Re: Horvath v. Greene: Horvath accepts the challenge?
- --- In creationism, Robert Baty wrote (post #33956):
> Gabor, after wondering in another thread how my undefeatedHere's an example - another one - that Gabor will run fast away from
> "Goliath of GRAS" was faring, wrote, in relevant part:
>> Yes, if the "empirical evidence"
>> will be proven true, then the
>> interpretation of the text by
>> some is wrong.
> He follows with this ipse dixit:
>> The empirical evidence is not
>> proven true, because it can
>> not be proven true.
> That's just great, though we already knew that was Gabor's
> position. It is helpful though at this stage because it clearly
> represents his negative position to Todd's as to the evidence.
> Here's the operative premise of the "Goliath of GRAS":
>> There is empirical evidence that
>> things are actually much older than
>> a few thousand years.
> OK now, Todd is ready to affirm that and Gabor is proposing it
> is false.
> So, what are they waiting for? It couldn't be Todd, could it?
> I don't think so!
> It must be Gabor. Now that Gabor has been rather specific in his
> position as the negative, will he defend and test his negative
> against Todd's affirmative?
and never deal with. In the case of the supernova in the Large
Magellanic Cloud galaxy designated SN1987A we have:
A. The explosion of a star (empirical data).
B. The explosion took place approximately 51,500 parsecs from Earth
C. The speed of light today is about 186,000 miles per second
D. The speed of light when the explosion took place was the same
E. There is zero evidence that speed of light was ever any different
between the two times (the two times being, when the explosion took
place, and when the light energy from the explosion reached the
Earth). (Note that this is not just a lack of evidence of what the
speed of light may have been - there is actually a great deal of
evidence from astronomical observation - empirical data of light
from distances between SN1987A and Earth that shows that the speed
of light was no different than it is today.)
F. There is zero evidence of any "spacetime warps" (relativistic
effects) between SN1987A and Earth such that there would be a
substantial time differential. (Again, this is not just a lack of
evidence, but there are all kinds of astronomical observations -
empirical data - of the Large Magellanic Cloud and entities in space
between there and here and we OBSERVE the lack of any significant
Therefore, in the case of SN1987A we are observing an event (the
explosion of the star) that took place approximately 168,000 years
ago. This proves that young earth creationism is a false concept
about the real world.
> If not, why not?[snip]
Because Gabor despises real world data that contradicts his beliefs.
He hates to be wrong that much that he's willing to purposely ignore
the real world data that contradicts him.
- So, Gabor's exit strategy is that he refuses to discuss the truth, or
test his interpretations, with folks who are atheists? Is that what it
comes down to?
Gabor is quoted as writing:
> Since the Word of the CreatorTo what he originally wrote, which, I think, was a little different, I
> IS the TRUTH. IF the "empirical
> evidence" contradicts the proven
> TRUTH (Christ) THEN the
> interpretation of the "empirical
> evidence" by some is WRONG.
was quoted as writing:
> That is not all that clear, but itTo which Gabor now writes, in relevant part:
> seems clear enough to indicate
> that Gabor is trying to say just
> what I said his position was.
> Right Robert, in the former quoteAs far as I notice, no one is questioning the power or authority of God
> I put the word IF what I by mistake
> left out so it made the text confusing.
> The REAL world is what the TRUTH
> says Robert. The TRUTH is the law
> by which the REAL world functions.
> Christ is denied by atheists and
> "higher critics".
> Yet IF He truly died and was
> resurrected (real world evidence)
> then to question His authority an
> POWER is illogical, irrational.
> Now if evolutionists say that it did
> not happen then case closed to the
> reasonable discussion of the subject.
as far as the issue(s) under consideration are concerned.
That an evolutionist claims the earth revolves around the sun should not
close the subject of geocentrism, any more than it should close the
subject regarding the sum of 2 + 2 and my child who happens to have an
evolutionist teaching her math. I still tell her to answer 4.
I can understand the lame excuse to not test ones unfounded
theories/interpretations regarding the real world with someone like
Todd, but to try and claim your theories/interpretations cannot be
tested in a more formal discussion with Todd, with purpose and
consequence, because he may be an atheist or evolutionist or both,
really is pretty lame and indefensible.
I think we know of a better reason why the discussion is probably not
going to take place.
- I had written:
> As far as I notice, no one isTo which, Gabor, you replied:
> questioning the power or
> authority of God as far as
> the issue(s) under consideration
> are concerned.
> Really Robert? Really?Really! Really!
> Not even those who deny His existence?
For purposes of the "Goliath of GRAS" the existence of God and the
infallibility of his Word is a "given". The issue in dispute, for
purposes of the discussion from which you are running, is simply the
extent to which we might be able to tell how old things are; no
"creation" issue, no "existence of God" issue; no "creation/evolution"
Gabor, you continued:
> How do you think one can "test"You should have noticed, Gabor. My interests is not in "testing" God.
> the creation of God assuming
> that there is no Creator?
> You or Todd want to "test" God?
> Stop talking for Gabor will you?
> I let you talk for yourself and you
> let me talk for myself.
> I think that is a fair offer. :))
It has to do with testing the interpretations of some, with the
existence of God and his infallible Word a "given".
I have been glad to let you talk for yourself, and been trying to
encourage you to do so. It is fair.
What has not been fair is your refusal, Gabor, to give "straightforward"
answers. Your words have implications, and my inferences have not been
shown to be "utterly false". I do have, at least, the "faintest idea"
concerning your position.
So, speak up for yourself. Retract your false claim against me and get
on with "testing" YOUR interpretations by taking up the negative to
Todd's affirmative on the age issue.
That would be fair; while there is still time. . .
- Gabor writes to Susan, in relevant part:
> I know that there are that kindand
> of people (i.e., theists) amongst
> evolutionists. But now that is truly
> irrelevant Susan. An attempt to
> I am and always was extremelyThe relevant evasion, as far as this thread is concerned, is all on the
> highly interested how the "natural"
> world works Susan.
part of you, Gabor.
Gabor, evolution is not the issue in this thread, or its related
threads. You know that as well as you know that most evolutionists are
You would do well to meet your obligations regarding the subject of this
If you are really interested in how the "natural" world works, why not
take up the negative to Todd's affirmative on the evidence of age issue?
It will give you a chance to test your secret pet theories and learn
something about the natural world. It will also gives us more evidence
as to whether you made a false statement about my representations about
For all you know, Gabor, there is (conclusive) empirical evidence that
some things are much older than a few thousand years; regardless of your
ipse dixits to the contrary.
We may yet be able to help you out with that, Gabor. Get it?
> For all you know, Gabor, thereSo, can you explicitly respond to where you are on taking up the
> is (conclusive) empirical evidence
> that some things are much older
> than a few thousand years;
> regardless of your ipse dixits to
> the contrary.
negative to Todd's affirmative on the evidence from the natural world
regarding the age of things?
No evasions complaining about Todd's atheism or evolutionary
inclinations which are "truly irrelevant" to the age issue. Just get on
with the formal agreement with Todd to discuss the issue or try a
"straightforward" answer for a change and try to convince us of why you
refuse to take up the negative and test your pet theories about the
natural world and how it works.
That would only be fair, don't you think; while there is still time. .