Young Earth Advocates Argue
Against An Ancient Universe
— Using Purely Human Hypocrisy!

A "live" discussion with young earth advocates regarding the fact that the
universe is ancient. See specifically how they offer nothing more than their
merely human speculation. (A few blatantly misrepresent everything in sight!)

 Part 8 
Take your pick (click):
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 2   (8/23/99)
    Here's Jerry Brewer again. Again with his sarcasm. Again trying to pretend that I haven't discussed what I've already discussed.
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 10   (8/23/99)
    Here's Douglas Young, stepping into line behind Tim Nichols and Jerry Brewer. Prejudice. Antagonism. Misrepresentation. Sarcasm. Absolute Refusal To Acknowledge even one, single legitimate point made by someone you disagree with. Pretended Innocence with regard to possessing this kind of attitude. (Wow! No wonder they don't like it when someone focuses on a discussion of attitudes.)
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 12   (8/23/99)
    Glen Young steps into line behind Douglas Young.
  • LURlist Archive 315, Message 22   (8/24/99)
    Darrell Broking, an LURlist regular and LUR staff member, but who had not participated in the discussion regarding an old universe, posted a sermon on Genesis 1. In that sermon was this discredited argument of young earth advocates claiming that "non-young earthers" have no explanation for short-term comets. I took the opportunity to treat this as a "case in point" of a bad argument that, due to the lack of responsibility that is so prevalent in young earth circles, just refuses to die an appropriate death. (Now, watch what happens after this! See if any of the young earth advocates in the LUR forum practice any sort of responsibility on this. This turns out to be a "case in point" in more ways than I originally thought.)
  • LURlist Archive 316, Message 9   (8/25/99)
    Douglas Young returns, pretending innocence. I explain his guilt to him, and use this as an object lesson in what it takes to be a responsible truth-seeker.
  • LURlist Archive 316, Message 10   (8/25/99)
    Not my post. I had to put this one in here just to show you that at least one young earth advocate had the courage to acknowledge the obvious. Thank you, Gary Palmer! ("A question that is an abyss." What a neat phrase!)
  • LURlist Archive 320, Message 6   (8/29/99)
    Dr. Marion Fox practices his usual "smoke and mirrors" debate tactics with the alleged short-term comet mystery. It backfires on him.
  • LURlist Archive 320, Message 8   (8/29/99)
    Kyle Richardson tries (like many others) to pretend that I haven't been addressing people's questions, as if this, somehow, excuses the extreme reluctance of any LUR forum participant to exercise even one iota of truth-seeking responsibility by acknowledging the truth about the Kuiper Belt as an empirically verified explanation for short-term comets. Of course, I'm not about to let Kyle do this. (By the way - just to let you know - not a single LUR participant ever acknowledges this.)
  • LURlist Archive 322, Message 1   (8/31/99)
    I answer some of Kyle Richardson's questions regarding the biblical hermeneutics and theology. I also take the opportunity to discuss just what it means to "dig into the details."
 [ TOC ]   [ PART 1 ]   [ PART 2 ]   [ PART 3 ]   [ PART 4 ]   [ PART 5 ] 
 [ PART 6 ]   [ PART 7 ]   [ PART 8 ]   [ PART 9 ]   [ PART 10 ]   [ HOME ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:01:46 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=314
2

Hi, Jerry.
I clarified all of this a week ago in my post on "Further Biblical Considerations" (which I specifically referred you to a few days ago as well). Have you had a chance to take a look at that yet? Have you examined any, and perhaps all, of the links I provided? All of these questions should already have been answered.
Perhaps if and when I have the time, I will send you some material that comes from the Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna's book *Understanding Genesis* (1970). (Or you can see if you have access to it at a library near you, and let me know.)
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
###### Jerry C. Brewer, 8/23/99 ######
Todd Greene Wrote,
> I do not advocate the "day-age" position, and furthermore do
> not advocate the "gap" position. What I advocate, personally, is that
> the creation account is a - from our perspective - "metaphorical"
> account written to speak to the Israelites of that time as an
> expression of the theology (understanding of God) that was special to
> the Israelites, out of all of the paganistic concepts of their time.
Thank you for clarifying your position. Are any parts of the creation account *not* metaphorical? When Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," did he use metaphorical language for any of those words? Is God metaphorical? Is "the beginning" metaphorical?
Jerry Brewer
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Yes, Attitude Again
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:57:47 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=314
10

Hi, Doug.
And I too am growing extremely weary of those of you who so carefully evade my comments, and then post to the LUR forum in such a way as to try to pretend that I never even gave any. I genuinely wish that you who do this loved "doing the Christian thing" at least enough to give me the common courtesy of not misrepresenting me so often in this fashion.
Are you choosing to ignore my posts both to Kyle Richardson and Jerry Brewer in which I even provided the direct link to the very LUR list archive file that contains my most recent detailed discussion of this, or are you choosing to ignore what I wrote in that post if and when you look at it?
Golly, Doug. Here it is again:
   http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305
Look at message #6, entitled "Further Biblical Considerations."
In that very post (from about a week ago), I addressed the Bible is "T-truth or t-truth" question. And in addition to that, Doug, I had discussed that topic several weeks ago when I first started this discussion thread. In fact, I'm the one who initially brought it up. Finally, JUST YESTERDAY I posted to the LUR forum a response to Terry Hightower in which I ALSO discussed the subject. As part of that discussion, I wrote:
To the Christian, God "made" the Bible. To the Christian, as well as to the skeptic, God made the world. Both the Bible and the world are "100% truth," to use Dr. Marion Fox's terminology. It is our human understanding that is fallible. To say that, somehow, our human understanding of the Bible is 100% true, while our human understanding of the world is tentative and theoretical, is simply not true. There are differing degrees of "sureness" in our human understanding.
And then, because I happened to notice a bad "goof" in the second sentence, I immediately posted to the LUR forum a correction to THESE very sentences, restating them and then correcting the second sentence to say "To the Christian, as well as to the skeptic, the world represents truth that can be examined and understood."
