Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." [1 Timothy 1.7]

Entries:

1. YECs Lie About Moon Recession - 6/7/02
2. YECs Lie About Moon Recession - 6/10/02
3. Moon Recession - 6/10/02
4. Atheist does not lie - 6/10/02
5. Re: Atheist has not lied, Moon Recession - 6/10/02
6. Questions from Marion Fox - 6/11/02
7. Re: Moon Recession - 6/11/02
8. Will Todd play George's Moderator Games? - 6/12/02
9. If there can be some honesty... - 6/13/02
10. Re: If there can be some honesty... - 6/13/02
11. Re: If there can be some honesty... - 6/13/02
12. Re: If there can be some honesty... - 6/13/02
13. Re: Steven E's thought about truth and antiquity - 6/14/02
14. Re: Steven E's thought about truth and antiquity - 6/14/02
15. Re: If there can be some honesty... - 6/14/02
16. CFTF Moderators Ban Critic of their YEC Errors - 6/17/02

[email to Keith Sisman]

To: Keith Sisman
From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/7/02
Subject: YECs Lie About Moon Recession

Dear Keith,

In post #1381 on 6/6/02 on the CFTF list, you wrote:

> The Moon is moving away (recession) from the Earth at a rate that
> would place it so close to the Earth, that the Earth's gravity
> would have fragmented the Moon about 900 million years ago. Now it
> is the atheist, agnostic, and old Earth creationist that has a
> problem with this!
>
> Assuming that the time scales advocated by those atheist fellows
> are correct, and using the mathematics presented by these fellows,
> we know that 65 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth
> at an average height of 29'6". (I worked it out last night on my
> pocket calculator!).

Your statements are wrong. Here are the facts:

Moon recession = 3.6 cm / year
(verified by laser measurement)
[ http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/ScienceIsCulture/questions/moon.html ]

Roche limit for Earth/Moon
= 2.423 * (Earth radius) * [(Earth density) / (Moon density)]
= 2.423 * (6,380 km) * [5.52 / 3.34]
= 25,500 km (or 15,800 miles)

Current distance of moon
= 384,400 km

Rough estimate of moon distance 4 billion years in the past using
flat rate of 3.6 cm / year (I'm calling this a "rough estimate" since
the recession rate will actually have varied somewhat in the past
from its current rate)
= 240,400 km

Now, as a Christian following your own espoused Christian morality,
you could act responsibly and correct the error of your statements in
the CFTF group where you have taught your error. However, I'm quite
confident that as a young earth creationist, you will - contrary to
your own Christian morality - act dishonestly and obstinately refuse
to correct your error.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

P.S.: Should you choose to ignore this private email, I will be
placing it on my website in about two weeks.

[email to Keith Sisman]

To: Keith Sisman
From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/10/02
Subject: YECs Lie About Moon Recession

Hi, Keith.

Clearly, the latter paragraph was part of your little "joke."
However, the first paragraph I quoted, which was

> The Moon is moving away (recession) from the Earth at a rate that
> would place it so close to the Earth, that the Earth's gravity
> would have fragmented the Moon about 900 million years ago. Now it
> is the atheist, agnostic, and old Earth creationist that has a
> problem with this!

is a standard YEC argument. Indeed, this argument is made by none
other than Marion Fox in his infamous book.

If you will be honest and clear about the fact that you know this
moon recession argument to be a false argument (which detailed
information I provided to you in my previous email) that YECs should
not be using (since Christians are supposed to be honest and not use
false arguments), I will be more than happy to refrain from placing
your comments, and my discussion of them, on my website.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

P.S.: Two weeks from my previous email would be June 21, 2002.

P.P.S.: It's fascinating to watch your utter hypocrisy regarding your
own list rules. But please keep tearing into my character. Your
comments against my character reveal much about your own.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1433

From: Keith Sisman
Date: 6/7/02
Subject: Atheist lies...

Brethren,

In the last couple of days I posted to this list a joke about the
demise of the dinosaurs, the tall ones being killed by the Moon
orbiting at a height of 29ft 6".

An atheist list (Todd Greene) promoting evolution has taken that
post. Despite the copyright rules applying to all the posts made by
CFTF list, and further, they are removing the part about the Moon
orbiting at a height of 29ft 6" thus making the post appear genuine.
This is now being placed on the world wide web as evidence of
Christian fundamentalist misuse of science.

Don't ever be taken in by the deceit and lies of the Atheist. Anyone
that can take my post, clearly intended as a joke, edit it, and use
it to promote their perverted cause is sick!

And so is the person who has forwarded it (whom I know, him having
been banned once from the list but sneaked back on again).

This is really what is used to promote evolution - Lies (1 Tim 6:20
Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called).

Kind regards,
Brotherly, Keith.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1441

From: Marion R. Fox
Date: 6/7/02
Subject: RE: Atheist lies...

Marion here,

Only an idiot or a dishonest person would mistake your post for
anything but a joke. Todd Greene is dishonest. He came on the Berean
Spirit List and claimed to be a Christian and debated me (under that
guise with the false name of "Steve Heiden") and one (who has been
banned from this list) kept wanting me to debate Todd on the question
of whether or not the Biblical Flood occurred. Any idiot knows that
many of the proofs for a flood (not all but many) are from the
Scriptures themselves. You cannot use these arguments when you debate
an atheist and I would have been tying one hand behind my back to
debate him. I offered to debate him on the existence of God, but Todd
would not do it.

No, Todd Greene is dishonest just like many other atheists. The one
who took your post and gave it to Todd Greene is also not a
Christian. Perhaps Todd Greene is on the list under an false name.
What do you expect of one who is an atheist? They have no basis for
ethics.

Yours in His service,
Marion R. Fox



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1455

From: Keith Sisman
Date: 6/8/02
Subject: RE: Atheist lies...

Hi Marion,

Todd would love to have us on his list debating these issues. I ask,
what would make any sane person want to join his list? As you point
out, these folk are dishonest which prevents any debate.

Brotherly, Keith S.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1456

From: Keith Sisman
Date: 6/8/02
Subject: RE: Atheist lies...

Hi Nelta,

You are right, these people are so dishonest it is best to have
nothing to do with them. Further, those like Robert who claim to be a
Christian, I ask, does he really deeply and sincerely believe? Does
he really fear the judgement?

Even Todd who is a confirmed atheist I do not understand because of
his lying.

It's weird. These are sick and dishonest people. My post (joke) about
the dinosaurs is being I understand edited to remove any reference to
the dinosaurs, so it appears I am arguing only about the recession of
the Moon, then it is to presented on the w.w.w. with my name on it.
That is nothing more than forgery, theft of copyright, slander,
misrepresentation and libellous.

And these folk claim we are dishonest because we believe in the
Biblical account of creation. What has my (our) faith to do with
them? Are we to ban the Bible for reasons of political correctness?

Brotherly, Keith S.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1537

From: Keith Sisman
Date: 6/10/02
Subject: LIST ETIQUETTE

Good morning listers.

I am putting on my moderators boots this morning. This may be a
first!

This post is a gentle reminder and is not aimed at any particular
person.

The plan for this list is to offer a pleasant venue to exchange
ideas. We expect that on occasions there will be the cut and thrust
associated with folk when they disagree strongly.

But, these exchanges are to be focused on the issues, not on the
personalities.

We respectfully request that personal attacks, how ever much we
disagree with an adversary are not made during these exchanges (or at
other times).

We ask that gentleness and humour is the ideal.

Let's all have a good week.

Kind regards,
Brotherly, Keith.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1558

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/10/02
Subject: Moon Recession

Hi, everyone.

