A "Live" Discussion on Old Earth Creationism (Part 6)

Young Earth Advocates Argue
Against An Ancient Universe

— Using Purely Human Dissimulation!

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 6

Take your pick (click):

LURlist Archive 305, Message 14 (8/15/99)
In giving examples of some comments by LUR forum writers showing how they used prejudicial characterizations of those who disagreed with the young earth creed, I had quoted one of Andy Bowers' comments. He did not think I was correct in doing so, so here I explain in more detail why I used his comment in particular, among the others.
LURlist Archive 306, Message 11 (8/16/99)
Even after Dr. Marion Fox's misrepresentative posts already shown here in this collection, he had continued with other highly misrepresentative posts, yet never did address what I had talked about in my discussion of the "Moon & Spencer conjecture." (Sorry, you'll have to go to the LUR archives if you really want to see his other posts.) Here I let him know I've had enough of his misrepresentative rhetoric, but that I will be happy to discuss any substantive remarks he would like to make regarding the "Moon & Spencer conjecture" should he choose to do so.
LURlist Archive 308, Message 1 (8/18/99)
At this point I'm getting tired of people pretending that it's okay to couch their discussion in prejudicial terms and misrepresent what I say (and what I don't say), but that it's not okay for me to criticize this kind of attitude, so I discuss the attitude in detail, directing my comments toward Andy Boshers, who had struck me as being a "moderating influence" in the LUR forum.
LURlist Archive 308, Message 9 (8/19/99)
Jerry Brewer "enters the scene," with his subtle sarcasm flowing. I return it to him.
LURlist Archive 308, Message 10 (8/19/99)
Jerry Brewer again.
LURlist Archive 308, Message 11 (8/19/99)
And again.
LURlist Archive 308, Message 12 (8/19/99)
And yet again. This time his sarcasm isn't so subtle. Indeed, Jerry "compliments" me with the title of "master at circumlocution." (What can I say? When I'm dealing with people whom I know are heavily biased against what I'm talking about, I think it's necessary to explain things with an appropriate amount of detail.) I don't usually do "tat" - not my style - but sometimes I like to return "tit for tat," showing people the folly of their own antagonistic remarks by using their own rhetorical technique against them. Of course, some people just don't "grab the clue."
LURlist Archive 308, Message 13 (8/19/99)
Tim Nichols joins in with some sarcastic misrepresentation of his own. (I would have thought that if there was some substance to this young earth creed, then perhaps misrepresentation would not be so prevalent.)
LURlist Archive 309, Message 14 (8/19/99)
Even Andy Boshers, the relative moderate in the LUR forum, refuses to acknowledge not only the inappropriate nature of his own prejudicial comment regarding "old earthers" but also the prejudicial and antagonistic attitude that is being actively demonstrated by many of the young earth advocates right in this discussion. Wow! Three monkeys, anyone? (Question: Why are these young earth advocates so adamant about refusing to acknowledge the prejudicial nature of the manner in which they constantly try to couch this discussion? Answer: Left as an exercise for the reader.)
LURlist Archive 309, Message 15 (8/19/99)
Dr. Fox attempts to chastize me for using the word "naturalist." (Golly, this is pretty basic stuff. Does Dr. Fox really not know much about 19th century history in the context of science and religion - that's pretty hard to believe - or is he just using this as another "smoke and mirrors" debate tactic in an attempt to "discredit his opponent" in playing to the "LUR audience," as has been his practice?
LURlist Archive 309, Message 16 (8/19/99)
Finally, a decent question, with no misrepresentation or antagonism. Thank you, Brad Cobb!
LURlist Archive 311, Message 5 (8/21/99)
I give Mickey Hukill an example showing why the "literal" interpretation is, perhaps, not always the best one.

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

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: I am accused of motive impugning!
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 21:43:37 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305
14

Hi, Andy.

To tell you the truth, in my opinion, you are the "least" of the so-called "impugners." (LOL, that's supposed to be "tongue in cheek" - the way I'm reading your subject header.) I was NOT intending to be derogatory with that list. I was intending to simply point out the truth of what occurs.

Your comment happens to fall on the "implicit" side. You state that "No one would even think of interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is Billions of years old unless led in that direction by a-theistic naturalists." Yet Augustine, for one, interpreted the Bible this way, and, for all you may fault him, being an atheist or led by atheism is not one of them, and he wrote quite some time ago.