If you do not understand my comments, then just say so. Tell me you want further detail or clarification on a particular point, or point out some criticism you think you have of what I have stated. Please.
But please do not misrepresent me as you have done.
THIS is what an honorable discussion is about, contrary to the understanding of a few here in the LUR forum. Jerry Brewer states that he believes in an "aggressive" discussion. So do I, but I try to remain cognizant of that "line in the sand" regarding what constitutes simply "aggressive" and what constitutes out-and-out antagonistic rhetoric, and I consciously try to stay on the right side of that line.
Golly, Doug, just keep hassling the old earth advocate, because you just know so absolutely how wrong he is. But where does the common misrepresentation lie? You might ask yourself, if people are so biased, prejudiced - whatever you want to call it, the label doesn't really matter to me - that misrepresentation (and I'm NOT talking about the out-and-out intentional, first-degree, consciously thought out ahead of time "I'm going to distort what this guy says in order to deceive others about him") becomes a prevalent feature of their discussion, don't you think you ought to step back, for just a teensy little minute, be open-minded just a weensy little bit, and consider the miniscule possibility that there just might be some legitimate points you have not yet considered and accounted for, based on the sheer lack of credibility inherent in the common misrepresentation displayed by so many exclusivistic young earth advocates?
Is simple honesty supposed to be an acceptable casualty in the "war" for the faith?
I understand why people like Robert Baty get like they do. They lose their patience with the frequent and bold misrepresentation, and the subsequent "maneuvering" (and/or lack of responsibility) that goes on to evade owning up to it (intentional or not). Then they go into "tit for tat" mode and just start feeding the "other guy's" antagonistic rhetoric right back at him. Then before you know it, they've "gone over the line." (I do this, too, but when I get to that "line" I usually bow out, as I did recently with Marion Fox.) But what's interesting is that people like him, as the "unorthodox assailants" (critics), get "cut out" for it. But the "orthodox," who equally engaged in the derogatory rhetoric, well, that was okay, because, after all, they were "defending the faith." If you step back, for even a minute, you see the hypocrisy in that whole approach.
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.  (James 4.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)
###### Douglas Young, 8/23/99 ######
Todd,
   I am growing extremely weary of your evasion of the pertinent questions! Many on this list have wanted to know how you feel about the BIBLE and so do I. Maybe I am wrong but I still have yet to see you answer the questions pertaining to whether or not the Bible is "T-truth or t-truth." Kyle Richardson in his last two posts wanted to know how you felt about Genesis 1-11 and how you view it, literal or figurative. You have done a great job of NOT ANSWERING these questions, but it is getting extremely OLD. Please, stick with the Bible and not your presuppositions! Tell us what you REALLY think of God's Word! I will be waiting!
In Him,
Douglas R. Young
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Todd Greene and the Bible
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 22:27:04 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=314
12

Hi, Glen.
You mischaracterize my discussion. In fact, if I so chose, I can equally say that it is YOU who believe that YOU can interpret the Bible how YOU wish, according to YOUR perspective and YOUR understanding. What I have said is that you need to take some things into account OTHER than what YOU would like the Bible to teach based on what YOU are comfortable with because of what YOU have been taught according to HUMAN traditions OTHER than considerations of what the author of the biblical text himself was intending to communicate to his original audience. This means that sometimes you might actually have to do a little study of cultural concepts, ideas, and perspectives that perhaps you are unfamiliar, and even uncomfortable, with.
And, yes, by the way, there is the "pesky" little fact that empirical information outside of the Bible does provide feedback regarding the legitimacy of a human interpretation of the biblical text, ESPECIALLY for those who advocate biblical inerrancy. (You have ignored any consideration whatsoever of the lessons learned from the historical geocentrism controversy.)
If you want to engage in rhetorical posts in criticism of my discussion, you should certainly understand that more than one can play that time-wasting, irrelevant rhetorical game. But sometimes, assuming you are interested in truth-seeking, you have to actually "get your hands dirty" and deal with details. Glen, please give that a try. I expect it. I'm waiting for it. I encourage it. If you engage in mere rhetoric, and won't genuinely deal with any details, how can you ever possibly achieve any genuine understanding? I would hope that you understand the difference.
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.  (James 4.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)
###### Glen Young, 8/23/99 ######
[snip]
Todd has given us insight into his approach to the Bible. He approaches Bible study subjectively. If an interpretation of a verse contradicts his empirical evidence, then the verse must be metaphorical.
I once invited a Jehovah Witness in to discuss the Bible. Before we started, I ask what standard of authority we should appeal to when we disagreed. His answer, I will accept the KJV or ASV so far as they are correctly translated. My next question was, who gets to decide what verses are correctly translated. I think you can guess the answer.
Likewise, Todd will accept the Bible so long as he gets to decide which verses are metaphorical. End of discussion.
Glen Young
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
OEC - Comets Just Another Bad Argument
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:37:01 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=315
22

Hi, Darrell.
I just wanted to point out to those who might be interested that this particular young earth argument, that comets, somehow, prove that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old, is just another one of those in that list I have mentioned of discredited ideas that just keep making the rounds among many young earth advocates (such as the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture, ocean salinity, moon dust, shrinking sun, etc.).
I provide here, again, that quote from Dr. Bert Thompson. Please make a note of it. He is absolutely correct.
"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."
-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)
If you have never heard of the terms "Kuiper Belt" and "Oort Cloud," then you have some studying to do.
Here I provide some online links from which you can easily see what I am talking about. For this discredited young earth idea about comets to keep making the rounds, shows the common mischaracterization by young earth advocates of the truth of the matter with regard to the empirical information that we possess today. I'm sorry, but young earth advocates are going to have to stop misrepresenting the empirical information if they wish to gain any credibility with their arguments.