A few days ago one of the list moderators referred to the "moon
recession" argument, which is a standard argument made by young earth
creationists, in a joke that he was making about the extinction of
the dinosaurs. What he has failed to point out is that there were two
components to his discussion. The first was his reference to the
standard YEC argument, as follows:

[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1381 ]
> The Moon is moving away (recession) from the Earth at a rate that
> would place it so close to the Earth, that the Earth's gravity
> would have fragmented the Moon about 900 million years ago. Now it
> is the atheist, agnostic, and old Earth creationist that has a
> problem with this!

The second was his use of this standard YEC argument as part of his
joke regarding the dinosaurs:

> Assuming that the time scales advocated by those atheist fellows
> are correct, and using the mathematics presented by these fellows,
> we know that 65 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth
> at an average height of 29'6". (I worked it out last night on my
> pocket calculator!).

It is clear that the second paragraph (quoted here) here is the joke,
because it does not in fact follow the information that has already
been referenced in the first paragraph (quoted here); 65 millions
years versus 900 million years.

However, it is not the joke that is being criticized. What is being
criticized is the notion that moon recession provides any support of
young earth creationism. (Incidentally, CFTF list member Marion Fox
promotes this "moon recession" argument in his book on the flood.)

Here are the facts:

Moon recession = 3.6 cm / year
(verified by laser measurement)
[ http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/ScienceIsCulture/questions/moon.html ]

Roche limit for Earth/Moon
= 2.423 * (Earth radius) * [(Earth density) / (Moon density)]
= 2.423 * (6,380 km) * [5.52 / 3.34]
= 25,500 km (or 15,800 miles)

(For those who do not know, the "Roche limit" refers to that distance
from the Earth within which "Earth's gravity would have fragmented
the Moon." The Roche limit for the Earth/Moon system is approximately
25,500 kilometers.)

Current distance of moon
= 384,400 km

Rough estimate of moon distance 4 billion years in the past using
flat rate of 3.6 cm / year (I'm calling this a "rough estimate" since
the recession rate will actually have varied somewhat in the past
from its current rate)
= 240,400 km

The responsible thing to do is to simply acknowledge that the "moon
recession" argument for a young earth (young earth/moon system) is a
false argument, and move on. The problem is that young earth
creationists are typically most unwilling to correct such errors, and
choose instead to continue promoting such arguments regardless of the
fact that the errors of such arguments have been shown to them. This
kind of behavior is a very serious problem.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1559

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/10/02
Subject: Atheist does not lie

Dear Raymond,

The truth of the matter is that I have copied no post from the CFTF
list to any other list, nor to my website. What I did was write an
email to the author of post that had the "moon recession" argument in
it to inform him that it was a bad argument. I explained why the
argument was wrong and provided the relevant information to him. I
then informed him that if he ignored the error and did not correct
it, then I would place *a copy of the email I wrote to him* on my
website (since my email explains concisely the error of the "moon
recession" argument). (Incidentally, in my email to him, I directly
quoted his statement about "an average height of 29'6" ".)

Therefore, the claim that I have copied posts from the CFTF list to
elsewhere is wrong. Additionally, the claim that I did not quote the
bit about 29'6" is also wrong.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene


--- In CFTF, Raymond Wiseman wrote:
> Keith, he broke an important rule designed to protect against such
> a thing. Has he been dismissed from the list?
>
> Raymond Wiseman
>
> in charity through Christ.
>
>
> From: Keith Sisman 
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:30 PM
>
> An atheist list (Todd Greene) promoting evolution has taken that
> post. Despite the copyright rules applying to all the posts made
> by CFTF list, and further, they are removing the part about the
> Moon orbiting at a height of 29ft 6" thus making the post appear
> genuine. This is now being placed on the world wide web as
> evidence of Christian fundamentalist misuse of science.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1566

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/10/02
Subject: Re: Atheist has not lied, Moon Recession

Dear Keith,

In post #1564, you wrote:
> You have been here a short while and already we see an argument
> developing.
>
> The fact is this, I posted a humorous post to THIS list. It was
> the business of THIS list, not other lists. The post, as do all
> posts have a copyright notice on it.

Does copyright imply that I can't read something that you've written?
If that is so, then please cite the relevant text of the copyright
law on this to correct my faulty understanding, because it has been
my very certain understanding up until now that copyright has
absolutely no prohibition whatsoever against people reading and
commenting on something that someone else has written, including
quoting relevant portions of what that person has written showing
what is being commented on.

You wrote:
> I have used that particular post on many lists, it is no great
> thing.
>
> The issue is with those who are lurking, who lack any sense of
> humour. The fact we are discussing this is extremely worrying.
>
> 1/ Should Christians not have a sense of humour?
>
> 2/ Should Christians not be allowed to make a joke at the expense
> of the evolutionist?
>
> 3/ It seems that you are saying, that prior to your joining this
> list, that every post should be serious and posted to allow
> arguments.
>
> I am concerned about your concern, that why for you there is an
> issue here about a joke I posted to this list.

The issue is whether or not it is okay for a Christian (or an
atheist) to promote an erroneous argument anywhere at any time.
The "moon recession" argument is an erroneous argument.

In regard to the primary issue: If you believe that it is okay for a
Christian to promote an erroneous argument on the CFTF list, then I
think we do have an argument developing. However, if you believe that
it is wrong for a Christian to promote an erroneous argument on the
CFTF list, then you and I are in agreement (and, lo and behold, a
Christian would be in agreement with an atheist on this matter).

In regard to the secondary issue: Since the "moon recession" argument
that many young earth creationists promote in support of the idea of
a young earth is in fact an erroneous argument, then since you
yourself have written in support of this argument

[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1381 ]

the responsible thing to do would be simply to acknowledge that
the "moon recession" argument for a young earth (young earth/moon
system) is a false argument, and move on. This is a very simple
matter.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1640

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/11/02
Subject: Questions from Marion Fox

Dear Marion Fox,

I'm writing in response to your post here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1591

First, I must point out that you have directly violated one of the
rules of this CFTF list regarding not copying people's posts.
Personally, I am not at all offended, but I'm pointing it out simply
because it seems very inconsistent to me that earlier my character
was being attacked for doing this with CFTF posts (even though it was
not actually me that had done it), and yet now here you are doing it
yourself, contrary to CFTF rules.

You wrote:
> I stated early
> in the debate that the arguments being made by my opponents were
> the same arguments made by atheists. I called them "implicit
> atheists" early in the debate. Steve Heiden vehemently denied my
> claim.

First of all, you referred to everyone who disagreed with you as
either an explicit or implicit atheist. Thus, the working definition
of "implicit atheist" was "anyone who disagrees with Marion Fox about
the flood and antiquity." Indeed, Marion, according to your
definition Alexander Campbell himself was an implicit atheist, so
your definition demonstrated itself to be quite meaningless.

Second, I'm not an implicit atheist, I'm an explicit atheist.

Third, however, in the character of Steve Heiden, based on the
explicit parameters that I had made for this persona, his beliefs and
any discussion and argument he made were made within the context of
believing in God *and* believing in biblical inerrancy *and*
accepting factual characteristics about the real world. This general
perspective is the *same* perspective that was held by such
Christians as Alexander Campbell, J. D. Thomas, and Batsell Barrett
Baxter, and are held today by such Christians as Hill Roberts, Shane
Scott, Tom Couchman, Jack Wood Sears, Donald England, Archie Manis,
and Kenneth Williams. As I pointed out in my post "Toto pulls aside
the curtain" to the BereanSpirit list, I worked very diligently to
maintain my discussion as Steve Heiden in complete consistency with
these parameters that I set out for his character. If in discussing
the relevant issues there is any point in which my discussion as
Steve Heiden is contrary in any substantive way to the positions on
these issues that, say, Alexander Campbell or Jack Wood Sears would
take, then I would very much like to know about it.


