrogen absorbs at certain specific wavelengths its presence can
      | be noted. If the hydrogen cloud would be red-shifted then the
      | lines in the spectrum it causes are also red-shifted. Thus if the
      | red-shifts are really related to distance one should the light of
      | a distanct quasar or galaxy absorbed by hydrogen clouds at
      | different distances. That is what is observed. This is called the
      | Lyman alpha forest. High red-shifted quasars will have them.
      |
      | http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lya.html
      | http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3520

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

      Here are two NPR shows interviewing astronomers about the fine
      structure constant study with the survey of the spectra of quasar
      light:

      The Diane Rehm Show (8/27/01)
      http://www.wamu.org/ram/2001/r1010827.ram

      Science Friday with Ira Flatow (8/24/01)
      http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/20010824.totn.01.ram

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

      NPR's Fresh Air interview with Paleoanthropologist Tim White,
      about the three ancient human skulls found recently in Ethiopia
      (White is a very easy-to-listen-to, down-to-earth speaker)

      http://freshair.npr.org/
      day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=06/18/2003

      [note that link is line-wrapped; piece it back together]

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

      Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims
      http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/list.html

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

      Here's a link to Chris Stassen's "home page" on creationism-related
      issues:

      http://www.stassen.com/chris/origins/

      On this page he links to these items:

      Age of the Earth FAQ
      Isochron Dating FAQ
      Organizations and Periodicals FAQ
      Book Recommendations
      A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
      A History of Isotope Dating and the Age of the Earth
      View origins-related feedback

      Stassen's discussions are primarly related to the subject of
      radiometric dating.
    • rlbaty50
      ... Todd, This a little different approach than the post I put up on your discussion list (before I browsed the links you also posted here). I went to Chris
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
        <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

        > Here's a link to Chris Stassen's "home page" on
        > creationism-related issues:
        >
        > http://www.stassen.com/chris/origins/

        Todd,

        This a little different approach than the post I put up on your
        discussion list (before I browsed the links you also posted here).

        I went to Chris' page and browsed. He's got an "Age" article up on
        talk origins that, in part, talks about the cosmic dust claim.

        He references Walt Brown and provides the following reference as to
        Brown's use of the cosmic dust argument.

        http://www.stassen.com/chris/origins/faq-age-of-earth.html#dust

        > Even though the creationists themselves have refuted
        > this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream
        > community have been around for ten to twenty years
        > longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues
        > to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and
        > continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

        > Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)

        > Brown, Walter T., Jr., 1989. In The Beginning..., Arizona,
        > Center for Scientific Creation. 122 pp. Back to Helium,
        > Magnetic decay, Moon dust, or Metals in oceans.

        I am just wondering if Chris' reference and comments might be part of
        the controversy over Walt Brown's use/non-use of Hans Pettersson's
        cosmic dust studies.

        Walt Brown's "Peggy" keeps telling me Walt Brown never used
        Pettersson's cosmic dust statistics, yet there are reports out
        suggesting he did in his earlier versions of his book, and his later
        references Pettersson's work is taken out of context.

        Just another interesting little detail I seem to have now been caught
        up in trying to figure out.

        You think my critics would be impressed if it turns out I helped
        correct a misrepresentation of Walt Brown, if it be that?

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... [snip] ... Hi, Robert. Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more credence to someone like Dave Matson than to young earth creationist who
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #1955):
          [snip]
          > Walt Brown's "Peggy" keeps telling me Walt Brown never used
          > Pettersson's cosmic dust statistics, yet there are reports out
          > suggesting he did in his earlier versions of his book, and his
          > later references to Pettersson's work is taken out of context.
          >
          > Just another interesting little detail I seem to have now been
          > caught up in trying to figure out.
          >
          > You think my critics would be impressed if it turns out I helped
          > correct a misrepresentation of Walt Brown, if it be that?

          Hi, Robert.

          Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more credence
          to someone like Dave Matson than to young earth creationist who just
          absolutely love to give people the run-around. But looks like that
          as far as we are personally concerned, this is like the Maury
          statue. We'll have to actually get a look at the thing (a look that
          you and I got on that other discussion list a couple of years ago
          with those large, high resolution pictures that were made accessible
          on the internet for a few days). In this case, we'll actually have
          to see the quotes from a pre-5th edition of Walt Brown's book. So
          who actually has one?