(By the way, I give you online links, because if you have email then these are probably "just a click away" for you, so they make it very, very easy for you to check things out further. In this day and age, young earth advocates who misrepresent this stuff really have absolutely no excuse whatsoever. Of course, if you want to "dig into" this further, you'll have to go to your public library or nearest university library to reference the astronomy journals, or you can take a college level astronomy course and ask the professor the tough questions you've been wanting to ask. Don't hide under a basket. Remember, if you genuinely respect truth-seeking, then what I have just suggested is just a matter of standard procedure. On the other hand, if you are not even willing to examine that which you disagree with, simply because you disagree with it, then please don't try to pretend that you have any respect for truth-seeking, because then you are misrepresenting yourself as well as misrepresenting the truth of the matter.)
    http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html
Full of relevant information on the Kuiper Belt; contains several links of pages of information for you to check out.
    http://www.sciam.com/0596issue/0596jewitt.html
An online article on the Kuiper Belt from Scientific American magazine; also contains some other related links.
    http://www.boulder.swri.edu/alisha_web/DOSS_outline.html
Click on this link, and when you get there you'll see links to many different areas related to astronomy; if you are interested in astronomy, this is a nice page to reference; the link that is relevant to comets is in the first section, titled "Solar System Exploration," and the link is on the term "Kuiper Belt"; or just use this: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/ekonews
    http://www.reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/resp9.html
This page also lists a few other relevant links, which I won't repeat here.
    http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/11/10a.html
    http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~scb/kuiper.html
    http://www.maa.mhn.de/Comet/kuiper_list.html
    http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~gwilson/kuiper.html
    http://astronomy.geecs.org/asteroid_search/kuiper.html
    http://www.windows.umich.edu/cgi-bin/tour_def?link=/comets/Kuiper_belt.html
    http://www.reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6679/life6.html
Also, check out: "Where Do Comets Come From?", by Damond Benningfield, Astronomy, (September 1990).
Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.  (James 4.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)
###### Darrell Broking, 8/23/99 ######
[snip]
E.  Besides the fact that the sun, moon and stars were made after the earth, neither the evolutionist nor the theistic evolutionist can explain the existence of comets.
1.  Comets in our solar system are as old as our solar system.
a.  There is no new source of comets.
b.  Comets which are fixed in our solar system have been here as long as the solar system.
2.  Comets are dying irregular-shaped masses of gases and ice.
3.  Five probes were sent directly into Halley's comet back in 1986.
a.  It was learned that each time one of these comets passes around the sun that the nucleus melts and gets smaller (Peter Cattermole, 72).
b.  Careful studies indicate that this type of comet can not last more than 10,000 years.
e.  No evolutionary theory can explain the present existence of these short-term comets.
f.  Once again the Bible vindicates itself.
[snip]
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Yes, Attitude Again
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:46:20 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=316
9

Dear Doug,
Your earlier comments were obviously antagonistic instead of constructive. YOU are the one who wrote:
> I am growing extremely weary of your evasion of the pertinent
> questions!
YOU are the one who wrote:
> You have done a great job of NOT NOT ANSWERING these questions,
> but it is getting extremely OLD.
You also wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong but I still have yet to see you answer the
> questions pertaining to whether or not the Bible is "T-truth or
> t-truth."
You made these remarks in this antagonistic fashion, AND your representation was clearly wrong. Frankly, these remarks deserved criticism, and since I'm the one the remarks were directed at, I honestly and forthrightly called attention to the misrepresentation. Additionally, I explained in detail that I was NOT claiming that the misrepresentation was intentional. (I wrote: "I'm NOT talking about the out-and-out intentional, first-degree, consciously thought out ahead of time 'I'm going to distort what this guy says in order to deceive others about him.'") I didn't engage in "flaming" you by using the typical "flaming" fashion of calling people names like "idiot," "moron," "closed-minded fool," "irrational," and the like. I simply pointed out the misrepresentation, and made references to previous posts I had made that demonstrated why it was a misrepresentation. Yes, I know you tried to buffer that one sentence with "Maybe I am wrong," but, look, I have discussed that particular issue several times here in the LUR forum. *I'm* even the one who initially brought it up in this discussion. I am indeed getting impatient and frustrated - rightfully so, in my opinion - with the constant, frequent misrepresentative comments implying that I have not done so.
I have to suggest to you quite honestly that if you and others could be more constructive with your comments, more courteous, more considerate, less antagonistic, and less misrepresentative - in other words, if you would engage in that honorable discussion that some here in the LUR forum have mentioned - then I would not be pointing out these kinds of things, would I?
Simply put, Doug, you misrepresented me, and I pointed it out and clarified the matter. I do not know what is going on in your head. I DO know that the words that you wrote were antagonistic and wrong.
You ask, "When will it stop?"
First of all, I did not misrepresent what you said, so I am not engaging in misrepresentation.
Second, my comments on such rhetoric as this will stop when you, and others here who engage in this kind of rhetoric, stop doing it. It's a simple thing, really. If you don't make antagonistic and mispresentative remarks, then what will I have to point out in that respect? In other words, the antagonism and misrepresentation will stop when the people making the antagonistic and misrepresentative remarks stop using that kind of rhetoric.
Third, I am approaching the end of this thread of discussion (which Gil Yoder has graciously allowed to progress, so that, in my opinion, various aspects of the "large territory" that the subject covers can be considered). I can see that I really have, I think, only a couple more relevant issues that I would like to get into more (such as the "apparent age" argument), then I will be done with it, and leave those who have encountered my discussion to deal with the information, concepts, and issues I have raised, as they see fit. (Though, of course, I will be available, as I have been, by personal email.)
My only plea along these lines is that people deal with the information, concepts, and issues in an honest manner, and not let themselves be confused and misled by the common distortions that I have directly seen many respondents make, while I am right here engaged in discussing the subject.
I keep quoting Bert Thompson's comments on this, because he's right and he expressed it well:
"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."
-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)
To be responsible, you have to "do the work." The flip side of this is that if a person does not want to face up to his responsibilities as a truth-seeker, then he has no right to claim the title and then cover up his careless attitude by engaging in mere, prejudicial rhetoric and misrepresenting those he disagrees with.