Your "impugning" statement was an implicit one. But just try applying it to Batsell Barrett Baxter, or John T. Willis, or Davis A. Young, or Howard J. Van Till, or... Well, you get the picture. To make this statement in the way you made it, that they are "led" in the old earth direction "by atheistic naturalists," is, as a matter of fact, just plain wrong. But to imply that they are led by atheists, are aware that they are espousing atheistic concepts, and then go on to present their concept of an old earth (and old universe) as if it is based on the evidence instead of these atheistic ideas from atheists, is to imply that they are misrepresenting their own position.

Perhaps you should genuinely study the details of why these people believe the way they do with regard to an old universe and old earth. When you arrive at a genuine understanding you might even discover that they are not being dishonest or disingenuous - as is often explicitly stated and implicitly expressed by many young earth advocates - and that they really do have legitimate reasons for believing what they do regarding an old universe and earth.

By the way, who has most accurately represented "the truth of the matter" with respect to SN1987a and Moon & Spencer?

Just some things to think about.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

###### Andy Boshers, 8/15/99 ######
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:05:59 -0400, Todd S. Greene wrote:

> To end this post, I would like to point out that in the first few
> posts in response to my original post on this topic back on 6/18/99,
> the motives of old earth proponents were impugned by young earth
> advocates in the following ways:
> 1. the only people who would believe this are led by
> atheism (Andy Boshers),

I was surprised to see my name brought up in a derogatory way as an impugner of motives. I looked back in the archives and found the post I'd submitted in response to your original post.

The excerpt from my post on 6/18 says the following:

> Prevailing science establishment begins with
> the assumption that the supernatural does not exist. They will never
> theorize the existence of God since any conclusion that results in
> God must be a wrong answer.
>
> Exodus 20:11 says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
> the sea, and all that in them is." The stars were made on Day Four.
> Were they baby stars that had to evolve or were they mature stars
> made with light that could be seen from earth? No one would even
> think of interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is Billions
> of years old unless led in that direction by a-theistic naturalists.

Is anything I said untrue in any way? "impugn a motive" means to "attack or oppose as a false motive." Where did I do this? In what way were my comments out-of-line?

Todd, I have publicly encouraged this discussion of origins in the this forum in the past 3 months, but I am disappointed in the way it has unfolded. I enjoy a good discussion about truth, religion, science, origins, etc. But I have not enjoyed the degradation that these threads have taken.

Andy Boshers

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Dr. Marion Fox, and "Moon & Spencer"
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:31:39 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=306
11

Hi, Dr. Fox.

In quite a few previous posts, I have pointed out your specific misrepresentations of my discussion. To have to do so on such a continued basis is a shame, and detracts highly from the substantive discussion.

Some consider me to have a relatively aggressive style, but I will not attempt to compete with you in this regard. Frankly, Dr. Fox, I really don't have anything more to say in response to your posts of this kind. I have specifically addressed how wrong your presentation of the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture is. If you are unable to respond, or simply choose not to respond, substantively to my "Moon & Spencer (Part 2)," and instead you wish to pursue this other route, please go right ahead and do so. I agree with Andy Boshers' comments, and I shall not follow this particular route.

Should you wish to address the specific points I made in "Moon & Spencer (Part 2)," then we "shall meet again." Until then, "Adieu."

Regards,
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)

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
OEC - Andy, Is Misrepresentation Okay?
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:23:03 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
1

Hi, Andy Boshers.

I write more to you regarding this, because in observing the kinds of comments you have made over the last several weeks, I have come to think of you as a "reasonable, moderating" influence and participant on the LURlist. (Even though, of course, we disagree on the old universe/old earth concept.) Thus, when I see you state

...I have publicly encouraged this discussion of origins in this forum in the past 3 months, but I am disappointed in the way it has unfolded. I enjoy a good discussion about truth, religion, science, origins, etc. But I have not enjoyed the degradation that these threads have taken.

I find this to be troubling. Surely, if people are constantly using prejudicial terminology, repeatedly misrepresenting what I write, and trying to portray long discredited arguments as being some kind of decent criticisms of the information I have presented, why is it somehow wrong to point these things out? Why is it right and proper to let these things "slide"? I honestly do not understand the approach that you are implicitly requesting.