You wrote:
> Robert Baty repeatedly wanted me to debate Todd Greene on the
> subject of the question of whether or not the flood of Genesis 6-9
> occurred. I pointed out on this list earlier that some of the
> arguments for a flood are based upon the Scriptures and that it
> would be ludicrous to make these arguments with an atheist (Todd
> Greene being an atheist). I offered to debate Todd on the
> existence of God. Will Todd (an avowed atheist) debate me on the
> existence of God? Only time will tell.

First, you'll have to explain why it is necessary to discuss a far
more complex subject which is irrelevant to a simpler subject of
discussion. You have never done this. Example: Does the statue of
Matthew Maury on the Memorial boulevard have a Bible in his hand
(either hand)? This is a factual matter. It is completely irrelevant
to the matter as to whether or not God exists. (In fact, that
particular Maury statue is not holding a Bible in either hand,
despite many claims to the contrary!)

Does the Kuiper Belt exist? This is an empirical matter. Whether or
not God exists is completely irrelevant to this question.

Did the supernova SN1987A explode approximately 168,000 years ago?
This is an empirical matter. Whether or not God exist is not going to
change the empirical facts that are relevant to this matter.

Does the Moon's recession from the earth indicate that the Earth/Moon
system can't have existed longer than about 6,000 years? This is an
empirical matter. The existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant
to the relevant facts about this.

Have the remains of the Panther Mountain crater in the state of New
York experience erosion that *must* have taken place over a greater
period of time than just 6,000 years? This is an empirical matter.
The existence or nonexistence of God is not going to change the
detailed information from objective examination of the geological
feature of the Panther Mountain area.

Second, just a few weeks ago I participated in a discussion on the
existence of God in my "creationism" discussion forum. You have been
expressly invited to join that discussion forum at least twice by me,
starting in late 1999, and I believe you have received a few
invitations from others to join the group since that time, and you
are still welcome to join that group for discussion. Where were you
when we were having that discussion on the existence of God? (In the
mid-1980s I had a rather lengthy discussion on the existence of God
with John Clayton, and perhaps I'll put that up on my website soon.)

Third, I will indeed discuss the subject of the existence of God with
you. At the same time I want it to be very clear to everyone that
engaging in debate maneuvering seems to be a common technique used by
young earth creationists when they are attempting to draw attention
away from the fact that they have completely failed to address direct
issues that have been pointed out to them that demonstrate the
erroneous nature of their arguments. They wish to continue promoting
their erroneous arguments, while ignoring the distinct errors that
have been pointed out to them, and one way to do this is to refuse to
answer the direct questions that have been put to them while bringing
up additional issues that happen to be completely irrelevant to the
erroneous arguments that have been brought up to them.


You wrote:
> I now ask Todd Greene a question. Who is the liar here? Is Al
> Maxey a liar for saying that you lied in claiming you were a man
> named "Steve Heiden" (cf. the post I just quoted) or are you a liar
> for falsely claiming you were someone else and falsely claiming to
> be a Christian?

I very much deceived you, and everyone else (including especially
Robert Baty, who was on to me very early on due to his familiarity
with my writing), about who I really was. I did not deceive you about
the issues and the relevant details that I discussed. I already
explained this very carefully in my "Toto pulls aside the curtain"
post to BereanSpirit about it, but you have chosen to ignore the
explanation that I already gave. You are trying to pretend that they
are one and the same thing, when in fact they are not. You prove my
latter point by, for example, ignoring the fact that the "moon
recession" argument made by YECs (and made by you in your book) is an
erroneous argument. Even though the error of this argument has been
explicitly pointed out to you, you will ignore it and continue to
espouse this false argument.


> Todd, did Al Maxey know you were, in fact, Todd Greene and not
> Steve Heiden in January?

I already answered this question quite explicitly in my "Toto pulls
aside the curtain" post to BereanSpirit.


> There is no reason for Todd to conduct himself in an ethical manner
> because atheism has no objective standard of ethics. Dawkins
> states: In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind
> physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to
> get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find
> any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we
> observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is,
> at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
> pitiless indifference. (page 85)
>
> Dawkins, Richard. "God's utility function." Scientific American.
> Vol. 273 # 5, November 1995, pages 80-85.

Here we go again with the red herring of anti-atheistic prejudicial
rhetoric. You attempt to slander me as being unethical because I'm an
atheist. (Let the moderators be clear about your attack against my
character with your statement quoted above.) We demonstrate our
ethics and our integrity by what we actually do, Marion, and not by
what we may preach. The "moon recession" argument is erroneous. Are
you honest enough to acknowledge this fact? In fact, I'm still
waiting for you to acknowledge the fact that astronomers have
empirically verified the existence of the Kuiper Belt, which prior to
1992 was their hypothesized explanation for short-period comets. I
explained this to you in 1999 on the LUR list. Instead of
acknowledging the truth about this, you chose to deny the truth at
that time, and you attacked me for daring to criticize your erroneous
statements about that matter.

Please tell me, which do you think is worse, the atheist who acts
with integrity without having any theistic reason for it, or the
theist who behaves without integrity contrary to his own Christian
morality?


> Todd, will you debate me on the existence of God? If not, then why
> not?

If you are genuinely interested in doing so, I will certainly discuss
this subject, as I have done many times before. However, as I've
already pointed out to many people, I will be on discussion
"vacation" this summer.

But the very specific and simple issue that is before us, and the
only issue related to which I came to the CFTF list in the first
place (when my character was being dragged through the mud about
having commented on the issue), is the "moon recession" issue and
whether or not there is a single Christian on the CFTF list (other
than Al Maxey, of course!) who has the integrity and the courage to
publicly acknowledge that this "moon recession" argument is an
erroneous argument for young earth creationism.

I have discussed relevant aspects of this issue in these CFTF posts:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1558
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1566

In post #1566 I pointed out that the primary issue is whether or not
you believe that it is okay for a Christian to promote an erroneous
argument. In post #1605 Keith Sisman has already implied that he
thinks it is okay for a Christian to promote an erroneous argument.
How about you, Marion? Do you agree with Keith's position on this?

I also pointed out that the secondary issue is this: Since the "moon
recession" argument that many young earth creationists promote in
support of the idea of a young earth is in fact an erroneous
argument, the responsible thing to do would be simply to acknowledge
that the "moon recession" argument for a young earth (young
earth/moon system) is a false argument, and move on.

Now, let's be clear about this. To "move on" does not mean to ignore
the fact that the argument is erroneous. To "move on" from the
argument means to acknowledge that it is in error and to cease
promoting the erroneous argument (just as in the same manner acting
with integrity would have meant to acknowledge that it was incorrect
to have denied the fact that the existence of the Kuiper Belt has
been empirically verified).

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1646

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/11/02
Subject: Re: Moon Recession

Dear Keith Sisman,

In post #1605, you wrote:

> Rather than going round in circles, the truth is that you are an
> atheist. You found my original post objectionable, despite it being
> a joke on this Christian list.
>
> We are not going to find agreement over my post, so let us move
> on. Will you debate Marion Fox over the existence of God? This
> after all is the real issue and why you are here.