Attitude IS important, and it IS demonstrated by what you say and do over time.

I have one final comment here: You request that I "Take the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS." That's interesting, because this is indeed my request as well. I have asked you to consider that the Bible SAYS that the earth cannot be moved and that it is the sun and the stars that move around. So what is the Bible REALLY SAYING? Obviously, there are additional considerations and distinctions that must be made in order to properly understand what the Bible SAYS, so to say simply that we must "take the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS" can in certain contexts (such as this one) be ambiguously misleading. There is the simplistic approach, and then there is the approach that recognizes and acknowledges that there are more detailed considerations involved with genuinely examining the truth of the matter. I advocate the latter.
Truth is not necessarily a simple thing. Does truth have aspects that are simple? Certainly. But truth has an infinite number of aspects. That truth should happen to possess the complications of details is not something that should surprise anyone, and it should certainly NOT be something which truth-seeking people should be trying to use as a misrepresentative rhetorical device against someone they disagree with.
Very sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.  (James 4.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)
###### Douglas Young, 8/24/99 ######
Todd,
   Sorry, that I had not read of your "metaphorical" approach to the book of Genesis. I would like to know, how much of the book of Genesis are you going to categorize as "metaphorical?" John Clayton stops at Genesis 11 and with that makes the father of the Hebrew nation "metaphorical". Where do you stop?
   You have written much about "the apparent age of the earth" over the duration of discussion. If one says that the earth has an "apparent age" to it then we make our God a deceptive God. Your metaphorical approach to the book of Genesis makes God awfully deceptive. I can see God right now, "Those ignorant young earth creationists, why can't they see those billions of years in the creation narrative! I guess I should have made it clearer for them!"
Todd wrote:
> If you do not understand my comments, then just say so. Tell me you
> want further detail or clarification on a particular point, or point
> out some criticism you think you have of what I have stated. Please.
Doug here:
   In my opinion, you have had to reach much further for all you have stated than needed. Take the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS.
Todd wrote:
> But please do not misrepresent me as you have done.
Doug here:
   I apologize for any misrepresentation!
Todd wrote:
> Golly, Doug, just keep hassling the old earth advocate, because you
> just know so absolutely how wrong he is. But where does the common
> misrepresentation lie? You might ask yourself, if people are so
> biased, prejudiced - whatever you want to call it, the label doesn't
> really matter to me - that misrepresentation (and I'm NOT talking
> about the out-and-out intentional, first-degree, consciously thought
> out ahead of time "I'm going to distort what this guy says in
> order to deceive others about him") becomes a prevalent feature
> of their discussion, don't you think you ought to step back, for just
> a teensy little minute, be open-minded just a weensy little bit, and
> consider the miniscule possibility that there just might be some
> legitimate points you have not yet considered and accounted for,
> based on the sheer lack of credibility inherent in the common
> misrepresentation displayed by so many exclusivistic young earth
> advocates?
Doug here:
   You chastise me for misrepresenting you and you automatically know what is going on in my head. I am not sorry for saying that the Bible teaches EXACTLY what I believe on the creation of the world. I am not biased by anything but the Word of God! I accept the text for what it says, because it is divine revelation from God Himself!
Todd wrote:
> Is simple honesty supposed to be an acceptable casualty in the "war"
> for the faith?
Doug here:
   Do you like to misrepresent the people on this list? Or am I misrepresenting your misrepresentation? When will it stop? I even stated in my last post that I may be wrong! Maybe you misrepresented my misrepresentation?
In Him,
Doug
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Gary Palmer
Re: OEC - Jesus In Space
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 21:29:10 EDT
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=316
10

Dear brethren,
This Jesus in space thing has me confused as to the direction you are going. What does Jesus have to do with space or the speed of light or Carl Sagan? I would peradventure to say that the dimension that God lives in would make the speed of light as slow as a snail and the vast universe but a pebble to us. I don't think we can bind on him man made physics or science. His wisdom is light years ahead of ours. I believe the universe is about 6000 yrs. old. I believe that the stars that are millions of light years away, had the starlight stretched to the earth in the millisec. of creation. Everything God created was miraculous, why not star light. What is the advantage to a question that is an abyss?
In Christ
Gary Palmer
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Comets Just Another Bad Argument
Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:54:57 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=320
6

To all:
My words come from an upright heart;
my lips sincerely speak what I know.
Answer me then, if you can;
prepare yourself and confront me.
But I tell you, in this you are not right....
      (Job 33.3,5,12)
Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.
      (Job 34.4)
I want everyone to please note how quick and good Dr. Fox is at distorting the truth of the matter on this. (But, then, he is just continuing the practice he has been following ever since he joined this particular thread of discussion.)
He looks through the links, and instead of using them for learning, he goes through them for one purpose, which is to find the one thing he can find to try to use in an attempt to (1) distort the truth of the matter, and (2) misrepresent me since he opposes the idea of an ancient universe while I advocate accepting it. He asks no questions, he seeks no clarification, he does not take the time or the care to "check things out" and seek further details in order to verify (or falsify) his "first take" on the matter. The preconception of his idea on this is quite visible.
I readily agree that if that one unconfirmed Hubble observation was all there was to the "Kuiper Belt," Dr. Fox would have a point. But that is not the case. And the fact that he would go through all of the references, and then take that one point out of all of them for the sole purpose of trying to distort things speaks to the continuing lack of credibility of his approach along these lines. (I find it highly ironic to see Dr. Fox jump to his conclusion, while he claims that I am the one jumping to conclusions!)
In addition, Dr. Fox states: "[Todd] misrepresented the information on this website and improperly claimed it gave empirical evidence of the existence of both the Kupier Belt and Oort Cloud." I challenge Dr. Fox to point out where I claimed anything about the Oort Cloud at all. I did indeed mention the Oort Cloud (because in any discussion of comets it's kind of hard to just mention the Kuiper Belt without also mentioning the Oort Cloud as well, or otherwise your comments are automatically lacking), because Darrel Broking's primary point was that there was no explanation and no theory, and this point is just plain wrong (a clear and obvious misrepresentation of the truth of the matter). I MENTIONED the Oort Cloud, once, in one sentence, and I said nothing whatsoever about it. Thus, Dr. Fox has misrepresented me, yet again, and tried to make it look like I'm the one engaging in misrepresentation.
