###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
Since you are so fond of using words like empirical and direct,
observable evidence, I thought maybe you'd like to review the definition
of empirical and for grins... empiricism. (Sorry for the run on.)
From Webster's Contemporary American Dictionary of the English Language:
empirical adj. 1. Relying on observation or experiment. 2. Guided by
experience rather than theory. [<Gk empeira, experience.] -empirically
adv.
empiricism n. 1. The view that experience, esp. of the senses, is the
only source of knowledge. 2. The employment of empirical methods
(Observation, testing, experimentation - KC), as in science. -empiricist
n.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Hi, Kyle.
I preface my discussion again with the comment that while I intend to be
straightforward in what I say, I certainly do not intend to be insulting
or abusive. You'll get no "flame war" from me. [Gil, I appreciate your
comments.]
I agree with you that I am "fond" of using "empirical." I use it because
I believe it is the accurate term to use. Please don't try to fault me
for using words in the way that I think, and show, is entirely correct.
Please note that in every post I have made on the LURlist I have tried
to be very careful with the words I write and with the way I write them,
so as to communicate clearly and not be misunderstood. I do not just
throw out words, phrases, and ideas for rhetorical effect.
To summarize once again, the direct empirical information I am referring
to consists of:
| 1. |
The observed speed of light.
| |
| 2. |
The estimated distance of stars (such as Sk -69 202) based on luminosity and magnitude measurements.
| |
| 3. |
In the specific case of Sk -69 202, we also have the additional observation of the gas rings that were lit up by the energy of the stellar explosion several months after the explosion occurred.
| |
If you wish to dispute the validity of this empirical information, then
let us discuss the details of the observations and "hash them out" to
your satisfaction, but please do not try to deny that this empirical
information exists. (There are dozens, if not hundreds, of references to
SN1987a right online, let alone what can be researched in the library.)
I must point out that in all of your response (all of which I cite,
piece by piece, here in my response) you did not disagree with any of
this empirical information that I pointed out, nor with my example of
this in the context of the SN1987a event.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
Okay, here we go. When I stated that Terry and others had "dealt with
the nature of the evidence" I was referring to their (too?) gentle
address of your use of the word "empirical". Now, you assert that your
exploding star and supposed vast distances are direct, "empirical"
evidence that the universe is "Biiiilllions and Biiiiillllions" of years
old (sorry, couldn't resist the Saganism <<small smirk>>).
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I do not consider this to be an accurate portrayal of my argument. With
my particular example of SN1987a, I am showing - based on the speed of
light, based on trigonometric measurements of the gas rings surrounding
star Sk -69 202 that were lit up by the energy from the SN1987a
explosion, based on other related measurements of the distance of the
Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy due to magnitude (relative
luminosity), and based on observations of stars such as Cepheid types -
that the direct observation in 1987 of an event (a stellar explosion)
that took place about 169,000 thousand years ago already shows us that
the idea of a 6,000 year old universe is incorrect.
Thus, WITHOUT ever discussing astronomical concepts that are not
directly empirical (such as Big Bang cosmology), and WITHOUT even
concerning ourselves with when the creation of the universe took place,
we already know that it could NOT have taken place only 6,000 years ago,
because, for example, in 1987 we observed the explosion of a star that
actually took place approximately 169,000 years ago. (So, yet again, I
point out that Big Bang cosmology is simply not relevant to what I am
discussing.)
I have not yet moved on from the example of SN1987a (though I did at
some point mention the example of the Andromeda galaxy in conjunction
with it), because no one has yet dealt with the direct empirical
information that SN1987a represents. (Note that the "apparent age"
argument is not, and cannot by its very nature be, based on empirical
information.)
