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

Re: Astronomy observes past events and processes (GCM)

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    [GCM Forum, thread: Astronomy observes past events and processes , 12/14/2005 8:11] ... Hi, Jim. I stated you were ambiguous precisely because you were. And I
    Message 1 of 60 , Dec 23, 2005
      [GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes",
      12/14/2005 8:11]

      In GCM Forum, Jim Rondon wrote (12/13/2005 4:59):
      > Todd, is there any particular reason why you are so
      > argumentative? To argue is one thing, to be argumentative is
      > quite another.
      > I answered your question, but that is not enough for you. You
      > must insist that I "backpedalled", that my answer was
      > "ambiguous", etc. If your position is true, then why must you
      > consistently resort to such tactics?

      Hi, Jim.

      I stated you were ambiguous precisely because you were. And I had to
      ask you the question "Did the stellar explosion SN1987A really
      happen, or is it an illusion that God created?" a number of times
      before you would even address it, and then when you did it turns out
      that your answer was just an ambiguous statement that did not
      clearly answer the question. I have to be argumentative with you
      young earth creationists precisely because of the argumentative
      nature of young earth creationist rhetoric. Word games is all young
      earth creationism has. In reality, young earth creationism went out
      over 200 years ago. By the middle of the 19th century the Christian
      community in general "made its peace" with another empirically-
      related religious dogma going down in flames (as the geocentrism
      dogma had gone down 150 years previously). Except there was always a
      fundamentalist-oriented holdout. (Of course, this was in the days
      before the term "fundamentalist" was invented, since that is an
      early 20th century term. A historical digression: The
      term "fundamentalist" started with *The Fundamentals* published in
      the early 20th century, and the main religious doctrine associated
      with that was a firm adherence to the doctrine of biblical
      infallibility and a strong concept of biblical inspiration.
      Interestingly enough, however, the articles in *The Fundamentals*
      about the Bible and science acknowledged the fact of the antiquity
      of the world, and even allowed for the possibility of evolution by
      common descent as a process guided by God while rejecting Darwinian.
      But later development of usage of the term "fundamentalist" came to
      refer to people who tended to denigrate scholarship in general and
      science in particular, and young earth creationists naturally fell
      into this category.)

      Asking about navels is not being argumentative. The most popular
      publication advocating the apparent age argument (in the face of
      geological science even at that time) was the book by Philip Henry
      Gosse in the 19th century titled Omphalos (Greek for "navel").

      Anyway, the truth of the matter is that I have had to be very
      persistent in getting you to address this question in a clear
      manner, and yet even while you express irritation with my use of the
      word "backpedal" we continue to see you doing it, as the next
      statement by you demonstrates again.

      In GCM Forum, Jim Rondon wrote (12/13/2005 4:59):
      > As far as my "acknowledging that [my] apparent age argument
      > doesn't even apply to the scientific data we're talking
      > about", when did I ever do such a thing?

      You have implied that you agree with me that the stellar explosion
      SN1987A really happened (which you could have just stated straight
      out right after I asked you the question for the first time; but in
      fact you have never provided such a straight answer; I've had to
      tease it out of you). Saying that the stellar explosion really
      happened is NOT an apparent age argument. The apparent age argument
      is that the explosion is just an illusion - only "apparent" but not
      real. To say that the explosion really happened is to acknowledge
      that the apparent age argument does not apply to this scientific
      data we're talking about. (Don't worry too much, this is certainly
      not the first time I've had to explain simple conceptual
      implications to young earth creationists of their own statements.)

      In GCM Forum, Jim Rondon wrote (12/13/2005 4:59):
      > Lastly, since the argument about a mature Adam was subverted
      > into a rabbit trail discussion of navels and scars, consider
      > the following...

      As I have already explained in this post, as well as in previous
      posts, it's not a rabbit trail nor a subversion at all. These are
      concepts that are directly relevant to the apparent age argument. I
      find it rather curious that you would attempt to mischaracterize
      discussion of the conceptual elements of your apparent age argument
      as a subversion.