If it really, really was all just a joke, Keith, then you should have
no trouble at all answering this very simple question:

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

I shall look forward to your straight answer in the affirmative to
this question, since as you yourself state you were merely using it
as a joke. Contrary to your incorrect statement, I remind you and
everyone else that this specific issue is what prompted me to come to
this CFTF list in the first place, because my character was being
dragged through the mud for daring to criticize the "moon recession"
argument. I reference my first three posts to the CFTF list (after my
personal introduction):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1558
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1559
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1566

If you do in fact agree with me that the "moon recession" argument is
a bad argument, then why are you leading us on this merry chase?
Surely we can expect your straight answer to my very straight
question.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1678

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/12/02
Subject: Will Todd play George's Moderator Games?

Hi, George.

It is *NOT* why I am here, and in making this statement you have
either stated an obvious error by completely ignoring every single
post I've ever made in this group (other than my personal
introduction) or you have intentionally lied.

Your post is extremely offensive. I've been down this road many times
before, and I'm not stupid, so I know exactly how your kind of
moderator operates. You have rules which you enforce against people
whom you seriously disagree with (like me) in an extremely lopsided
fashion, using them in a manner by which you choose to dictate
discussion (while at the same time you guys break your own rules at
will). I have been on this list only a few days. I have been asking a
single question on a single issue, that I started with in my very
first post (after my personal introduction), a question that is a
very simple question and a very straight question, and yet you
completely ignore this issue and then you have the utter gall to
write the hypocritical post that you have written here. It is your
attitude that demonstrates so clearly what is wrong with people like
you, and in this you people show exactly why the Church of Christ is
dying and why it will continue to die and why it should die, because
of your prevalent attitude of sheer obstinacy against admitting your
own obvious human errors.

Here again is the simple, straight question that you and your cohorts
have purposely chosen to ignore, even while you engage in your
hypocrisy about preaching that it is sinful to knowingly espouse
error:

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

Keith, another moderator, has the gall to say that *I* am the one
pontificating, even while he obstinately refuses to address the very
simple, straight question that has been asked of him, and you guys
even have the gall to pretend that I have not responded to Marion's
proposal even though I already have.

I have already explicitly stated that I will discuss the subject of
the existence of God with Marion Fox, or with anyone else for that
matter, later this year, either in this CFTF group or elsewhere. If
Marion chooses to not discuss this subject with me, that is his
choice, not mine. Please ignore what I have explicitly stated and
then intentionally lie about it. Why not George? It's only standard
practice for people like you.

I was willing to grant you guys respect, and I have done so up until
this most offensive post of yours, in which you demonstrate that you
don't deserve such respect. I will not have you wasting my time by
playing your silly, hypocritical moderator games. As owner of
the "creationism" group, I have NEVER banned a single person from the
group and I have NEVER sought to manage or dictate people's
discussions, despite all manner of criticisms made against me in
discussion by discussion participants.

So let me spare you the trouble, George. Besides, Keith Sisman has
already demonstrated very, very clearly that he has absolutely no
intention whatsoever about acknowledging the fact that he does indeed
espouse the "moon recession" argument even though it is an erroneous
argument.

Watch my dust, or don't.

Most sincerely,
Todd S. Greene



--- In CFTF, George Jackson wrote (post #1666):
> Keith Sisman (Moderator) writes:
>
> < are here. No pontificating please, can we move this forwards.>>
>
> I ask that no one responds to any post of Mr. Todd Greene until he
> responds to Marion Fox's petition for the debate as written down
> in Marion's post.
>
> As Keith has said: "It is why you (Todd) are here."
>
> Thanks
> George Jackson
> Moderator



--- In CFTF, Keith Sisman wrote (post #1653):
> Dear Todd,
>
> As it has been pointed out to you many times, my post on the
> demise of the dinosaurs, made to this list was posted in jest.
>
> If it has offended you then I am sorry for you. It was not
> intended to offend other people on other lists.
>
> If you would like to debate the Moon Recession argument, then
> Marion Fox has offered to debate you on this list, and has
> allowed for a discussion of the age of the Earth, which as you
> know, covers any points you may wish to explore regarding Moon
> recession.
>
> Therefore you are not being precluded from any discussion.
>
> Marion has made a fair offer... Will you say yea or nay?
>
> Kind regards, Keith S.



--- In CFTF, Keith Sisman wrote (post #1654):
> Keith Sisman to Marion Fox and Todd Greene (and list).
>
> Todd, please can you give a yes or no to Marion... It is why you
> are here. No pontificating please, can we move this forwards.
>
> Sincerely, Keith Sisman.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1716

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/13/02
Subject: If there can be some honesty...

Dear Keith Sisman,

Earlier, CFTF moderator George Jackson wrote (post #1666):
> Keith Sisman (Moderator) writes:
>
> < you are here. No pontificating please, can we move this
> forwards.>>
>
> I ask that no one responds to any post of Mr. Todd Greene until
> he responds to Marion Fox's petition for the debate as written
> down in Marion's post.
>
> As Keith has said: "It is why you (Todd) are here."
>
> Thanks
> George Jackson
> Moderator

Now, Keith, in post #1704 you write:
> Hello Marion and list.
>
> Todd is welcome to return to the list, he voluntarily removed
> himself, he is not banned.
>
> What he will be opposed in doing is restricting his arguments to
> single subjects such as 'Moon Recession', where he may well be
> right (or wrong), then claiming he has won the war, whereas in
> reality he has made a point of no great importance.
>
> The evidence for or against God is not limited to the recession
> of the Moon.
>
> If he wishes to get into such issues, he will be asked and be
> expected to debate properly, in that respect the list moderators
> stand firmly with Marion and will offer every help and assistance
> for such a debate.
>
> Brotherly, Keith Sisman.

I appreciate your disagreement with George on this. Again, George, as
CFTF moderator, explicitly told everyone to not respond that any of
my posts until I responded to Marion Fox. In doing this, George had
purposely ignored the fact that I had already responded to Marion
Fox, and George was also behaving in an entirely hypocritical fashion
in expecting me to be responsive (while he was ignoring the fact that
I already had been) despite the fact that you and Marion in
particular have been totally unresponsive to the primary issue that
I've asked you about with all of my posts to you since my first post
to this list.

Now, I've already stated this a number of times, and I don't know how
many times I'm going to have to state it again until it gets through
people's heads (and Raymond Wiseman, in light of your post #1703, it
looks like you have been ignoring my statements too): I will discuss
the subject of the existence of God with Marion Fox, or with anyone
else for that matter, later this year, either in this CFTF group or
elsewhere. If Marion chooses to not discuss this subject with me,
that is his choice, not mine.

While I may or may not agree to these various restrictions that
Marion seems desirous of placing on such a discussion, it will be
Marion's choice to refrain from engaging in the discussion of this
subject with me. One agreement I will make is to set up the
discussion online in a Yahoo Group set up for the sole purpose of the
discussion, and I know of at least two ways that I can set the group
up so that no one except Marion and I can post to the group. (I can
set it up so that anyone can join the group - i.e., subscribe to the
group - in which case they would receive the posts in their email as
they were made, but Marion and I would be the only two members who
could make posts to the group. Alternatively, I could simply prevent
anyone other than Marion and I from subscribing to the group.)
However, I would insist that the posts archive would remain public to
members and non-members alike.

I am extremely hesitant to accept other kinds of limitation of
discussion. While I fully agree that such restrictions are great from
an administrative perspective, I have found arbitrary size
limitations to be detrimental to digging into the details of issues,
not beneficial.

In regard to publication and money, I would definitely NOT agree to
receiving no royalties on the odd chance that this discussion were to
be published AND SOLD. However, the sole exception that I would make
to this is if what was charged for the material was solely to cover
printing/mailing expenses. I would further insist that I have "veto"
power against final publication. I say this for the purpose of having
inspection and approval rights in the event of statements that may be
added to any such publication other than what Marion and I wrote as
part of the discussion. I am, of course, not referring to incidental
grammatical corrections (such as correcting a written word "person"
to "personal" when the word was supposed to be "personal").