*I* am not the one in the discussion of this topic trying to treat it as a "jihad" against those I disagree with, or trying to "tally up sins." (Incidentally, when I used this term, I was using it in clear reference to what Dr. Fox was doing. I would have hoped that you had noticed by now that occasionally I use a writer's own rhetorical techniques (ones I disagree with) against him in the same way he uses them against others, in order to demonstrate to him (and let others see) the folly of that kind of rhetoric. I'm sorry that the irony was not apparent.

Also, when I ask such questions as, "Why is it okay for discredited ideas such as the Moon & Spencer conjecture to be continually 'making the rounds'?" I am asking an honest question. Why is it considered okay? Why? I would really like someone to address the question as a serious, honest question, because that is what it is. Bert Thompson realized the Moon & Spencer conjecture was wrong years ago, and he published his comments accordingly. That is how things are supposed to be done. But, golly, here I even ask the question about why it is still being used, and some people "climb down my throat" just for asking the question.

Andy, please tell me: Do you think this kind of antagonistic atmosphere is appropriate? Don't you think it IS appropriate to be wondering, what is going on? Why are discredited ideas being used so much? Why are these ideas being promulgated from the pulpit and the "conservative" journals? Why are those who challenge these discredited ideas met with such strong criticism and derision? (Look at the response to Robert Baty, who is not even an old earth advocate, but who just firmly expects integrity in the discussion and strongly refuses to put up with anything to the contrary.)

Will you, please, acknowledge at the very least that there is something not quite right about this?

With regard to my specific comments on your statement from several weeks ago, all I can ask is that you reconsider what I said (that you seemed to strongly object to). The fact that I have been continually referring to that so many seem to be so reluctant to acknowledge (with respect to considerations of attitude) is that due to the antagonistic attitude that so many young earth advocates in the Church of Christ demonstrate with their words that they have toward any disagreement with the young earth creed (or even against those young earth believers who simply disagree with some of their methods, as we have observed right here), this prejudicial terminology has become part of the standard vocabulary by which young earth advocates discuss the old universe/old earth idea and anyone who advocates it.

That is all. It's really that simple. I am genuinely amazed that anyone has a problem just with acknowledging the fact of the matter.

The prejudicial terminology has become so pervasive, that we grow up with it (remember, I was raised in the Church of Christ, and on this issue I started out, years ago, as a believer in the young earth idea, so I have grown up with this terminology as well) and we don't recognize it for what it is until we take a good close look at it and realize what's going on.

You asked: "Is anything I said untrue in any way? 'Impugn a motive' means to 'attack or oppose as a false motive.' Where did I do this? In what way were my comments out-of-line?"

I simply used that comment you made several weeks ago as just one example (of the many I referred to) of the pervasiveness of this kind of terminology. As I stated, I, personally, do NOT believe that you specifically intended the implications of your comment in an intentional attempt to impugn the motives of the old earth advocates you disagree with. That is why I referred to your comment as "implicit." I was not, indeed, impugning your motives. I was simply showing the words that you used.

It is the prejudicial words themselves that falsely portray those who advocate the old universe/old earth position (whether explicitly, or by implication).

Look at your comment:

"No one would even think of interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is Billions of years old unless led in that direction by a-theistic naturalists."

Why did you not, instead, write:

"No one would even think of interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is Billions of years old unless led in that direction by the empirical evidence."

Or, at least:

"No one would even think of interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is Billions of years old unless led in that direction by the empirical evidence, without taking into account that there are other reasonable ways of interpreting that empirical evidence. Here is some evidence, or here are some other plausible interpretations, that they have not considered."

Surely you can see the difference in the terminology that is being used. The former is prejudicial. The latter is not.

(Incidentally, the truth of the matter is that Bible-believing naturalists were just as much involved in realizing and advocating the old earth as was anyone else. This is a historical fact. Were there agnostics and atheists involved? Certainly. But their influence among naturalists who believed in the Bible was held with a high degree of skepticism, at best, BECAUSE they did not believe in the Bible. What influence they had among Bible-believing naturalists - and any other Bible-believers who listened - with respect to observations of the natural word was hard-won, based on the evidence, BECAUSE the Bible- believing naturalists did NOT want to believe those whom they considered to be biased against Christianity. Why can't this point be acknowledged and taken into account?)