      In GCM Forum, Jim Rondon wrote (12/13/2005 4:59):
      > If you and I were both standing in the garden of Eden, and
      > staring at Adam right after God created Him, what would you
      > say about his age? What would you conclude from "real world
      > evidence" about his actual age? Would the discussion be much
      > like the one we're having right now? Would it be "because he
      > appears to be older 30 years old, the universe must indeed be
      > at least 30 years old, and therefore, God didn't create him
      > just a few seconds ago, nor did He create the universe just a
      > few days ago?" I suspect that it would.

      I have already addressed this very specifically, with Clifton. In
      fact, the empirical evidence would show that Adam was not 30 years
      old. *Unless you're an apparent age advocate of the Gosse variety*,
      in which case your argument entails the idea that God created Adam
      with a fake navel and the fake wear-and-tear on his body that a
      person who actually lived 30 years would possess (which I exemplify
      with my reference to the "scar on his left knee," but there are all
      kinds of examples of such wear-and-tear, such as on the teeth). As I
      have already pointed out a number of times, at first it's always
      hard to tell with any particular apparent age advocate just what
      they go with, precisely because apparent age advocates differ with
      each other and contradict each other on critical points like these -
      in addition to the fact that a lot of apparent age advocates are not
      consistent in their application of their own argument.

      In the case of SN1987A we have a stellar explosion for which all of
      the relevant empirical data shows that it took place approximately
      168,000 years ago. Either the data is fake (an illusion created by
      God), or it is real, in which case you have a serious problem of a
      clear and obvious example in the real world from astronomy that
      falsifies your young earth creationism dogma.

      Clifton earlier misrepresented me to be ignoring the possibility
      that the data has simply been misinterpreted. Of course, elsewhere
      in this discussion forum I had discussed just such a thing, but I
      notice that Clifton has intentionally refrained from correcting his
      mischaracterization. If a young earth creationist seriously thinks
      there is a misinterpretation occurring, then his job is precisely to
      be about the business of explaining exactly what the
      misinterpretation is and to point out the relevant data and explain
      how astronomers and astrophysicists are misinterpreting that data.
      If the young earth creationist cannot do that, then his claim that
      it's all just a huge misinterpretation is nothing more than the
      typical young earth creationist tactic of blowing smoke.

      — Todd Greene
    • Todd S. Greene
      [GCM Forum, thread: Astronomy observes past events and processes , 12/15/2005 12:40] ... Robert, I have to disagree with you on this one. Someone who would
      Message 60 of 60 , Dec 23, 2005
        [GCM Forum, thread: "Astronomy observes past events and processes",
        12/15/2005 12:40]

        In GCM Forum, Robert Baty wrote (12/15/2005 12:22):
        > In GCM Forum, Clifton Healy wrote (12/15/2005 8:58):
        > [snip]
        >> We have empirically verifiable data proving that the same
        >> natural processes that obtain in the cosmos now also
        >> obtained in the cosmos, eight minutes, 3-22.5 minutes, 70
        >> minutes or 4 years ago.
        >> We can speak definitively as to the natural laws of the
        >> universe both now and in the recent past because we have
        >> empirically verified them through observation and all sorts
        >> of scientific testing and verification.
        > I guess that approach to the problem explains the recent
        > growth in "Last Thursdayism". CDHealy would make a good
        > apologist for that group.
        > He just needs to adjust his "recent past" theory to exclude
        > that "4 years ago" claim; for purposes of "Last Thursdayism",
        > the limit is last Thursday.
        > If there is more to CDHealy's theory, independent of religious
        > textual foundations, that is different from that of the Last
        > Thursdayists, maybe he will humor us with an exposition of how
        > we can differentiate his approach to the issue from the
        > approach of the Last Thursdayists.
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty

        Robert, I have to disagree with you on this one. Someone who would
        seriously argue that there's no difference between a man with a
        navel and a man without a navel would not make a good apologist for
        much of anything.

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