You should also note (and if you have been examining the information from these online references you will already know this) that the "Kuiper Belt" itself was only a "working hypothesis" up until the early part of this decade.
Finally, Dr. Fox, of course, completely ignored the primary point of my post, which was that Darrell Broking made the entirely incorrect claim that "Neither the evolutionist nor the theistic evolutionist can explain the existence of comets" and "No evolutionary theory can explain the present existence of these short-term comets." Darrell Broking is just wrong about this. But instead of taking the opportunity to clarify things, Dr. Fox, who is obviously an intelligent and educated man, chose to step in and "muddy the water" as usual. Now I don't know Darrell Broking's background, but as a "first guess" I would really think that he is probably just passing along another one of those young earth myths that keep making the rounds in young earth circles. Dr. Fox, on the other hand, has the kind of background from which he cannot offer any kind of excuse along these lines. (I'm not at all claiming that Dr. Fox should "stay up on the latest research results on comets." I am claiming that he has the kind of background from which to be able to approach these kinds of topics on a more time-effective basis than those who have no training or long-term interest in areas of science.)
I have to thank Dr. Fox for continuing to misrepresent the truth of the matter as he does, because in doing so he just helps me that much more in demonstrating some of my claims about the young earth position.
Dr. Thompson, what was that you said, again?
"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."
-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)
Yes, Dr. Thompson did mention responsibility. I'll stick with that.
I would like to see a little responsibility on this comet thing. Would anyone, anyone, anyone who, while not agreeing with me on the old universe/old earth position (distance yourself from me as much as you want to; I'm not at all talking about people agreeing with me, just dealing with the truth of things more responsibly), at least care to exercise just a little bit of responsibility on such "Paluxy River footprints" myths as this false young earth claim that there is no old universe explanation or theory for comets? It would be a nice thing to see, for a change.
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.  (James 4.17)
P.S.: (To Dr. Fox:) If you want to be attempting to defend this young earth stuff from the perspective of the empirical information, you really should "get your house in order." This practice of constant misrepresentation does not help your cause. I think the problem you have encountered (and I freely acknowledge that this is solely my personal opinion) is that in the past you've been "preaching to the choir" and there was no "live" advocate of that which you were throwing your rhetorical barbs at, so you fell into bad habits and "got away with it." But as you see, things are different when the view you are so strongly prejudiced against has someone who knows better and who points out your misrepresentations and brings up the significant elements you've ignored in your arguments. Feedback based on the truth of the matter from one person who disagrees with you, is far better than the democratic opinions of a hundred agreeing friends.
###### Marion R Fox, 8/26/99 ######
Todd Greene made the following claim:
I just wanted to point out to those who might be interested that this particular young earth argument, that comets, somehow, prove that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old, is just another one of those in that list I have mentioned of discredited ideas that just keep making the rounds among many young earth advocates (such as the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture, ocean salinity, moon dust, shrinking sun, etc.).
[snip]
If you have never heard of the terms "Kuiper Belt" and "Oort Cloud," then you have some studying to do.
Here I provide some online links from which you can easily see what I am talking about. For this discredited young earth idea about comets to keep making the rounds, shows the common mischaracterization by young earth advocates of the truth of the matter with regard to the empirical information that we possess today. I'm sorry, but young earth advocates are going to have to stop misrepresenting the empirical information if they wish to gain any credibility with their arguments.
[snip]
Todd's own source states:
Open Issues
    The very existence of the Oort Cloud is only a working hypothesis. Our only evidence is very indirect. HST's recent images seem to confirm the existence of the Kuiper Belt. But how many of them are there? What are they made of?
    The proposed Pluto Express mission may be also be extended to include a fly-by of a Kuiper Belt object.
Marion here,
This was found on the Arizona reference that Todd gave. Note how the existence of the Oort Cloud has no empirical evidence for its existence. In addition, note the the Hubble Space Telescope "seems to confirm the existence of the Kuiper Belt." Todd may be right but he has no empirical evidence as he claims. He misrepresented the information on this website and improperly claimed it gave empirical evidence of the existence of both the Kupier Belt and Oort Cloud.
In fact this website states:
    A team of astronomers led by Anita Cochran report that the Hubble Space Telescope has detected extremely faint Kuiper Belt objects (left). The objects are very small and faint perhaps only 20 km or so across. There may be as many as 100 million such comets in low- inclination orbits and shining brighter than the HST's magnitude-28 limit. (A follow-up HST observation failed to confirm this observation, however.)
The above quotes are from:
    http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/kboc.html
Note that a follow-up of the Hubble Space Telescope failed to confirm this observation. This is from Todd's own source. Brethren, Todd is jumping to conclusions without empirical evidence!
Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Comets Just Another Bad Argument
Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:33:35 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=320
8

Dear Kyle,
I hope you can step back and see, logically, the approach you have taken here.
First of all, only one person that I know of has specifically asked me, personally, the questions you just asked, and that was done in a private email, not in the LUR forum, and I immediately sent back a response to that individual. (And, actually, I don't believe anyone, until now, has asked me specifically, "Do you believe in evolution?" I can certainly discuss that question if and when it is relevant, at some later time. I have been focusing solely on the old universe position, which, as you should know, has absolutely no connection with questions regarding biological evolution. That is a separate issue.)
Second, how did the earth come to be? That is certainly an interesting question, but what does it have to do with acknowledging the direct empirical information that shows that the universe has been around for far longer than 6,000 years? Why should I run on to discuss this issue? To tell you the truth, the next topic after discussing the empirical information showing an ancient universe would be to discuss the empirical information showing an ancient earth (were I to even do that), but when I can see clearly that there are still substantial misunderstandings on the ancient universe subject (and a few have not even dealt genuinely with the empirical information), why should I run on to discuss yet another subject area (which though relevant and related, is still different)?