Moreover, as I stated before, let's try applying your statement to some of the people I have been citing all along (some of whom are not old earth advocates, but who are not dogmatic with regard to the young earth belief):

"J. D. Thomas allows for interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is billions of years old because he is led in that direction by atheistic naturalists."

"Batsell Barrett Baxter allows for interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is billions of years old because he is led in that direction by atheistic naturalists."

"John T. Willis allows for interpreting the Bible to teach that the earth is billions of years old because he is led in that direction by atheistic naturalists."

"Davis A. Young interprets the Bible to teach that the earth is billions of years old because he is led in that direction by atheistic naturalists."

Surely you see that a statement like this is unreasonable and inappropriate. In other words, it is wrong, even ludicrous *if you really think about it.*

What would make it even worse would be any kind of attitude that says, explicitly or implicitly, "Even though I have not studied the vast amount of information that these scholars have studied, I shall make this kind of statement about them anyway, simply because I disagree with their conclusions." There is something seriously wrong with any kind of attitude that allows these kinds of prejudicial statements to be considered okay. In computer programming terms, this is putting the processing routine before the relevant declaration headers, and the compiler just won't accept it. (More traditionally, it's putting the cart before the horse.)

Seriously, Andy, I am not "out to get" anybody. Indeed, as I have pointed out repeatedly, I am the one who is advocating that the young earth/old earth issue is not one that determines whether or not a Christian is pleasing to God. (A few others in this forum, who happen to be young earth advocates, have expressed agreement with this.) I ask you, please, to recognize and acknowledge that there are many young earth advocates who really are "out to get" old earth creationism and anyone who advocates it, as demonstrated by the fact of their refusal to refrain from using their prejudicial rhetoric and their refusal to reconsider the promulgation of discredited criticisms (such as the Moon & Spencer conjecture or the ocean salinity argument).

It is the "exclusivist," dogmatic, and "repeatedly careless" approach of many young earth advocates (not all) that lends itself so readily to "degrading the discussion," because of the prejudicial rhetoric within which they feel they must couch the discussion. I agree that it is wrong. But that's the way it is, because that's they way such young earth advocates insist upon it. Attitude IS a critical part of this discussion, because these young earth advocates have made it so.

In describing this discussion as having degraded, let us be sure that this context is clarified. We cannot legitimately paint both sides with the same brush.

How can it possibly be wrong (even sinful, as some have tried to portray it) to be pointing these things out? Please explain this to me, because I do not understand it.

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)

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:26:44 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
9

I refer you to the LUR list archives at this reference:
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305

Look at message #6, entitled "Further Biblical Considerations," which I wrote specifically in response to you.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, since you obviously missed my post. I gave you the consideration in the past of referring you to comments already made in response to your queries, by referring you to specific posts in the archive and by doing it in private email to you. I thank you for showing me equal consideration.

Todd S. Greene

###### Jerry C. Brewer, 8/18/99 ######
It has been a week since I posted the following questions. I don't believe they've been answered. If they have, I failed to see the answers, and I apologize for posting them again.

I posed these questions to elicit information upon which a logical discussion can be based. One who espouses a doctrine should be able to give an answer for it and rationally discuss its implications from a Biblical perspective.

Jerry C. Brewer

Todd Greene wrote,
> > Please note that I myself don't happen to believe or advocate
> > the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1. I lean toward a
> > metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1...

My questions are, and remain,
> What is your definition of "metaphorical?" Does that mean you believe
> figurative language was used to describe the days of Genesis 1? If so,
> what does the word "day" mean in Genesis 1? How does one separate the
> metaphorical from the literal in Genesis 1? Is God metaphorical? Is
> light?

Todd Greene wrote,
> > (whereas the "day-age"
> > position tends to advocate a chronological interpretation, but
> > with a chronological "period" greatly expanded over the "young
> > earth" one), but I do NOT advocate any particular approach as
> > an exclusivist one that I think is conclusive and that all must
> > follow in order to be pleasing to God.

My question was,
> What is your approach?
>
> Jerry Brewer

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:27:31 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
10

I refer you to the LUR list archives at this reference:
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305

Look at message #6, entitled "Further Biblical Considerations," which I wrote specifically in response to you.