Now, Keith, I will address your comments specifically and in detail...

You wrote:
> What he will be opposed in doing is restricting his arguments to
> single subjects such as 'Moon Recession', where he may well be
> right (or wrong), then claiming he has won the war, whereas in
> reality he has made a point of no great importance.

I have never attempted to restrict my arguments to a single subject.
Expecting you to respond to the question is NOT "restricting my
arguments to a single subject" and you are in error to describe this
as such. Here is that question again, which I asked you from the very
beginning of my posts to the CFTF list, and which you, Raymond, Ryan,
Marion, and George have completely and purposely ignored:

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

And where have I stated anything at all regarding the fact that
the "moon recession" argument is a bad YEC argument would be
tantamount to "winning the war"? When you write this, Keith, you have
misrepresented my discussion.

Is the fact that the "moon recession" argument is a bad YEC argument
really "a point of no great importance"? If you really believed this,
Keith, then why have you so diligently ignored this question that
I've been directly asking you beginning with my very first post to
you? If the issue is "of no great importance," then why do you work
so purposely and hard to ignore the question?

In fact, I happen to agree with the idea that the issue is of no
great importance. This is like someone dividing 456 by 8 and
accidentally writing down 75. Then when someone points out their
error (they transposed the numbers), they just go, "Oh, yeah, you're
right, 75 is wrong, it's really supposed to be 57," and then everyone
moves on. What you guys have demonstrated to everyone right here on
the CFTF list is that you have become so personally invested in your
own promotion of these erroneous ideas that are used in support of
the doctrine of young earth creationism, that you cannot bear to
acknowledge that they are in error. It is the truth that the issue is
not of any great importance to most people. It is also the truth that
the issue of "moon recession" has become of great importance to young
earth creationists who promote their erroneous argument about it.


You wrote:
> The evidence for or against God is not limited to the recession
> of the Moon.

The recession of the moon has no relevance whatsoever to the subject
of the existence of God. I never stated that it did, and I would
never have stated that it did. In my opinion that's an obviously
stupid idea.


You wrote:
> If he wishes to get into such issues, he will be asked and be
> expected to debate properly....

If you moderators are going to be as hypocritically lopsided as you
have been so far about this, then we aren't going to get anywhere.
Look at all the posts and discussion that has gone on, and all
because every single one of you has intentionally ignored the
question that I have asked you from my first post (after my personal
introduction):

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

I did not bring up this issue, Keith. You did. Why is it so difficult
for you to answer this simple, straight question? If you refuse to
answer this question which has been asked of you about the argument
that you yourself affirmed, then why can't you just be honest about
this and be explicit about you refusing to answer the question? Just
tell us, straight out, "Todd, I refuse to answer this question."

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

P.S.: I would very much appreciate it if George Jackson would not
address me in any way, shape, or form. The sheer deceit, hypocrisy,
and dictatorial nature of his post #1666 is totally insulting and
offensive. Unless George can remove this pervasive deceit and
hypocrisy from posts addressing me or addressing what I discuss, I
forthrightly tell you right now that I will ignore anything he says.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1727

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/13/02
Subject: Re: If there can be some honesty...

Hi, Raymond Wiseman.

In post #1720 you wrote:
> Todd, you act very arrogantly in spite of the fact you will not
> defend your faith when and where the call comes to you.
> Incidentally I responded with my post as I read. And sent my post
> in reply. There is nothing to be gotten through my head. Had I
> read all emails before posting, something I don't do, nor have I
> been asked to do by the list rules. I have not ignored any of
> your statements. In addition, it is my understanding that Marion
> chooses to debate with you now. If any is shurking a
> responsibility to listen, it seems to me it is you. I choose to
> defend my faith immediate and am ready and willing to give an
> answer to any man when he asks me of the hope I have in Christ. I
> can understand a lack of interest in defending a faith in which
> there is no hope.
>
> Rest assured Todd, I have not ignored you. How can any Christian
> ignore a man in need of salvation of his soul? You live damned to
> hell in your condition. Only the fool has said in his heart there
> is no God.

Who on this list has addressed this issue, answered this question,
that I have asked a number of times, beginning with my first post to
this list (after the personal introduction post):

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

No one has addressed this. Not one single person. Every single one of
you has, as you yourself put it Raymond, acted very arrogantly in
obstinately refusing to address this question *AND* in obstinately
ignoring the fact that all of you has refused to address it.

I have explicitly told you that I have discussed the subject of the
existence of God in the past, that I have discussed the subject of
the existence of God in the recent past (just a few weeks ago on my
own "creationism" list), and that I will again discuss this subject
in the future. I have also explicitly explained to you that my
involvement in a *detailed* discussion of this subject, which is very
time-consuming, is not convenient for me at the present time (and I
have even explained to you why this is so), but at the same time I
have told you explicitly that I am willing to engage in a detailed
discussion of this in October. Yes, you have indeed purposely chosen
to ignore my statements on this. Again, how many more times am I
going to have to state these things to you and others before you will
take it upon yourselves to understand common English?

The other fact is that relative to the subject of the existence of
God, which is a complex issue that theologians and agnostics and
atheists have been discussing for millennia, the issue regarding the
moon's recession is a simple and straightforward one. And yet you and
everyone else has purposely chosen to ignore it. Every post that you
guys make to this list to address me has been made ignoring this
question that I have asked again and again. Yet you yourself
demonstrate the audacity to preach to me about "shurking a
responsibility." You attempt to chastise me for delaying a
substantial investment of my time for a detailed discussion of a
complex subject to a time more convenient to me, while at the same
time you (hypocritically) say nothing at all about the fact that all
of you seem to find it absolutely impossible to answer my simple and
direct Yes or No question.

Why can't there be some honesty from you guys about this?

Finally, and by the way, since there is no hell (nor heaven), why is
the mythical religious belief of "damned to hell" supposed to be of
any concern to me? You and I both might as well quake in our shoes
for failing to get closer to Nirvana, or, say, for possibly ending up
in Patala [ http://www.ramakrishna.org/message17.htm ]. Are you
worried about Patala, Raymond? I didn't think so.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene



--- In CFTF, Raymond Wiseman wrote (post #1720):
[snip]
> Todd Greene wrote:
>> Now, I've already stated this a number of times, and I don't know
>> how many times I'm going to have to state it again until it gets
>> through people's heads (and Raymond Wiseman, in light of your post
>> #1703, it looks like you have been ignoring my statements too): I
>> will discuss the subject of the existence of God with Marion Fox,
>> or with anyone else for that matter, later this year, either in
>> this CFTF group or elsewhere. If Marion chooses to not discuss
>> this subject with me, that is his choice, not mine.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1735

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/13/02
Subject: Re: If there can be some honesty...

Hi, Steven.

Over the years I have received compliments from many people for
actually taking the time to even discuss details of the issues with
young earth creationists, for having the sheer patience to discuss
things with you at length, despite meeting a great deal of sheer
obstinacy and having most of what I state willfully ignored, and
having to repeat myself a zillion times before anyone begins to grab
a clue as to what I have actually written.

I am beginning to wonder if you guys are able to read. Surely you are
honest and are not making the false claim that I did not respond to
this specific point. Surely you "honest" men have just not seen my
post of this morning. I have pretty good evidence that you can read,
so that must not be the problem. Since you can read, you must have
missed my post.