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
Now forgetting for the moment, problems of light bending through
gravitational fields [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
No, let's not "forget" relativistic effects. Please point out the
specific relevance of relativistic effects on the light from SN1987a. I
am not at all ignoring such effects. The effects happen to be relatively
quite minor, and have been accounted for in the approximate 169,000
light-year distance of star Sk -69 202.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] exacerbated by light years' distance, [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
<grin>How many light years' distance for this exacerbation are you
talking about?</grin>
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] the possibility of decaying speed of light [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Now you are again delving in speculation.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] and Doppler shifts all making accurate trigonometric calculations
impossible [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
It is my understanding that Doppler shifts have nothing to do with
trigonometric calculations. If there is something I am not aware of
regarding Doppler shifts and trigonometric measurements, and the
relevance of this to the example of SN1987a, please explain it clearly
to me.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] (despite the authority with which these yo yo's, err, scientists
assert their hypothesis) [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I must point out in complete sincerity that in my opinion this is a
prejucial comment. Scientists are not "yo yo's," and it is wrong to
describe them categorically as such. Is a woman who discovers a
procedure that helps to cure a form of cancer a "yo yo" because she is a
scientist? Is a man who studies trilobite fossils from Cambrian and
Permian strata a "yo yo" because he is a scientist? I truly believe this
is an unfair characterization.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] forgetting ALL that and more, you still are not dealing with
empirical evidence. No one (except God) observed the creation of the
universe...problem 1. No one can duplicate ANY of the circumstances or
events of the creation, [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Again, I have been referring to SN1987a as an example that the universe
must have been around much longer than 6,000 years (at least about
169,000 years in the case of SN1987a). Again, I am NOT talking about Big
Bang cosmology or about anything whatsoever to do with the time or any
proposed hypothetical concepts (from science) of the creation of the
universe.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] or exploding star...problem 2. [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
What does being able to recreate the conditions of an exploding star in
a laboratory have to do with the empirical observation of a stellar
explosion? We can't recreate the sun in an earthly laboratory. Does this
mean the sun does not exist? I'm sorry, but I just do not understand the
relevance of your argument.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] No one was AT the exploding star and then ran back to Earth with
the date and time (According to Einstein, such a trip would distort the
synchronization of their time and our time any way)...problem 3. And
even if the farthest star was only a few hundred light years away, we
could not *empirically* verify it because our life span would not allow
for DIRECT observation of the distance should a trip be made...problem
4.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Again, how are any of these comments even relevant to the discussion? Of
course these distances are incredibly immense. We cannot even travel to
the nearest star (Alpha Centauri; actually a three-star system), because
of the immense distance involved. Does this somehow imply any of the
following? (1) The stars do not exist. (2) The stars are not really that
far away because no one can go there. (3) Measurements of luminosity and
magnitude have no significance. (4) The gas rings that are lit up around
star Sk -69 202 cannot be measured, or don't exist.
Here is a beautiful wide-scale image of star Sk -69 202 and its rings:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/04/content/9904w.jpg
(Warning: This is a relatively large JPEG image. Be prepared for a few
minutes download time if you don't have a relatively fast modem.)
Here is an online reference for you to find more specific information
about what I am talking about with regard to SN1987a:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html
This site provides several links to pictures and information regarding
SN1987a and the gas rings around it. Check out this link in particular:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/08/
Here is another relevant and interesting link:
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/physics/ph7/lect11.html
Also, offline (perhaps in your local library):
|
"Supernova 1987A Revisited," by R. Naeye, Sky and Telescope, Feb. 1993, p. 39.
"Ring Around SN1987A Supernova Provides a New Yardstick," Physics Today, Feb. 1991, p. 20.
"Properties of the SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the Distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud," by N. Panagia et al., Astrophysical Journal 380, L23-L26 (1991).
|
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
So Todd, where is the "empirical" or the "direct, observable evidence"
of this ancient universe of yours. An empiricist might rightly say,
"There are stars out there. They are outside of our atmosphere (directly
observable evidence by their changing patterns with the seasons)" And
stretching he can "empirically" say, "The stars are outside of our solar
system." If he witnessed or has a direct chain of evidence from the
space probe images. The ancient universe model is just that, A MODEL. It
does not even meet the tenets of a theory (though its proponents like to
lend it credence by calling it one and asserting it as fact). If you
have not directly observed an ancient universe's inception, [...]