Third, you posted your response under the "Comets Just Another Bad Argument" subheading (of Old Earth Creationism). What does any of your comments have to do with my pointing out the incorrectness of a common young earth creationist regarding comets vis-a-vis "non-young earth" explanation?
You are playing a game with me Kyle. I have been answering people's questions right along. Don't try to pretend otherwise. The only one I think I have genuinely "missed," as far as not specifically answering (though, of course, in something like 9 or 10 weeks time, I'm sure I have overlooked a few) is Terry Hightower's "True or False" which I simply did not understand, and which he has not explained clearly to me yet.
And, by the way, what would the way I respond or don't respond to questions have to do with people exercising their responsibility, their duty, to acknowledge the simple truth. Is it okay to use error to support what you think is right? If you need to use error to support it, then how can you possibly know whether or not it is right? This claim that Darrell Broking made about comets being some kind of mystery to "non-young earthers" is flat-out wrong. It's really that simple. Why are people so reluctant, why do they find it so difficult, to acknowledge such simple things like this?
Why, Kyle? Such a simple thing. Why the big, hairy deal? The answer is prejudicial bias, as I have been pointing out all along. This comet thing is yet another example. I predict that perhaps a few may end up acknowledging this very simple matter. But I also predict that many will keep it in the back of their minds that "evolutionists" have no explanation for this beyond mere speculation, they will never check it out, and the myth will keep right on making the rounds in the standard young earth circles for at least the next ten or twenty years. Why do I predict such a thing? Experience. Remember, I have mentioned more than one of these young earth myths in this discussion. (I'm still waiting for some acknowledgment on the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture.)
I hope you understand that posting under this heading ("Comets") without responding in any way to the responsibility I have pointed out on this, while instead trying to rhetorically "turn this around on me," is you speaking about your own attitude on this.
Yes - what a person says is a reflection of his attitude. It is not a perfect reflection. That reflection can certainly be misread. But it IS relevant information, over time, of how a person deals with things like this.
Again, I am watching for some responsibility on this very simple matter. But it is not me that has any importance whatsoever in this. It is simple truth, and simple responsibility. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
###### Michael Richardson, 8/29/99 ######
Todd I would love to talk to you about comets, and other topics dealing with the Young earth/Old earth topic. But unfortunately I WON'T be dealing with any of these subtopics if you don't answer a question all of us want to know. You talk about us misrepresenting your coments, you talk about us not dealing with topics you bring up, but when are YOU going to deal with a topic WE bring up? Yes you are the one that brought up this topic, but that doesn't mean you can decide what to talk about and what not! I will ask you again to answer this questions and PLEASE take time to answer, for I won't address any coments you bring up till you address these COMPLETELY!
What are you beliefs on the Creation? How do you think the earth came about to be? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that God created the world. You say that Genesis 1 is "metaphorical", tell us how did it really happen?
Address these questions and I'm sure that other (along with me) will address your topics better.
in HIM
kyle richardson
 [ TOP ] 



 Part 8 
From: 
Subject: 
Date: 
Archive URL: 
Message #: 
Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Bad Arguments and Details
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:43:19 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=322
1

Hi, Kyle.
With regard to your question I shall, for the purposes of saving my time, simply quote what I responded to that other person in private email:
> 1. If the account in Genesis is metaphorical, how DID God create
> the earth and universe?
Who knows? I certainly don't. Young earth, old earth, neither side proposes to know all the answers. However, this is not relevant to the fact that we do posses quite extensive direct information regarding the facts that the universe is almost incomprehensibly gigantic and that it has been around for much, much longer than just 6,000 years. (And, though I have not gotten into it in my discussion, this corresponds to the independent information from geology regarding the age of the earth.)
> 2. Could God have created the universe in 6 literal days? (I know
> you answered this one already, but I re-state it for the
> purpose of the next question.)
>
> 3. Since he COULD do it that way, and it wouldn't go against his
> nature to do so, why would one say that he DIDN'T do it that
> way?
Because of what we see when we look at the universe. Since God COULD have created a flat earth, or laws of physics dictating a geocentric system, and it wouldn't go against his nature to do so, why would anyone say that he did not do it that way? I hope you see that this kind of "But God could have done..." type questions are not helpful to finding the truth of the matter. God COULD have done ANYTHING. But this is not relevant. What DID God do? How did he do it? When did he do it? Are these questions valid? Can we find any information that indicates any answers? What is the evidence? How much evidence is there? How clear is it? Are there possible considerations (beyond mere speculation) that would change what we think the evidence is showing us?
> 4. All science aside, God is a supernatural being who cannot be
> contained, nor measured, by human standards. Having said that,
> why would someone want to take what is in his inspired Word (II
> Tim 3:16-17) and say it isn't true?
To say this is to mischaracterize the point. I have NOT claimed that it isn't true. Old earth advocates (who believe in biblical inerrancy, anyway, as well as many others) have merely claimed that it has been misinterpreted. Please, please, do not mischaracterize the discussion on this point. It is a very critical one. I have commented on this on several occasions, and I have provided quotes by several other writers regarding this very point.
What has been said is that it is the HUMAN interpretation that isn't true. Nothing more. This is a distinctly different claim than the one you have stated above.
> 5. If Genesis is metaphorical, how do you determine what part is
> not metaphorical? Was Adam and Eve? What about Abraham? Isaac?
> Jacob?
Remember that I started on this thing a little over 20 years ago. I'm sorry, but I do not have all of the answers. I have a few, and the rest I'm going to have to let go as an "I don't know." I keep examining things. I try to keep an open mind.
But there are certain things that are really very clear. The fact that the universe has been around for a very long time is just as certain as that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Really. We would, perhaps, wish that this was not so, but it is. Check out everything I have pointed out on that score. Check out some of the references and some of the online links I have provided. The universe is very ancient. This is not something that is going to change. Today, the direct empirical information showing this is very extensive, is totally consistent, and is quite clear.