          Regards,
          Todd Greene
        • rlbaty50
          ... I ll be waiting with you, Todd. It could be interesting for us tyros that aren t into the more complicated matters. I got the impression that Brown s books
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
            <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

            > In this case, we'll actually have to see the quotes
            > from a pre-5th edition of Walt Brown's book. So who
            > actually has one?

            I'll be waiting with you, Todd.

            It could be interesting for us tyros that aren't into the more
            complicated matters.

            I got the impression that Brown's books are rather rare. I hope
            someone comes up with the specifics. I also wrote a note to the T.O.
            feedback page (guess we'll have to wait a month to see if it makes
            the cut there and gets posted with a response). I'm hoping there or
            on their discussion list that I have raised an issue of importance
            regarding their credibility that will get some attention and that the
            T.O. folks will "clear the air" on the controversy.

            Last I checked, "Peggy" hadn't specifically responded to my last
            request for a specific rebuttal to the T.O. reference about those
            earlier editions. Maybe she and Walt just got busy, or maybe Wayne
            and Bert and James got to her and she decided they couldn't stoop low
            enough to continue the matter with the likes of me! Maybe I need to
            work on that reputation thing! :o(

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • mathewmaury
            ... James posted a copy of an email purported to be from Peggy to you sent two days ago. It seems to have been a very direct and specific response to your
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- rlbaty wrote today:
              > Last I checked, "Peggy" hadn't specifically responded to my
              > last request for a specific rebuttal to the T.O. reference
              > about those earlier editions. Maybe she and Walt just got
              > busy, or maybe Wayne and Bert and James got to her and she
              > decided they couldn't stoop low enough to continue the
              > matter with the likes of me! Maybe I need to work on that
              > reputation thing! :o(

              James posted a copy of an email purported to be from Peggy
              to you sent two days ago. It seems to have been a very
              direct and specific response to your request. This would
              seem to leave you with a lot of moon dirt on your face.

              Do you plan to offer explanation?

              --- Walt Brown's Peggy wrote:
              > Schadewald was quite embarrased and never, to our knowledge,
              > made that false statement again. Schadewald died recently.

              See what can happen? A person makes a false statement, becomes
              embarrassed, and then dies! It is enough to make one not want
              to utter any false statements!
            • Todd S. Greene
              Hi, Robert. Doing a Google search of usenet newsgroups, I found a post made July ... Here is the link reference:
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi, Robert.

                Doing a Google search of usenet newsgroups, I found a post made July
                2, 1985 which quotes Walt Brown as follows:

                | 75. The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the
                | earth is such that after five billion years, the
                | equivalent of over 16 feet of this dust should have
                | accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there
                | should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of
                | the earth. No such concentration has been found -- on land
                | or in the oceans. Consequently, the earth appears to be
                | young [a-c].
                |
                | a) Henry M. Morris, editor, SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM (San
                | Diego: Creation Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151-153.
                | b) Steveson, pp. 23-25.
                | c) Pettersson, p. 132.

                Here is the link reference:

                http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=397%40iham1.UUCP

                Regards,
                Todd Greene
                http://www.creationism.cc
              • Todd S. Greene
                Hi, Robert. Digging a little more with the Google search engine I got this one. This is from a post also made on July 2, 1985 which quotes Walt Brown ... Here
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Robert.

                  Digging a little more with the Google search engine I got this one.
                  This is from a post also made on July 2, 1985 which quotes Walt Brown
                  as follows:

                  | 79. If the moon were billions of years old, it should have
                  | accumulated a thick layer of space dust. Before
                  | instruments were placed on the moon, NASA and outside
                  | scientists [a] were very concerned that our astronauts
                  | would sink into a sea of dust -- possibly a mile in
                  | thickness. This did not happen. There is very little space
                  | dust on the moon. In fact, after examining the rocks and
                  | dust brought back from the moon, it was learned that only
                  | about 1/60th of the one or two inch surface layer
                  | originated from outer space [b,c]. Recent measurements [d]
                  | of the influx rate also do not support the thin layer of
                  | meteoritic dust on the moon, even if this rate were no
                  | higher in the past. Of course the rate of dust
                  | accumulation on the moon should have been much greater in
                  | the past. Conclusion: the moon is probably quite young.
                  |
                  | a) Before instruments were sent to the moon, Isaac Asimov
                  | made some interesting (but false) predictions. After
                  | estimating the great depths of dust that should be on
                  | the moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by
                  | stating: "I get a picture, therefore, of the first
                  | spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing
                  | purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first...and
                  | sinking majestically out of sight." [Isaac Asimov,
                  | "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," SCIENCE DIGEST,
                  | January 1959, p. 36.]
                  | b) Herbert A. Zook, "The State of Meteoritic Material on
                  | the Moon," PROCEEDINGS OF THE LUNAR SCIENCE
                  | CONFERENCE (6th), 1975, pp. 1653-1672.
                  | c) Stuart Ross Taylor, LUNAR SCIENCE: A POST-APOLLO VIEW
                  | (New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1975), p. 92.
                  | d) David W. Hughes, "The Changing Micrometeoriod
                  | Influx," NATURE, Vol. 251, 4 October 1974, pp. 379-
                  | 380. Taylor, pp. 84, 92. Computations based on the
                  | data contained in the preceding two references support
                  | a dust layer on the moon of at least 3.8 feet. If the
                  | influx was greater than it is at present, as almost
                  | all scientists believe, then the thickness of the dust
                  | layer would be even greater.

                  Here is the link reference:

                  http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=399%40iham1.UUCP

                  Regards,
                  Todd Greene
                  http://www.creationism.cc/
                • mathewmaury
                  ... Note several things about this reference: 1) The citation is before the Hans Pettersson 1960 estimate in Scientific American referenced many times on this
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Todd quotes Asimov thus:
                    > "I get a picture, therefore, of the first
                    > spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing
                    > purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first...and
                    > sinking majestically out of sight." [Isaac Asimov,
                    > "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," SCIENCE DIGEST,
                    > January 1959, p. 36.]

                    Note several things about this reference:
                    1) The citation is before the Hans Pettersson 1960 estimate
                    in Scientific American referenced many times on this list.
                    2) Isaac Asimov was NOT a so-called Young Earth Creationist!
                    (He likely has changed his views since his death.)
                    3) This confirms the point Thompson et alii have made about
                    the thick dust prediction NOT arising from those who
                    believe in a moon age in terms of dozens of centuries.

                    Those who now argue against thick moon dust seem to be arguing
                    against their athiestic and theistic evolutionary buddies who
                    have since changed their song to fit empirical observations.
                    Some scientists with a bad calendar made bad predictions.
                    Why cry 'foul' when these bad predictions are brought to light?
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    ... Hi, Mat. By the way, it s spelled atheist. Here s even another example for you, from another science fiction writer (who was a scientist as well). The
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty, "mathewmaury" wrote (post #1973):
                      > --- Todd quotes Asimov thus:
                      >> "I get a picture, therefore, of the first
                      >> spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing
                      >> purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first...and
                      >> sinking majestically out of sight." [Isaac Asimov,
                      >> "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year," SCIENCE DIGEST,
                      >> January 1959, p. 36.]
                      >
                      > Note several things about this reference:
                      > 1) The citation is before the Hans Pettersson 1960 estimate
                      > in Scientific American referenced many times on this list.
                      > 2) Isaac Asimov was NOT a so-called Young Earth Creationist!
                      > (He likely has changed his views since his death.)
                      > 3) This confirms the point Thompson et alii have made about
                      > the thick dust prediction NOT arising from those who
                      > believe in a moon age in terms of dozens of centuries.
                      >
                      > Those who now argue against thick moon dust seem to be arguing
                      > against their athiestic and theistic evolutionary buddies who
                      > have since changed their song to fit empirical observations.
                      > Some scientists with a bad calendar made bad predictions.
                      > Why cry 'foul' when these bad predictions are brought to light?

                      Hi, Mat.

                      By the way, it's spelled "atheist."