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I repeat, yet again, my immediate argument has nothing whatsoever to do
with Big Bang cosmology, so all of your references to the Big Bang model
are simply irrelevant to the example of SN1987a.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
[...] the vast supposed distances of the stars, then you do not have
"direct, observable, empirical or divine" evidence that the Earth and
universe are ancient.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I have pointed out the direct empirical information regarding the vast
distances of the stars. So far, no one has disputed the empirical
observations I have pointed out (speed of light measurements, luminosity
and magnitude measurements, trigonometric calculations of the distance
of the star Sk -69 202 based on the gas rings that surround it that were
lit up by the energy from the explosion). So far, all I have met are
speculations proposed in defense of a HUMAN interpretation of certain
biblical passages that can just as reasonably (if not more reasonably)
be interpreted otherwise.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
You asked me something to the effect, "What about the skeptic that has
this evidence or knows of the ancient earth." I was. I studied the
facts, correlated it with the two models (disposing of the progressive
creation, theistic evolution nonsense as intellectually dishonest) and
saw which one was the more reasonable or best supported. That was fiat,
divine creation.
But the implications of your writings are disturbing. You said the use
of yom in Ge 2:4 immediately discounts my first claim...How so? Are
Genesis 1 & 2 contradictory in your opinion? Your implication is
necessarily a) Genesis is not part of God's word, or b) God's word is
fallible. Otherwise the use of yom in both chapters is the same and
harmonious.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I agree with your criticism here. My comment was too brief, and I
should have expanded on it a bit. What I meant was that the usage of
"yom" in Genesis 2.4 shows that right in the immediate context of the
Genesis creation account "yom" does not NECESSARILY refer to a literal,
24-hour day, because in Genesis 2.4 it clearly does not refer to this.
Note that I later quoted Dr. J. D. Thomas where he made a similar
comment. Other Church of Christ Bible commentators have also made
similar comments. (Dr. Batsell Barrett Baxter, Dr. John T. Willis, and
others; Thomas, Baxter, and Willis are all Bible scholars in the Church
of Christ.)
I also point out here that many other Bible commentators outside of the
Church of Christ who yet fall into the "evangelical Christian" category
(by nature of the fact that they espouse a "strong concept of biblical
inspiration") also point out this fact regarding "yom."
Please do not try to portray my comment on "yom" as just an "isolated
point" made by a "yo yo." Nothing could be further from the truth.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
The other implication of your statements that I find most disturbing are
couched in the paragraph referenced above. You wrote:
|
Imagine using error to try to "defend God's Word." To the skeptic
who understands clearly the evidence of the ancient universe written
in the night sky, the Christian who tries to get a hearing by
proclaiming that God's Word teaches that the universe is only 6,000
years old is actually damaging his evangelistic effort - just as any
Christian who tried to proclaim that God's Words teaches geocentrism
would damage credibility and make people think that obviously the
Bible was NOT God's Word if it could teach such a thing.
|
I ask you Todd to think about your statement above. First, how is it
specifically, that I am damaging my evangelistic efforts by standing by
the plain teachings of God's word? How is it I am reducing its
credibility by showing its harmony and lack of error? Or do you propose
that it has error? (BTW- Your geocentrist argument is misapplied here
and in your previous posts. The geocencratic doctrine of the RC's was
the product of "everything was made for us, therefore we must be at the
center of everything" argument and Ptolemny's beautifully crafted
"empirical" observations showing a geocencratic Solar System. The poor
sap, in his "empiricist" state left out some very important observations
that were first verified by Copernicus and then Gallileo. The first was
almost executed and the latter banished because they threatened the
power and authority of the "Church" government. Never was any Scripture
available to use to "prove" geocentrism...quite the opposite in fact.)
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
First, I was simply making the general point that it is certainly
possible for us humans to misinterpret the Bible. It has been done
before and it will continue to be done, because we are human and thus
fallible. Surely you agree with this general point?
Because of this fact, and this fact alone, it is possible - and it has
occurred - that Christians turn some people away by the insistence of
these Christians on an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Certainly,
we can argue about whether or not a particular interpretation that is in
dispute is correct or not, but this does not change the validity of the
general principle. Indeed, members of the Church of Christ spend
considerable effort discussing incorrect human interpretations of
biblical texts inside and outside the church.
<grin>Remember, you don't have the authority to speak for God. Only the
Pope does.</grin> (That's supposed to be a joke with a point to it.)