Todd S. Greene

###### Jerry C. Brewer, 8/18/99 ######
Here is another question which I posted a week ago and which has not been answered.

Jerry Brewer

> Todd Greene Wrote,
> > (1) "The evening and the morning" construction in Hebrew as used
> > Genesis 1 is used uniquely in the Bible in Genesis 1. It is a special
> > literary construction of some kind.
>
> What kind of construction is this, Todd?
>
> Jerry Brewer

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Biblical Considerations
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:30:33 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
11

I refer you to the LUR list archives at this reference:
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=305

Look at message #6, entitled "Further Biblical Considerations," which I wrote specifically in response to you.

But I have to acknowledge that on this specific one there is more that I intended to write, but as I noted in the post I refer you to above, "this particular post is growing quite long (a lot of territory to cover), so I shall leave it here for now."

Todd S. Greene

###### Jerry C. Brewer, 8/18/99 ######
this question was asked two weeks ago. I don't believe it has been answered by Mr. Greene.

> What is "unscientific" about Genesis 1?
>
> Jerry Brewer

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Old Earth Creationism - Facts & Attitude
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 00:34:46 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
12

Yes, Jerry,

Your antagonistic attitude is noted. Thank you for so clearly demonstrating what I have been pointing out all along.

You ask a question, I give you a serious, straight answer, with relevant detail, and this is your comment.

Did you have anything substantive you wanted to add to that?

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)

###### Jerry C. Brewer, 8/18/99 ######
The following post was sent more than a month ago to the list. While I never received a public answer, Todd Greene replied in a private post. My first post is immediately below, followed by his private post to me.

> Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 8:33 PM
> From: Jerry C. Brewer
>
> Perhaps I missed Mr. Greene's definition of "empirical." If so, I
> apologize, but I would like to know if he subscribes to Webster's
> definition which says, "1: relying on experience or observation alone
> often without due regard for system or theory. 2: originating in or
> based on observation or experience (~data) 3: capable of being
> verified or disproved by observation or experiment (~laws)."
>
> Webster further says of "empiricism," "a theory that all knowledge
> originates in experience." (New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C.
> Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., 1979).
>
> Advocacy of the above position(s) denies that faith is "the
> substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
> Empiricism denies knowledge that comes from Divine Revelation. I
> *know* Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, was crucified for me, raised
> the third day and exalted to David's throne - not because I have any
> "empirical" knowledge of this, but because Divine Revelation gives
> me that knowledge.
>
> Many are the "empiricists" who have denied the Virgin birth, and the
> resurrection and offered "scientific" explanations for their denials.
> But no matter how plausible their "explanations" may be, if they
> contradict Divine Truth, they are mere human speculation. Empiricism
> could be likened to the two blind men describing an elephant, while
> one holds the tail and the other the trunk. Their experiences give
> them the information, but it is contradictory. Empirical
> knowledge-based upon human observation and reason-may be false
> knowledge. Empirical information is subject to change-Divine
> Revelation isn't. Scientific empiricism might be styled a "secular
> Calvinism" - a better-felt (empirical)-than told (Divine Revelation)
> system of knowing.
>
> In The One Faith
> Jerry C. Brewer

Mr. Greene's Reply follows below.