I do know that when we study the Bible seriously, really seriously, we have to take a lot of things into account regarding the setting of the particular author and his audience. And there are some things that are not clear, or for which we have little of this kind of information by which to try to properly interpret. (Take Revelation, for instance.) If you can get ahold of that book I mentioned, *Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation*, that should prove very helpful, useful, and informative to you. (All of the authors in that book advocate biblical inerrancy, by the way, as have, I believe, all of the writers I have referred to along the lines of this discussion over the last several weeks.)
What I have said all along in this particular discussion thread in LURL (and elsewhere) is that, HOWEVER you choose to interpret the Bible on this score, you must, as a genuine truth-seeker, somehow take into account all of this information about the universe having been around for a very long time. Some people advocate the "day-age" concept, for example. I do not. But I think the "day-age" advocates are certainly a few steps ahead of the young earth advocates, on the truth-seeking score, because they have at least acknowledged the nature of the world that we actually live in instead of trying to ignore it.
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
You wrote:
First of all, only one person that I know of has specifically asked me, personally, the questions you just asked, and that was done in a private email, not in the LURlist forum, and I immediately sent back a response to that individual.
The only reason I asked you these questions was to see what you believe. Yes, I probably worded my sentences wrong, but the fact that I asked you these questions doesn't give you the right to take a "cheap shot" at me like you say I do to you!
###### Todd, in response ######
I took no cheap shots. Everything I wrote, I wrote in context. I bring up such simple matters as pointing out the incorrectness of this claim that those who are not "young-earthers" have no explanation for comets. I explain in detail why the Moon & Spencer conjecture is a discredited idea. I ask for simple acknowledgements about simple matters like this regarding the truth of the matter, and I am constantly met with either obfuscation about what I pointed out (a la Dr. Marion Fox), or just plain silence.
This is ridiculous behavior. If this kind of behavior was engaged in by someone who worked for me, in the context of work, I would reprimand them and then fire them if it persisted. In the context of my work, believe me, honesty and integrity are very important. (The lack of it can cause bad screw-ups in projects, and the subsequent loss of a client.)
I posted comments about this lack of responsibility being demonstrated on the false claim of a "comet mystery," and you immediately responded under that header with yet additional questions while remaining silent on the very subject header you posted under. If you had no intention of writing under the context of "the comet thing," then you should have changed the header.
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
(And, actually, I don't believe anyone, until now, has asked me specifically, "Do you believe in evolution?" I can certainly discuss that question if and when it is relevant, at some later time. I have been focusing solely on the old universe position, which, as you should know, has absolutely no connection with questions regarding biological evolution. That is a separate issue.)
I believe not. Most people that I have ever talked to (execpt you) has taken the evolutionary side of the issue. I have never talked to anyone who did not take this side until now. That is why I feel it was an important question.
###### Todd, in response ######
??? I'm not sure what you are saying here. I *think* you are claiming that there is some inherent connection between, say, SN1987a showing that the universe is *at least* about 169,000 years old, and biological evolution. This particular claim is simply wrong. Is this what you are claiming?
I have already pointed out several individuals who believe in biblical inerrancy, and who either allow for or advocate an old earth position, at the same time opposing the concept of biological evolution in the Darwinian sense. (Note that even Dr. Fox referred LURlist readers to books by Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, both of whom reject Darwinian evolution, but who accept that the universe and earth are ancient.) Others have posted in LURL referring to such people as Dr. Hugh Ross, and a couple of people in the COC who reject evolution but accept the ancient universe/ancient earth.
I have not discussed evolution, because right now I don't want to "muddy the water" any more than it has already been muddied by a few whose predilection (as observed over the past several weeks) is to keep them muddied.
One step at a time, Kyle. The old universe/old earth topic is, in fact, separate from the biological evolution topic. In fact, technically speaking the old universe topic is separate from the old earth topic. In "hashing out" just a FEW details regarding the old universe, and the related considerations relevant to biblical interpretation for those who believe in biblical inerrancy, there is already MUCH ground to cover. We have not dealt with this yet. I am not going to run on to start getting into yet another topic, when
(1) We have still not dealt with some critical issues related to the first topic.
(2) Why should I waste my time by getting into an even more complicated topic when people will not exercise their simple responsibility to acknowledge very simple "truths of the matter" such as acknowledging that the "comet mystery" is an entirely false claim?
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
Second, how did the earth come to be? That is certainly an interesting question, but what does it have to do with acknowledging the direct empirical information that shows that the universe has been around for far longer than 6,000 years? Why should I run on to discuss this issue.
The reason is simple. This IS what we are talking about. We can talk all you want about the earth being old, but if you don't start talking about how the earch came to be, you are leaving a gap in your philosophy.
Third, you posted your response under the "Comets Just Another Bad Argument" subheading (of Old Earth Creationism). What does any of your comments have to do with my pointing out the incorrectness of a common young earth creationist regarding comets vis-a-vis "non-young earth" explanation?
The ONLY reason I posted this message under this title is because it was simple, fast and effective to write a letter to you. I believe you are taking another "cheap shot" at me?
You are playing a game with me Kyle. I have been answering people's questions right along. Don't try to pretend otherwise. The only one I think I have genuinely "missed," as far as not specifically answering (though, of course, in something like 9 or 10 weeks time, I'm sure I have overlooked a few) is Terry Hightower's "True or False" which I simply did not understand, and which he has not explained clearly to me yet.
Looking over the letter you sent me, you still havn't answered my question "You say that Genesis 1 is 'metaphorical,' tell us how did it really happen?"
And, by the way, what would the way I respond or don't respond to questions have to do with people exercising their responsibility, their duty, to acknowledge the simple truth.
How can we know "truth" without knowing all of the so called "truth"?
Is it okay to use error to support what you think is right?
I do believe you know my anwer is no.
###### Todd, in response ######
Then why not be the first person to *demonstrate* this by acknowledging that it is an entirely false claim to claim that comets are mystery to those who do not accept a young universe/young earth?