Go back and read my post #1716. Here is what I wrote:

** The recession of the moon has no relevance whatsoever to the
** subject of the existence of God. I never stated that it did,
** and I would never have stated that it did. In my opinion that's
** an obviously stupid idea [that it is relevant to the subject of
** the existence of God].

Steven, the recession of the moon is NOT relevant to the subject of
whether or not God exists.

Steven, I NEVER claimed that it was, and moreover I would criticize
any such claim as being wrong because it is wrong.

Indeed, every astronomer on the planet who believes in the biblical
God and who believes that Jesus is the Son of God knows that this
moon recession argument used by young earth creationists is a bad
argument. So why would I even be interested in promoting the (silly)
idea that the truth about moon recession somehow has some kind of
connection with showing that God doesn't exist? This whole notion is
absurd and no one should be pretending that I would ever support the
idea.

Please don't make me repeat myself 56 more times on this.

Incidentally, Steven, why didn't YOU answer this question?

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument? ***

And THEN you can start asking yourself why in almost 3 years Marion
Fox has still obstinately refused to acknowledge to me that he was
wrong for attacking me for daring to criticize his short-term comet
argument when I pointed out the simple fact that the Kuiper Belt has
been empirically verified since 1992. Marion denied this fact in
public discussion on this, and despite my having asked him a number
of times to correct his error on this he has absolutely refused to
correct his error.

By the way, take a look at what Marion wrote on 2/2/02
[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/45738 ]:

> A person who thinks the Earth is old (4.5 billion years) and a
> person who thinks that God created by means of organic
> macroevolution...might be lost if they were given evidence that
> they were wrong and were dishonest with the evidence. They would
> be lost because of their dishonesty.

Marion was dishonest with the evidence about the Kuiper Belt in his
discussion with me on the LUR list in 1999 and to this day he has
obstinately refused to correct his dishonesty about this, and in
recent days he has demonstrated his dishonesty with the evidence
about moon recession to us by his willfully ignoring the fact that
the error of this argument has been explicitly explained to him. Now,
according to Marion's own words, he is lost because of his own
dishonesty.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene



--- In CFTF, Steven Estes wrote (post #1729):
> Will someone answer Todd's question about the moon recession before
> he blows a gasket lol? Like I said before IF the moon recession
> theory is false, I guess that will prove that God does not exist.
> If this theory is false I think I will just toss the ol' King James
> in the dumpster because THAT will settle it!. My whole faith is
> based on the moon recession theory Todd, destroy that and I just
> dont know where I will put my faith. In Christ, Steven Estes

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1739

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/13/02
Subject: Re: If there can be some honesty...

Hi, Steven.

Please know that I thank you both for acknowledging the fact that I
have asked this simple direct question *and* for actually addressing
it directly.

Should you care to look, I discussed some details relevant to this
moon recession argument here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1558

That fact is that the average distance of the moon from the earth is
gradually increasing over time (moon recession = moon *receding* from
the earth). The popular YEC argument is that the moon cannot have
receded from the earth for anything like 4 billion years and that
this is thus a piece of evidence that contradicts the idea of the
antiquity of the Earth/Moon system. To be honest with you, Steven,
personally I have never understood why YECs thought this was a good
YEC argument since it doesn't even come close to substantiating the
idea that the Earth/Moon system could not have existed more than
about 6,000 years ago. (Indeed, in a 6,000 year timeframe, the
recession rate of the moon from the Roche limit [which is about
25,500 kilometers] would have to be about 60 kilometers a year! Quite
obviously, this is not the case!)

Indeed, the most the argument could every really show, *even if it
was correct* as Keith Sisman cited it, was that the moon was captured
by the Earth several hundred million years ago rather than the
Earth/Moon system having come about together approximately 4-1/2
billion years ago. In other words, even if the moon recession issue
as young earth creationists have presented it was correct, it still
would not provide any evidence of a 6,000-year-old system.

However, the YEC presentation of the moon recession issue happens to
be wrong, as I carefully explain in my post #1558.

And, yet again for the record, I do *not* think or advocate, even for
a second, that the fact that this YEC argument is wrong has anything
whatsoever to do with supporting either the idea that God exists or
the idea that God does not exist.

Thanks,
Todd S. Greene



--- In CFTF, Steven Estes wrote (post #1737):
> Todd, I can't speak for Marion or anyone else on this list. I will
> answer your question though. IF the moon recession argument can be
> proven false (I dont even have any idea what it is myself, and
> really don't care) then YES people should stop using it for an
> argument for a young earth, absolutely. As for my reading ability,
> I would say it is probably somewhere in the second to third grade
> range, which is just about the right reading level to read what
> you write. In Christ, Steven Estes

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1815

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/14/02
Subject: Re: Steven E's thought about truth and antiquity

Hi, Steven Estes.

In post #1784 you wrote:

> Hi Nelta, I was just thinking, suppose there is a fairly new
> Christian that belongs to the list and they read all these supposed
> scientific facts about the earth being millions of years old and
> they believe it?

Please tell me, what would be wrong with believing something true
about the real world?

Before objective investigation of the real world proved otherwise,
Bible believers believed and taught as a matter that was taken quite
for granted that Earth was the center of the universe and that the
sun revolved about the earth. After a great deal of work (remember,
this was in the very early days of the telescope), astronomers
("philosophers," in the terminology of the day) realized the
unequivocal truth that the earth did in fact move (contrary to
Scripture) and it moved in orbit about the sun, rather than the other
way around.

Are you claiming that objective examination of the real world itself
is supposed to be ignored in order to cling to a belief that has been
falsified by such objective examination?

Are you claiming that even if it is the truth that the world has
existed far, far longer than just 6,000 years, that we should reject
the truth?

> This is a
> Christian list, a list for people that at least believe there is a
> God, it seems to me Todd and Christophers sole purpose for being
> here is to try to convince someone that the Bible is wrong (and if
> the Bible is wrong about creation and the age of the earth, we
> cannot trust it in other areas). Again, what is their point of
> being here? I do not dislike them personally, in fact Todd seems to
> be a real gentleman, but I hate what they uphold and are trying
> to get others to believe. In Christ, Steven Estes

By the way, thank you.

Please go right ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not
believe I have specifically discussed the Bible at all on this list,
nor have I discussed anything about the implications that the
antiquity of the world has with respect to biblical hermeneutics.
When have I even once argued that the Bible is wrong? I have
previously been explicit with you that the fallacy of the YEC moon
recession argument (or, say, the fallacy of YEC short-period comet
argument) has nothing to do with the subject of the existence of God.
I will add here that, of course, they have nothing to do with the
subject of biblical inerrancy either. Where does the Bible teach
about the moon's recession? Where does the Bible teach about short-
period comets? We all know that the Bible teaches nothing at all
about these issues. These are merely some speculations that have been
promoted by mere human beings, and they are empirically falsified
speculations at that.

Please pardon me for saying it, but I do believe that since you know
that I'm an atheist you are letting your prejudice against atheism in
general (pre-jud-ice, subjective feelings based on prejudgment) get
ahead of you, before you genuinely consider what it is I even happen
to actually state. How do you know what I uphold? How do you know
what I'm trying to get others to believe? So far, all you really know
is that I have strongly criticized some for promoting the erroneous
argument that the moon's recession somehow supports the idea that the
Earth/Moon system could not have existed more than about 6,000 years
ago. These other things you have attributed to me is based on your
own assumptions about me that you yourself have appended to what I
have actually argued.