> Hi, Jerry Brewer.
>
> Note that I'm responding to you personally regarding this instead of
> on the LUR list, because this territory has already been covered. I
> myself only "discovered" the LUR list archive section a few days. I
> would direct you to that. Look for Kyle Cowden's post on 6/21/99, and
> my response to Kyle (also on 6/21/99). Also, please see my "Old Earth
> Creationism - An Approach Outline" posted on 6/22/99. This will
> "orient" you with regard to my approach to this subject.
>
> I use the word "empirical," because the information showing that the
> universe has been around much, much longer than 6,000 years IS
> empirical. It is not speculation. It is not conjecture. It is an
> empirical characteristic of the universe that we human beings observe
> right now, today.
>
> Not once have I argued that "empiricism" should guide EVERYTHING.
> Please acknowledge all of the people who believe a strong concept of
> biblical inspiration who also acknowledge that the universe is quite
> ancient. They agree with me that the empirical information that does
> exist must be acknowledged and accommodated in some way, because it is
> our responsibility to accept truth no matter what it is, and because
> truth cannot contradict truth. I am arguing the old earth concept just
> as they do. My claim is that, just as when it was recognized
> conclusively by empirical information that the earth revolved around
> the sun (and was not the physical center of the universe) and that
> those parts of the Bible that by human interpretation were thought to
> teach otherwise did not really do so, today it is recognized
> conclusively by empirical information that the age of the universe is
> much greater than 6,000 years and the human interpretations of it that
> teach otherwise (the young universe/young earth position) are simply
> incorrect.
>
> That is my claim. With this in mind, I ask you to please not
> incorrectly characterize my argument as being one of empiricism. That
> is NOT the claim I am making.
>
> Besides all of this, my next post (which I'm working on) will focus
> specifically on Marion Fox's claim that light travels through a
> "tightly-curved space" such that the light from very distant entities
> in the universe can reach us in less than 15.71 years. Stay tuned, if
> you are interested!
>
> Regards,
> Todd S. Greene

It is my "empirical" observation that Mr. Greene is a master at circumlocution. How difficult is it to say, "That is my position," or "No, I don't hold that position?"

Jerry C. Brewer

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
OEC - Andy, See What I'm Talking About?
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 01:17:38 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=308
13

Hi, Tim.

TN: "...under the guise of discussing 'Old Earth Creationism.'"
TN: "if the discussion actually begins to focus on this subject, I'd
appreciate it if someone else on the list would let me know."

This is the second time you have purposely misrepresented my discussion. Just three days ago I posted "Further Biblical Considerations," and prior to that I had quite a few posts scattered over a number of days specifically regarding biblical considerations, which is precisely what you were asking me to do several weeks ago when you were impatient with me for discussing other aspects of the topic (the example of SN1987a, and related details). But instead of participating in an "honest discussion" (your words, Tim), you make these comments.

If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion regarding the scientific, biblical, or epistemological considerations, please do that anytime you wish to do so. With regard to considerations of attitude, all I can say is thank you for demonstrating your attitudinal approach so clearly, and thus demonstrating the very point I have been making all along.

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)

P.S. (To Andy Boshers): Surely it is obvious. How much more evidence do you need? Will you acknowledge any legitimacy whatsoever to the point I have been making? There is something wrong with this picture.

###### Tim Nichols, 8/18/99 ######
Brethren.

As kindly as such things can be said, let me just say that I have no further time to devote to wading through these lengthy discussions (accusations?) about motives, attitudes and other matters of the heart under the guise of discussing "Old Earth Creationism." The participant who continues to repeat these things has made his point many, many times and I cannot seem to get myself to read it again and again. I am, however, interested in a discussion of the actual subject of creation. Therefore, if the discussion actually begins to focus on this subject, I'd appreciate it if someone else on the list would let me know. Otherwise I'm sure to miss it.

Best wishes.
-- Tim

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - Andy, Is Misrepresentation Okay?
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:42:10 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=309
14

Dear, Andy.

However, I did mention the part about being careless (not being careful). Misrepresentation is misrepresentation, whether intentional or not. And there is something about the fact of pointing out misrepresentation, writing more in further clarification about what was misrepresented in order to forestall further misrepresentation, and yet still being misrepresented on the same point on a repeated basis. There is surely a point at which the misrepresentation, even if wholly unintentional, becomes willful because of the obstinance with which "being careful to understand" is avoided.

I would have expected you to acknowledge this as a legitimate, general point.

The other point is the personal derogatory insinuations that are repeatedly being made by certain individuals, but which you are ignoring. One respondent said I am merely engaging in tirades and diatribe. Another has insinuated that I am just wet behind the ears. Yet another has insinuated that I am uneducated, irrational, and writing in a confused way. And so on. Miss Manners criticizes this kind of behavior, too. (You did not mention this in your reference to her). But when *I* criticize this kind of talk, I am "impugning motives." Hmmm... Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. The "bumping" is not accidental, and it is NOT just bumping.

"Yelling" and "screaming" and "making a scene"? If that is how you describe my being forthright and honest about pointing out the poor rhetorical methods and prejudicial terminology that people are using as part of their "defense" of their position, then I guess we truly are on different wavelengths.