This is a very, very simple matter.
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
If you need to use error to support it, then how can you possibly know whether or not it is right?
This is a question you probably didn't have to ask, and it also is contradictory. If you don't use truth, you can know it's not right. If you use truth, it will always be right.
This claim that Darrell Broking made about comets being some kind of mystery to "non-young earthers" is flat-out wrong. It's really that simple. Why are people so reluctant, why do they find it so difficult, to acknowledge such simple things like this?
I must have skimmed over this, so I don't know all points dealing with this argument.
###### Todd, in response ######
Did you also "skim over" the fact that the Moon & Spencer conjecture proffered by Dr. Fox is a discredited idea? How many other discredited young earth "arguments" have you skimmed over, but you accept them simply because those who advocate happen to agree with your point of view? I am taking no "cheap shot" here, but pointing out an aspect of the myths that keep making the rounds in young earth circles. Its because so many young earthers have this attitude that, well, they teach a young earth (against those atheistic, or atheist-inspired, people who have accepted the ancient earth), so they must be right, without ever really "checking into and understanding the details." If you check into the details, for example, you find out that the "comet mystery" is no mystery at all. Kyle, the fact is is that these myths keep making the round among young earth advocates, BECAUSE, like you, too many young earth advocates are "skimming over" the details.
THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT, Kyle. This is irresponsible. This is wrong.
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
Why, Kyle? Such a simple thing. Why the big, hairy deal? The answer is prejudicial bias, as I have been pointing out all along. This comet thing is yet another example. I predict that perhaps a few may end up acknowledging this very simple matter. But I also predict that many will keep it in the back of their minds that "evolutionists" have no explanation for this beyond mere speculation, they will never check it out, and the myth will keep right on making the rounds in the standard young earth circles for at least the next ten or twenty years. Why do I predict such a thing? Experience. Remember, I have mentioned more than one of these young earth myths in this discussion. (I'm still waiting for some acknowledgment on the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture.)
As I can still say plainly now, I don't know anything about Moon and Spencer. You and Marion both lost me at the very beginning. So how am I (a Senior in High School) supposed to answer someone with a few more experience in this field?
###### Todd, in response ######
Kyle, I hate to say this (knowing now, with hindsight, what was ahead for me), but, if you want to practice genuine truth-seeking, it takes long, hard work (in time and mental effort). You only get a few years experience, by "experiencing." You learn about the details of the fact that the "comet mystery" is absolutely no mystery by one thing, and one thing only: digging into the details. I provided several online references (which many in turn provided other links) and an offline reference to help you get started. Or just ignore my references and go to your library or search around the web or take an astronomy class at your local community college or whatever it is you find is the best way for you to "get at the details." But you HAVE TO get at the details, or you cannot, honestly anyway, advocate what it is you wish to advocate in an intellectually honest manner. Without details, without understanding, the best you can say is "Here is what I believe, but I don't know."
Where in the world did I lose you in my "Moon & Spencer" posts? I tried to be quite clear and explanatory, and provided some references you could check. I grant you that you can't skim over this kind of stuff and expect to grasp it and understand it. I grant you that the ground this topic covers is not primarily simple and straightforward (even while there are certain elements that are). I can't change this. But I would hope that you would focus the time and effort effectively on those things that are critical to the discussion.
To be perfectly honest with you, the Moon & Spencer conjecture is not a critical item at all. I hated wasting my time on it. It is Dr. Fox who insisted on trying to conjure it up as being some kind of critical objection to what I was presenting about SN1987a. I felt that made me responsible for showing that this criticism was barren, so that is what I did. The truth of the matter is that Moon & Spencer's conjecture is just a (small) footnote in the history of speculation by some critics of Einstein's theory of general relativity. But Dr. Fox tried to make it into much more than that, so I simply clarified the matter.
Thus, if you were led to believe by young earth advocates that the Moon & Spencer conjecture provides a good basis for you to reject such examples as SN1987a as direct empirical information of the history of the universe PRIOR to 6,000 years ago, then I provided you with a little "wake up call." If you were under the impression that comets were, somehow, some kind of evidence for a young universe (a la Darrell Broking) and a mystery to non-young earthers, then I simply demonstrated that such an impression is totally incorrect.
###### Kyle Richardson, 8/31/99 ######
I hope you understand that posting under this heading ("Comets") without responding in any way to the responsibility I have pointed out on this, while instead trying to rhetorically "turn this around on me," is you speaking about your own attitude on this.
I think I have addressed this already. But I'm still looking for one question you haven't addressed.
You say that Genesis 1 is "metaphorical," tell us how did it really happen?
Answer this and I will be engaging in other topics. To work around this is just dodging. The more you put off answering this, the more I am able to say "I'm right, I should take the Bible literaly and literaly only, because Todd wouldn't answer the question, so he's wrong and I'm right (or more importantly God's right)"
Please, from the bottom of my heart, answer this question!
in HIM
kyle richardson
###### Todd, in response ######
I'm not "working around it." I simply fail to see it's relevance. To me, it only "gives the appearance" of relevance but seems actually to be like asking me "What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?" I keep trying to downgrade my personal opinions. The important points are not what I, personally, think about this or that. It has been, in this thread of discussion, such questions as "What does SN1987a show us about whether or not universe can be only 6,000 years old?" and "Is Moon & Spencer a legitimate criticism of the answer to this?" and "Is it okay to commonly practice misrepresentation by doing such things as continuing to proffer discredited ideas in support of your position or in criticism of an idea you disagree with?" and "Since the most literal interpretation of Genesis would lead one to believe in a recent universe and recent earth, how can the idea of an ancient universe/ancient earth be reconciled with this?" and so on.
Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene
 [ TOP ] 



 [ TOC ]   [ PART 1 ]   [ PART 2 ]   [ PART 3 ]   [ PART 4 ]   [ PART 5 ] 
 [ PART 6 ]   [ PART 7 ]   [ PART 8 ]   [ PART 9 ]   [ PART 10 ]   [ HOME ]