Second, with regard to geocentrism, history shows that you cannot
isolate geocentrism to the Catholic Church. I agree with you entirely
that specifically within the context of the Catholic Church there were
"political" ramifications because of the predominant religious and
social structures at that time, but you must also consider the history
of geocentrism in the context of Protestant circles and how the related
controversies were played out in terms of biblical interpretation. It is
an exact parallel to the young earth/old earth controversy played out in
the Church of Christ, and in many religious denominations, today.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
The fact that you didn't even address Christ's or Paul's statements
bothers me deeply. You're not dealing with those very, very plain
statements of prehistory by the Son of God and His inspired Apostle, AND
your diversion to the very humanistic argument that "science" is right
suggests to me that you think they are erroneous statements. The
implication again is either a) Christ was mistaken, b) Christ was a liar
or c) The Bible is not reliable in this area.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Please read every single one of my posts to the LURlist regarding old
earth creationism. You are attributing comments and statements to me
that I absolutely have not made. This is an unfair characterization of
anything I have been discussing. (Indeed, I have quoted material by John
T. Willis, J. D. Thomas, and Davis A. Young to the contrary of your
characterization.)
I have been focusing carefully on the example of SN1987a as direct
empirical information that the universe has been around much longer than
6,000 years. Everything else has been tangential (and only in response
to specific comments such as yours regarding "yom" in Genesis).
I did not catch the relevance of the verses you quoted to what I was
discussing, thus I did not specifically comment on them. I shall go back
to that post of yours and re-read that section to see what point you
were making that I must have missed.
[re-examining that post...]
Got it! You are referring to Mark 10:6. You are right. As I said, I
missed what you were getting at, because of my focus on the example of
SN1987a. Read this passage:
|
But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10.18)
| |
How do you interpret "the ends of the world"? Literally, or as a
figurative idiom? That is my answer to your question.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
*Your compromise* is what's weakening your evangelistic efforts.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I fail to understand why advocating truth is "compromising" or is
somehow a bad thing.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
If you can bring yourself to interpret Scripture to mean something other
than what the plain language and syntax tells us or decide that it's not
reliable in *ALL* areas, you can not prove *anything* by the Bible.
Therefore any doctrine is as good as another and we can not know
absolute truth. The logical tailspin is dizzying.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
I think that when you state that "you cannot prove *anything* by the
Bible" just because biblical interpretation can many times be a complex
affair (due in many cases to the fact that aspects of our cultural
perspective can be far removed from aspects of the cultural perspective
of the original audience of the biblical writing under consideration),
you are simply engaging in hyperbole.
If you can bring yourself to interpret Scripture from a perspective that
is foreign to the perspective from which it was originally written, then
you have already projected your own human interpretation onto the Bible
before you have even begun to read it. What IS the "plain language and
syntax"? Is the "plain language and syntax" supposed to be interpreted
from our modern historical/scientific perspective? Why? What was the
perspective of the intended audience for which it was originally
written? Are these considerations supposed to be irrelevant, simply
because you currently believe in the "young earth" creed and you don't
wish to even consider that anything might show that your human belief is
incorrect?
I agree with you that the consideration of ideas that are different from
the personal beliefs we already hold can be disconcerting. But so what?
Are we supposed to reject the methods of truth-seeking simply because
they make us uncomfortable? I think you would agree with me that
psychological discomfort is not a legitimate measure of the validity of
the ideas that we encounter on a genuine search for truth.
###### Kyle S. Cowden, 6/21/99 0:28 CST ######
Todd, I'll leave you with three Scriptures that apply to your post and
your web site:
|
For God *is not* the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)
| |
His Word is to be readily understood and obeyed.
|
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such *we shall incur a stricter judgment.* (James 3:1, NASB)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, *bringing swift destruction upon themselves.* (2 Peter 2:1, NASB)
| |
Todd, please think about what you're teaching and the consequences.
In Him,
Kyle
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/21/99 11:34 EST ######
Why do you automatically assume that anyone who advocates the "old
earth" concept is somehow the author of confusion? Why do you
automatically assume that the "young earth" concept is not itself the
cause of confusion? Why do you automatically assume that the human
interpretation of a "young universe and young earth" advocated in a
hegemonic manner is not itself a "destructive heresy," denying the
genuine meaning of the Genesis account?