Attitudes have consequences. You did not even indicate at all whether or not you agreed with my point regarding the application of your "led by atheists" statement to such people as Batsell Barrett Baxter, John T. Willis, and so on.

You still leave me wondering why it is considered okay to make such misrepresentative statements, and you leave me wondering in addition why you won't even talk about it.

You have surprised me.

Perhaps I have truly touched the crux of the problem, for which there can be no fundamental agreement between us.

Attitude IS critical to this discussion, despite what you, apparently, think. I do, indeed, believe that genuine truth-seeking dictates that we should take pains to avoid misrepresentation.

Regards,
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)

###### Andy Boshers, 8/19/99 ######
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:23:03 -0400, Todd S. Greene wrote:

> Surely, if people are constantly using
> prejudicial terminology, repeatedly misrepresenting what I write, and
> trying to portray long discredited arguments as being some kind of
> decent criticisms of the information I have presented, why is it
> somehow wrong to point these things out? Why is it right and proper to
> let these things "slide"? I honestly do not understand the approach
> that you are implicitly requesting.

Todd,

Quite often you seem to charge that you are being misrepresented. From my veiwpoint YOU ARE NOT BEING PURPOSEFULLY MISREPRESENTED! You might be misunderstood or disagreed with but people have not joined this list to engage in attacks or to make others with differing viewpoints feel unwelcome.

###### Todd S. Greene, responding ######
Yet that is precisely what many of them do. Not all, or most, agreed. But many.

###### Andy Boshers, 8/19/99 ######
The majority of LURlisters seem to be honest, reasonable people with a love for the truth. All should want to believe the truth, no matter where it leads.

Attempts to restate your position in concise argument form have been done as an attempt to facilitate further discussion. The form of your arguments do not lend themselves to verbatim quoting in response. You write a lot of words. [emphasis added] I only have two eyes.

###### Todd S. Greene, responding ######
Please note:

1.	Some people have asked many questions.

2.	A few have engaged in much misrepresentation.

3.	Some areas of discussion legitimately need more than simple prose (or simple syllogisms) in order to reasonably deal with the details.

This forum is relatively isolated with respect to this topic. If it were to take place in a more "open" discussion forum. I would not be appearing to be so verbose, because, in fact, there would be other people "carrying the load" of discussing additional aspects, clearing up misrepresentations, and so on.

Yes, each of us has only two eyes, and one mind (if we're fortunate).

###### Andy Boshers, 8/19/99 ######
You make a personal defense at length on many occasions. This does not steer the discussion toward the 'evidence' but due to the sheer volume of words tends to drown out any substantive discussion. Perhaps there would be much less perception of antagonistic atmosphere if you did not claim to be antagonized at every turn. You are a guest on this list. I am a guest, too. Miss Manners says a guest should not start yelling and screaming and making a scene if someone accidentally bumps into him at a party.

I've refrained from joining much into the discussion because it has not been focused on the Old Earth Creationism topic. Yes, there is an occasional posting on topic but that has not been the focus. When the thread becomes a bit calmer, I still have some questions to ask to which I would like to hear your response. From others' postings, I get the impression that there is still interest in the topic but not much interest in the recent discussions.

With kind regards,
Andy Boshers

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - "Naturalist" A Common Historical Term
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:44:11 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=309
15

Hi, Dr. Fox.

I AM careful with the words I use. My language was precise, and thus not confusing if you are paying attention to the relevant context and know your history. Why do I need to be any more careful when I am saying precisely what I mean, and meaning precisely what I say? The confusion is wholly on your part in not picking up on my specific use of the word "historical" in my paragraph.

Many Bible-believers were "naturalists" (or vice versa, however you want to say it). My usage is the common one of historians of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. I am specifically referring to people who believed that the Bible is God's Word and who also were interested in and studied nature, people like Robert Hooke, John Woodward, Edmond Halley, Philip Henry Gosse, William Paley, Louis Agassiz, Asa Gray, and many others.

I know you are thinking of "naturalist" in a philosophical context. But that is not the context of what I was referring to or talking about, and I used the common terminology of the historians. There is nothing novel or confusing about it.

You should really be more careful when you throw those personal references at me like that. The key word here is "careful." Please make a note of it.