                      Here's even another example for you, from another science fiction
                      writer (who was a scientist as well). The novel *A Fall of Moondust*
                      by Arther C. Clarke was published in 1961. At this web page

                      http://www.d-j-whiley.freeserve.co.uk/sf/sf2.html

                      the page author writes about this novel:

                      | This book tells the story of the accident that befalls the "dust
                      | cruiser" Selene, which is used to take parties of (presumably,
                      | very rich) tourists on pleasure cruises of the Lunar surface.
                      |
                      | Central to the story is the concept of a "sea of dust", which
                      | followed on from a very popular theory of the fifties and
                      | sixties. According to the theory, a meteor impact on the Moon
                      | would pulverise both the meteor and the Lunar surface, throwing
                      | up large quantities of fine dust. This dust would then fall back
                      | to which immediately fell back to the surface. Over millions of
                      | years, the theory maintained, the Moon would have acquired a
                      | thick covering of very fine dust, which would behave much like a
                      | liquid. As a result, any astronaut who stepped onto the Moon
                      | would immediately sink into the dust, never to be seen again.
                      |
                      | Arthur C Clarke took as his assumption that most of the Moon was
                      | not, in fact, covered by dust. However, a relatively thick layer
                      | had accumulated in one particular low-lying area, effectively
                      | creating a "lake" or "sea" of dust. As the dust behaved like a
                      | liquid, it was possible to build a vessel that would float on the
                      | dust in the same way thar a boat floats on water. Hence, the
                      | Selene, a pleasure cruiser of the Moon. The accident which leaves
                      | the Selene stranded necessitates a complex rescue operation, with
                      | time steadily running out for those on board.

                      Not quite the thick moon dust layer, but a similar idea about "lakes"
                      of dust.

                      We critics of young earth creationists cry "Fowl!" because, first of
                      all, the preliminary estimates of people like Hans Pettersson are
                      taken out of context of the time in which they were made, the
                      discussions of the other geologists and astrophysicists who were
                      critical of these preliminary "high range" estimates at the same
                      period of time are completely ignored, and the additional scientific
                      information about the matter that was acquired later that
                      unequivocally "zoomed in" on the more accurate and much lower range
                      estimates by the mid-1960s are also completely ignored.

                      Henry Morris published his promotion of the moon dust argument in the
                      book *Scientific Creationism* in the 1970s. Bert Thompson published
                      his promotion of the moon dust argument in the 1980s. These men were
                      promoting an argument that was already known unequivocally to be
                      false in the 1960s.

                      How young earth creationists came up with and used their moon dust
                      argument is actually a YEC paradigm that describes many, many, many
                      YEC arguments. Shrinking sun, earth's magnetic field decay, short-
                      period comets, etc. It is my finding of this very consistent pattern
                      followed by young earth creationists that by 1983 helped me realize
                      the complete and utter failure of young earth creationism as science.
                      (Incidentally, I'm referring to the subject of biological evolution
                      here as well as the subject of antiquity.)

                      The fact that you can't see a problem with this YEC approach quite
                      demonstrates your own "three monkeys" problem.

                      Regards,
                      Todd S. Greene
                      http://www.creationism.cc/
                    • Todd S. Greene
                      In post #1976 I wrote (post #1976), We critics of young earth creationists cry Fowl! .... Yes. And we cry Foul! too! Chuckling, Todd Greene
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In post #1976 I wrote (post #1976), "We critics of young earth
                        creationists cry 'Fowl!'...."

                        Yes. And we cry "Foul!" too!

                        Chuckling,
                        Todd Greene
                      • Michael
                        Mr. Murray said: [Why cry foul when these bad predictions are brought to light? ] Did I just read that? No. Which bad predictions? Is it germane to all
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 26, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mr. Murray said:

                          [Why cry 'foul' when these bad predictions are brought to light?
                          ]

                          Did I just read that? No.

                          Which bad predictions? Is it germane to all discussions or just yours?

                          V/r

                          Michael
                        • Michael
                          Hi Todd, You really did say in the real world: [Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more credence to someone like Dave Matson than to young
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 28, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Todd,

                            You really did say in the real world:

                            [Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more credence
                            to someone like Dave Matson than to young earth creationist who just
                            absolutely love to give people the run-around.]