In fact, Steven, from back in March of this year, when we were having
some discussion about God and the existence of God in
the "creationism" group, here are some comments between Jim Taylor
and me:

I wrote (creationism/post #4695):
>>> This is why I rarely discussion atheism, per se.
>>>
>>> When I discuss aspects of creationism, I am particular interested
>>> in strongly arguing what I think is a correct characterization of
>>> the way the world is. (The universe really has been in existence
>>> for longer than 6,000 years. Jupiter really does have moons. The
>>> sun really does have sunspots. There really are planets in our
>>> solar system farther than Saturn. The Kuiper Belt really has been
>>> empirically verified.) In regard to their error in denying the
>>> antiquity of the world, young earth creationists are badly wrong.

Jim Taylor replied (creationism/post #4714):
>> I agree, and I think I already see your point. You are not at all
>> invested in converting people to atheism; you are interested in
>> defending and promoting honest science.

I replied (creationism/post #4739):
> Exactly. You've got my number!

And, just so you know, here is the rest of what I wrote to Jim Taylor
in that #4695 post:

>>> But when it comes to arguing for or against atheism itself, I
>>> tend to feel ambivalent on this. I'm not particularly interested
>>> in persuading anyone who is a theist to abandon their theism. If
>>> God gives a person an effective psychological framework, then
>>> even though I think it's unnecessary and a waste of time, I also
>>> say go for it. (I think perhaps I differ with someone like
>>> Richard Dawkins - whom I admire very much, by the way - about
>>> this. Dawkins might say, and I think he has, that religion is a
>>> bad set of memes. I disagree. I only say that it *can* be but is
>>> not necessarily so. Of course, when you start claiming that your
>>> God tells you to start killing the infidels, and you start doing
>>> it, be aware that I'm conservative enough to very strongly
>>> support that we bomb you into oblivion!) This may have
>>> something to do with the fact that I grew up in the Church of
>>> Christ, and my father was a preacher (retired now). I believe
>>> that I do understand "where people are coming from" with respect
>>> to their religious belief, even while I view it as having no
>>> objective foundation.

Finally, my point in being here, the initial event that prompted my
drawing my attention to this list, was to see if Keith Sisman would
acknowledge the fact that with his statement of the moon recession
argument he was promoting error. I sent him two emails about this,
and then I posted to this CFTF list. I explained exactly what the
error was. I'm still waiting for his acknowledgement of the error. He
can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the date I gave him was
June 21st, which is one more week. Of course, since I've shown up,
some of the discussion has obviously evolved in directions unforeseen
by me.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

••• post to CFTF list that CFTF moderators dumped •••

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/14/02
Subject: Re: Steven E's thought about truth and antiquity

Dear Steven Estes,

This is an interesting path of discussion. (And, Marion, I very much
hope you are observing this, because I have in fact noted that Steven
has made statements that directly contradict specific statements that
you have made on this same subject. Should it become relevant, I will
dig these statements out of my personal archive files.)

I wrote (post #1815):
>> Please tell me, what would be wrong with believing something true
>> about the real world?

You replied (post #1816):
> Because it is NOT TRUE, it is a LIE!

Obviously, if it isn't true, then it can't be something true about
the real world, then, can it? We are in completely agreement about
this. But that is not what I asked. The question I asked is, what
would be wrong with believing something that IS true about the real
world?


I wrote:
>> Before objective investigation of the real world proved
>> otherwise, Bible believers believed and taught as a matter that
>> was taken quite for granted that Earth was the center of the
>> universe and that the sun revolved about the earth. After a great
>> deal of work (remember, this was in the very early days of the
>> telescope), astronomers ("philosophers," in the terminology of
>> the day) realize the unequivocal truth that the earth did in fact
>> move (contrary to Scripture) and it moved in orbit about the sun,
>> rather than the other way around.

You replied:
> What is your point? The earth is somewhere between 6-8 thousand
> years old.

Please cite the verse in the Bible that says, "The earth is somewhere
between 6-8 thousand years old." (Perhaps that's in Zedekiah chapter
13, again? Just kidding!) This number is a figure that is derived by
fallible human beings based on a fallible human interpretation of the
Bible. I don't think you believe that the fallible human
interpretation of Scripture are equivalent to Scripture. Indeed,
isn't this a hard core principle taught in the Church of Christ? Yes,
it is. I know, because I was a member of the Church of Christ.

By the way, where does the Bible teach that the earth orbits the sun?
How do we know this truth about the real world that the earth orbits
the sun?


I wrote:
>> Are you claiming that objective examination of the real world
>> itself is supposed to be ignored in order to cling to a belief
>> that has been falsified by such objective examination?

You replied:
> Nothing has been falsified, just because you claim it has? YES,
> what you said is EXACTLY what I am saying, IF it contradicts the
> Bible it is WRONG~! period.

I agree with you completely that if my claim is not based on relevant
information acquired from objective examination of the real world
itself, then my claim is absolutely meaningless. I would never claim
otherwise. That is not what I was referring to.

First, I am asking you if you think that it is honest and right for a
person to cling to a belief that he or she possesses that has been
falsified by objective examination of the real world? To apply this
general question to a specific case: Do you think it would be honest
and right for a person to cling to the belief that the sun orbits the
earth if this belief was falsified by objective examination of the
real world?

Second, in response to your statement in application of this question
to the Bible in particular, do you think it is possible for human
beings to misinterpret the Bible? And, do you think it is possible
for human beings to possess beliefs about features and
characteristics of the real world that are based on
misinterpretations of the Bible but which happen to be false compared
to objective examination of the real world itself?


I wrote:
>> Are you claiming that even if it is the truth that the world has
>> existed far, far longer than just 6,000 years, that we should
>> reject the truth?

You replied:
> There is no truth to reject! The earth is young.

Again, you have misinterpreted my question. Please note the word "if"
that is in it. Here is my question again: IF it is the truth that the
world is ancient, would it be honest and right to reject this truth?


I wrote:
>> I do not
>> believe I have specifically discussed the Bible at all on this
>> list, nor have I discussed anything about the implications that
>> the antiquity of the world has with respect to biblical
>> hermeneutics. When have I even once argued that the Bible is
>> wrong? I have previously been explicit with you that the fallacy
>> of the YEC moon recession argument (or, say, the fallacy of YEC
>> short-period comet argument) has nothing to do with the subject
>> of the existence of God. I will add here that, of course, they
>> have nothing to do with the subject of biblical inerrancy either.
>> Where does the Bible teach about the moon's recession? Where does
>> the Bible teach about short-period comets? We all know that the
>> Bible teaches nothing at all about these issues. These are merely
>> some speculations that have been promoted by mere human beings,
>> and they are empirically falsified speculations at that.

You replied:
> Todd, when you say the earth is millions of years old you are, by
> implication, saying the Bible is wrong.

Now, in fact Steven, there are millions of people who have faith in
God, who have faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who believe in
the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, *and* who *also* say that the
Bible does NOT teach that the earth is 6-8 thousand years old, and
who also accept the empirical fact that the universe and the earth
have existed far longer than just 6 to 8 thousand years. Alexander
Campbell, by the way, was one of them. Some Christians today, such as
Hill Roberts or Tom Couchman or Jack Wood Sears, are further
real-life examples of this fact.

*Therefore*, according to Christians themselves, I would NOT "by
implication" be saying that the Bible is wrong if I were to argue
that it is an empirical fact that the earth and the universe have
existed for millions of years.


I wrote:
>> Please pardon me for saying it, but I do believe that since you
>> know that I'm an atheist you are letting your prejudice against
>> atheism in general (pre-jud-ice, subjective feelings based on
>> prejudgment) get ahead of you, before you genuinely consider what
>> it is I even happen to actually state. How do you know what I
>> uphold? How do you know what I'm trying to get others to believe?
>> So far, all you really know is that I have strongly criticized
>> some for promoting the erroneous argument that the moon's
>> recession somehow supports the idea that the Earth/Moon system
>> could not have existed more than about 6,000 years ago. These
>> other things you have attributed to me is based on your own
>> assumptions about me that you yourself have appended to what I
>> have actually argued.