Regards,
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)

###### Marion R. Fox, 8/19/99 ######
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:23:03 -0400 Todd S. Greene writes:
> (Incidentally, the truth of the matter is that Bible-believing
> naturalists were just as much involved in realizing and advocating
> the old earth as was anyone else. This is a historical fact. Were
> there agnostics and atheists involved? Certainly. But their influence
> among naturalists who believed in the Bible was held with a high
> degree of skepticism, at best, BECAUSE they did not believe in the
> Bible. What influence they had among Bible-believing naturalists - and
> any other Bible-believers who listened - with respect to observations
> of the natural word was hard-won, based on the evidence, BECAUSE the
> Bible-believing naturalists did NOT want to believe those whom they
> considered to be biased against Christianity. Why can't this point be
> acknowledged and taken into account?)

Marion here,

Todd has used the expression "Bible-believing naturalists" in the above post. I wish that he would look at the definition of the word "naturalist" from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition.

naturalist, "one that advocates or practices naturalism"

naturalism, "a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specif: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena"

Todd needs to be more careful of the words he uses. I do not think he meant to claim that a naturalist is "Bible-believing" but he can tell us if that is what he meant. Surely he has used the word "naturalist" in a different manner. His language is not precise, it is confusing. Perhaps Todd can clarify what he meant.

Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: OEC - one SIMPLE question
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:14:50 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=309
16

One simple answer: Yes.

God could have done anything. God could have created everything two days ago in an instant, with all of our (apparent) memories in place and everything else exactly as if there was a "three days ago" even though there wasn't.

This leads directly to a discussion of Philip Gosse's "omphalos" argument.

At a later time...

But the real question is not, how *could* God do it? Because the answers don't tell us anything meaningful. The question is, how *did* God do it? Or, rather, if you take a step back to an epistemological perspective, how can we even investigate how God did it?

That is the discussion I started on June 18th (for this recent thread).

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

###### Bradley Cobb, 8/19/99 ######
to Todd and whoever else wants to answer it:

the earth and everything around it may seem to be umpteen billion years old. I will acknowledge the fact that the earth looks old.

My question is this:

Could God have created the universe (and everything contained therein) in six, literal, 24 hour days; and made them in a full-grown state?

A yes or no answer is requested first, with any explanation why or why not following. If a yes or no answer is not given first and clearly, please do not respond to this.

Brad Cobb

[ TOP ]

Part 6

From:
Subject:
Date:
Archive URL:
Message #:

Todd S. Greene
Re: Ways of creation
Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:06:13 -0400
http://www.onelist.com/messages/LURlist?archive=311
5

Hi, Mickey.

Real quick and short...

Your biblical hermeneutics sounds a lot like Martin Luther's:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

(Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.)

The Bible says that God stops the sun, not the earth, from moving (Joshua 10.12, Job 9.7), and that it is the stars that God moves across the sky (Job 38.31-32). An interpretation based on the simplest, most literal understanding of the text is not automatically the correct one. I have made this point and demonstrated its legitimacy with specific examples (as well as these here). The problem is that "simple," while good in some cases, can become nothing more than "simplistic," and thus inaccurate or downright wrong, in other cases. With regard to truth-seeking, you indeed need to take "complicating" information and conceptual considerations into account if and when they are relevant. To discuss the subject while completely ignoring what have already been shown to be legitimate and relevant considerations that must be taken into account does not bode well for this argument as you, and Kyle, present it.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence...
(Proverbs 12.17a)

The simple believes everything,
but the prudent looks where he is going.
The simple acquire folly,
but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Wisdom abides in the mind of a man of understanding...
(Proverbs 14.15, 18, 33a)

Wisdom is good with an inheritance,
an advantage to those who see the sun.
For the protection of wisdom
   is like the protection of money;
and the advantage of knowledge
   is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.
Consider the work of God;
who can make straight what he has made crooked?
      (Ecclesiastes 7.11-13)

###### Mikell Hukill, 8/20/99 ######
Dear brother Kyle,

I couldn't agree more. GOD SAID, and in six days the creation was complete. To answer Todd's question, of how, there are some things we just don't know, nor do we need to know. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). If God said He created the Earth in six days, then He did. How? By the power of His spoken word and that is all we need to know.

Yours in Christ,
Mickey Hukill

[ TOP ]

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