                            Well, does light bend? Yes or no? A very simple question that I am asking
                            just a simple yes or no answer. I have never received the answer asked for
                            to date.

                            So, are you just absolutely loving giving ME the RUN-AROUND? Chuck-BIG
                            L-ing.

                            V/r

                            Michael
                          • Todd S. Greene
                            ... Michael, you are lying, and you refuse to stop. This is why I describe you as an unrepentant liar. I answered this question already. You responded by
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 29, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #2077):
                              > Hi Todd,
                              >
                              > You really did say in the real world:
                              >
                              > [Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more
                              > credence to someone like Dave Matson than to young earth
                              > creationist who just absolutely love to give people the
                              > run-around.]
                              >
                              > Well, does light bend? Yes or no? A very simple question that I
                              > am asking just a simple yes or no answer. I have never received
                              > the answer asked for to date.
                              >
                              > So, are you just absolutely loving giving ME the RUN-AROUND?
                              > Chuck-BIG
                              > L-ing.

                              Michael, you are lying, and you refuse to stop. This is why I
                              describe you as an unrepentant liar. I answered this question
                              already. You responded by ignoring my answer and then lying about it
                              just as you've lied here. So then I answered the question again,
                              also referring back specifically to my previous post. And then you
                              responded by ignoring both that post and my previous post, and lying
                              about it by saying I never answered the question, just as you are
                              lying here. Then I answered the question yet again, and referred
                              back to my previous posts. You then responded by ignoring my answer,
                              any lying by saying that I never answered the question, just as
                              you're doing here. How many times am I supposed to go through this
                              stupid treadmill that you're on? I stayed on the treadmill with you
                              for some time already, and then I stopped.

                              You want to lie, just keep right on lying. I have specifically
                              answered this question several times. I answered it in the
                              discussion in "Bereanlikespirit" group and in this group. My posts
                              containing my answers are in the archives of both groups. I'm not
                              wasting my time specifically answering this any more, just to
                              continue to have you completely ignore me and then keep right on
                              lying about me not answering the question, as you've been doing.

                              You have demonstrated what you are: An unrepentant liar. You are
                              lying quite blatantly, in direct contradiction of your own Christian
                              morality.

                              Very sincerely,
                              Todd Greene
                            • lipscombgene
                              ... Gene: Michael, Todd has answered this with a yes. Perhaps you missed the reply?
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jul 29, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                                <greeneto@y...> wrote:
                                > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #2077):
                                > > Hi Todd,
                                > >
                                > > You really did say in the real world:
                                > >
                                > > [Well, just going by history I tend to lend a whole lot more
                                > > credence to someone like Dave Matson than to young earth
                                > > creationist who just absolutely love to give people the
                                > > run-around.]
                                > >
                                > > Well, does light bend? Yes or no? A very simple question that I
                                > > am asking just a simple yes or no answer. I have never received
                                > > the answer asked for to date.
                                > Very sincerely,
                                > Todd Greene

                                Gene: Michael, Todd has answered this with a yes. Perhaps you missed
                                the reply?
                              • Michael
                                All I ever read of Todd is, Michael, you are lying... Is there a pattern?
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jul 30, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  All I ever read of Todd is, "Michael, you are lying..." Is there a pattern?
                                • Michael
                                  Todd, You asked. How many times am I supposed to go through this stupid treadmill that you re on? You state many things as fact. Then you call me a liar
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Jul 30, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Todd,

                                    You asked. "How many times am I supposed to go through this
                                    stupid treadmill that you're on?"

                                    You state many things as fact. Then you call me a liar when I call you one
                                    it. Then, when the heat is on, you try to say that I am a liar. I have
                                    shown that you will be defeated in a real debate in just a passing! If you
                                    care to go deeper, then bring it!

                                    You state that you were on some sort of treadmill with me and then got off.
                                    So, do you retire again? Chuckling!

                                    IF you have so much evidence for me being a LIAR then why not take the terms
                                    of the debate I offered? HUH? You could easily prove me as an incredible
                                    source and ignore the FACTS I offered. Yes, they are FACTS, and little ole
                                    goliath cannot stand against them!

                                    V/r

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