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

Re: Horvath v. Greene: Horvath accepts the challenge?

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Here s an example - another one - that Gabor will run fast away from and never deal with. In the case of the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationism, Robert Baty wrote (post #33956):
      > Gabor, after wondering in another thread how my undefeated
      > "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?

      Here's an example - another one - that Gabor will run fast away from
      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
      (empirical data).

      C. The speed of light today is about 186,000 miles per second
      (empirical data).

      D. The speed of light when the explosion took place was the same
      (empirical data).

      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
      spacetime warping.

      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.

      Regards,
      Todd Greene
      http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
    • rlbaty@webtv.net
      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?
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 Creator
        > IS the TRUTH.  IF the "empirical
        > evidence" contradicts the proven
        > TRUTH (Christ) THEN the
        > interpretation of the "empirical
        > evidence" by some is WRONG.

        To what he originally wrote, which, I think, was a little different, I
        was quoted as writing:

        > That is not all that clear, but it
        > seems clear enough to indicate
        > that Gabor is trying to say just
        > what I said his position was.

        To which Gabor now writes, in relevant part:

        > Right Robert, in the former quote
        > 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 I notice, no one is questioning the power or authority of God
        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.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        ... Really! Really! 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
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I had written:

          > As far as I notice, no one is
          > questioning the power or
          > authority of God as far as
          > the issue(s) under consideration
          > are concerned.

          To which, Gabor, you replied:

          > Really Robert? Really?
          > Not even those who deny His existence?

          Really! Really!

          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"
          issue.

          Gabor, you continued:

          > How do you think one can "test"
          > 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. :))

          You should have noticed, Gabor. My interests is not in "testing" God.
          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. . .

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • rlbaty@webtv.net
          Gabor writes to Susan, in relevant part:      ... and ... The relevant evasion, as far as this thread is concerned, is all on the part of you, Gabor.
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Gabor writes to Susan, in relevant part:  
              
            > I know that there are that kind
            > of people (i.e., theists) amongst
            > evolutionists. But now that is truly
            > irrelevant Susan. An attempt to
            > evade.

            and

            > I am and always was extremely
            > highly interested how the "natural"
            > world works Susan.

            The relevant evasion, as far as this thread is concerned, is all on the
            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
            theists,

            You would do well to meet your obligations regarding the subject of this
            thread.

            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
            your position(s).

            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, there
            > is (conclusive) empirical evidence
            > that some things are much older
            > than a few thousand years;
            > regardless of your ipse dixits to
            > the contrary.

            So, can you explicitly respond to where you are on taking up the
            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. .
            .?

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.