To use these biblical passages like this is a form of "begging the
question." It represents a projection of one particular human
interpretation onto the biblical text over against other reasonable
interpretations, without regard to justifying the position that is being
advocated.
Look at the extensive negative consequences of teaching the incorrect
concept of geocentrism *in connection with the Bible*. To this day,
hundreds of years later, skeptics still use it as a tool to say, "See,
the Bible really is not reliable and thus isn't God's Word." It is my
sincere belief that those who advocate the human interpretation of a
young universe and young earth in conjunction with the idea that "this
is the only possible interpretation" of the Bible fall into the very
same trap, and they do harm instead of good in the cause of Christian
apologetics, just as the geocentrists did harm.
Instead of lending any credence whatsoever to even a single detail or
principle in any of my posts to the LURlist regarding old earth
creationism, instead of pointing out any aspect whatsoever of my
discussion where you do find agreement, the approach that I seem to be
encountering appears to me to be that of, "Well, you advocate an 'old
earth.' So even though I am unable to show that the empirical
information you have presented either does not exist or is incorrect, I
know that I disagree with the conclusion. Therefore, I will not consider
a single thing you say, but just disagree with everything."
Instead of ever explicitly acknowledging a single point I make that you
do consider to be a valid point, I see a number of specific inaccurate
representations of my discussion (such as that I'm arguing from Big Bang
cosmology; or that I have advocated that Christ was mistaken, or Christ
was a liar, or the Bible is not reliable in this area, despite the fact
that I have made none of these claims).
It is my opinion that the constant prejudicial characterization of
Christians who accept the idea of an "old earth" as heretics is
condescending, misrepresentative, illogical, and unfair. Please note
that not only is this an entirely *ad hominem* approach to the
discussion (and, as such, is completely irrelevant to the truth of the
matter), but as an entirely practical matter it simply is not true. Who
here wishes to denigrate the examples of Christian life set by such
Christians as J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, or John T. Willis?
Please step forward and cast a stone against the examples of their
lives.
I think that what has not been fully understood yet by most of those who
have read my discussion so far regarding old earth creationism on the
LURlist (at least from the comments I have seen of those who have
publicly responded), is that I am NOT at all trying to advocate that
there is some critical biblical doctrine of old earth creationism that
all Christians must accept or else they are not "good Christians." To
the contrary, my claim is that, from the perspective of religious
doctrine, this is a "vexed" and complex area and is not critical to a
person's standing with God. My claim with regard to the concept of an
ancient universe (and ancient earth) in the Church of Christ is that the
information that exists today (both from advances in biblical
scholarship, and from technological advances in science that give us
detailed empirical observations that have only existed in this century)
makes it eminently reasonable for intellectually honest Christians to
accept an ancient universe. Thus, based on all of this I believe it is
wrong for anyone to try to proclaim an exclusivist religious creed
regarding a young universe/young earth (or, for that matter, an old
universe/old earth) by which it is proper to try to pass judgment on
whether or not anyone is a "genuine Christian."
Indeed, I believe the direct empirical information that is available to
us virtually compels the truth-seeker who learns of it and examines it
thoroughly to accept the fact that the universe is quite ancient. This
is why, for example, professional astronomers (i.e., those who have
learned the relevant information and who have thoroughly examined it),
Christians and non-Christians alike, accept the fact that the last 6,000
years is but a tiny sliver of time in the life of the observed universe.
I am someone (raised in the Church of Christ; baptized in Dallas, Texas
during the time my father was attending the Preston Road School of
Preaching; and a believer in young earth creationism) who learned the
information, examined it thoroughly, and realized that to remain
intellectually honest I had to accept the ancient age of the universe.
<grin>And the Big Bang had nothing to do with it.</grin>
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Love...comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Timothy 1.5-7)
We serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7.6b)
If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5.15)
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3.9-10)
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (James 3.13-18)
...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable -- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy -- think about such things. (Philippians 4.8)
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. (Romans 14.4,12-13a)
| |
|