You replied:
> Todd, anything you say that contradicts the Bible I will not
> consider, now on the other hand, if you state biblical truth,
> I will agree with you. Otherwise, no, I will not consider your
> false assumptions.

First of all, I haven't asked you to consider doing anything except
accepting the truth, no matter what the truth is, and regardless of
whether or not you like the truth (since the morality of honesty
dictates that your personal desires are irrelevant to accepting
truth). If you are arguing against accepting truth, then we have a
very serious disagreement.

Second, I have merely pointed out to you that there is more to truth
than just what is in the Bible (for those who accept the Bible).
Christians themselves acknowledge that we learn about factual
characteristics and features of the real world by objective
examination of the real world itself, completely outside of reading
the biblical text. And again, where does the Bible teach that the
earth orbits the sun?


You wrote:
> Todd, I told you, I for one don't believe people should use the
> moon recession argument if (IF) it is false.

We agree on this. Now, since the Bible does not discuss moon
recession at all, in any way, shape, or form, how can anyone
determine whether or not it is correct? The only way to do so, since
it is indeed a claim about certain objectively-determined
characteristics and features of the real world, is to learn the
relevant information about the real world itself to see if this
relevant information backs up the claim of YECs, or if the relevant
information falsifies their claim (or even to see if there is not
enough relevant information to determine the matter in the first
place).

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

••• post to CFTF list that CFTF moderators dumped •••

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/14/02
Subject: Re: If there can be some honesty...

Hi, Raymond Wiseman.

In post #1772, you wrote:
> Todd, this can go on to monotony if the moderators allow it. There
> is one who had challenged you to defend your faith. Either do it or
> don't, it is your choice. If you cowardly refuse, if you admit you
> can't, again that is your choice. No doubt your desire to bring
> something up will happen in a debate. Why not than debate. Why hide
> behind a cloak of words and posts when you could potentially prove
> your point. I am really baffled by your lack of support for your
> faith.

The way you ignore my explicit statements made in plain English *has*
become monotonous. Additionally, I am not the one who has a faith
that I must defend, because I don't have a faith. It is people who
have faith in a God who possess faith. People who do not possess
faith in a God, thus don't have faith, by definition. Theism means
"belief (faith) in God." A-theism means "no, or lack of, belief
(faith) in God."

This is like someone claiming that "Bigfoot" creatures live in the
northwest U.S. They make a claim based on their belief that this is
so. I deny the claim as a skeptic, saying I do not accept this claim
because there is no evidence for the existence of such a creature.
There is in fact no requirement of me to "defend" my "faith" that
there is no Bigfoot. The responsibility of defense, or rather, the
burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim, and the
more extraordinary the claim, the greater is the burden of proof. If
there is no evidence, there is no evidence, and that is the end of
the matter. Your position is the irrational one of saying that a
person may claim the existence of whatever it is they wish to believe
in, and that this is automatically the truth, simply because someone
has claimed it to be so, and that anyone who denies the claim somehow
for some odd reason must "defend" his skepticism based on his
expectation that a claim of existence must be followed up with
supporting objective evidence.

I am an atheist because I am a skeptic, and the burden of proof lies
with those who make the extraordinary claim that this being, or this
concept rather, that is called God exists. This is what such a
discussion entails.

"Hiding behind a cloak of words and posts?" What in the world are you
talking about, Raymond? In fact, I have gone out of my way to correct
misrepresentation about my discussion, for example when it was
claimed that I was criticizing the moon recession argument of YECs as
some kind of argument against the existence of God. I explicitly
pointed out to you and everyone else that the fact that the YEC moon
recession argument is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the
subject of God's existence. So, pray tell, how is stating the truth
about such matters "hiding behind a cloak of words and posts."

You wrote:
> Todd, whether you have discussed your faith a hundred times
> elsewhere matters little to me. I was not there. I am here. That
> was than this is now. You are now on this list pretending to be
> able to defend your faith, to prove the lack of worth of the only
> true faith, Christianity, yet you refuse to it. Why not leave the
> list or start defending?

Have you asked Keith Sisman or Marion Fox to leave the list for
refusing to answer the simple Yes or No question I have asked of them
based on the issue that Keith himself brought up? No, Raymond, you
have not used this same standard with them. Why not? Because you are
applying your standard in a hypocritical fashion.

> Todd you have me mixed up with someone else. I have not ignored
> your desire to discuss the moon's recession.

You have ignored it by applying a standard to me which you purposely
refuse to apply to others, simply because you are antagonistic toward
my position. If you were concerned about people refusing to address
issues, then you would be applying the same standard to everyone.
However, you show your bias by ignoring the fact that Keith has
refused to address the question that has been asked of him about a
claim *that Keith himself made*.

> I have no need to for I did not challenge you.

No one challenged me. Keith is the one who made the claim. In
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/1381, Keith wrote:

** The Moon is moving away (recession) from the Earth at a rate that
** would place it so close to the Earth, that the Earth's gravity
** would have fragmented the Moon about 900 million years ago. Now
** it is the atheist, agnostic, and old Earth creationist that has a
** problem with this!

I am the one who *criticized* the claim that Keith made, because this
argument is false. After I stated my criticism, Keith and others
(including you) proceeded to make many posts in which they talked
about a lot of things in order to divert attention from the fact that
this erroneous YEC argument had been promoted. They refused to
address the question that I've asked repeatedly:

*** Since the "moon recession" argument is an       ***
*** erroneous argument for young earth creationism, ***
*** should Christians who advocate the doctrine of  ***
*** young earth creationism abandon this argument?  ***

Please tell me Raymond, why do you think it's okay for you to request
that I leave the list for not discussing a long detailed subject
while at the same time you refuse to apply the same standard to
people who adamantly refuse to answer a simple direct Yes or No
question? Please tell me, Raymond, why do you think this double
standard is okay?

> Why don't you refer your questions to the one who challenged you
> in a debate on this list, in the immediate future?

I already did, Raymond. Just like Keith, Marion Fox has completely
ignored everything that I have stated regarding YECs' promotion of
their erroneous moon recession argument. Incidentally, the reason I
have specifically directed this criticism toward Marion as well as to
Keith is because Marion makes this same erroneous argument on page
409 of his book *A Study Of The Biblical Flood*. The error has been
explained to him. Will he correct his error, or will he ignore his
error? I can certainly state that up until this very moment he has
purposely ignored his error. I predict that he will continue to
ignore his error. Why would I make such a prediction? I base my
prediction both on my past experience with YECs in general, and on my
past experience with Marion in particular on such issues as
short-period comets (which, by the way, is another erroneous argument
that Marion promotes in his book, on pp. 405-406).

> I am not
> chastising you for delaying a substantial investment of your time
> in a detailed discussion of a complex subject.

Uh... Yes, you are.

> I am trying
> to encourage you to put your faith where your pen (keyboard) is.
> Come on friend.

I have already done so, friend. A number of times, my friend. And I
will do so again in the future. Your "encouragement," I can assure
you, is most unnecessary. I'm quite certain that you can bear the
wait. In fact, whether you realize it or not, I've actually already
started. Discussing things with a real atheist is usually
substantially different from how Christians talk about what atheists
are supposed to say and how they're supposed to say it. When I was a
Christian, it was a shock to me too! (Also, as I have mentioned
previously, I'm working on HTML formatting of the discussion that I
had with John Clayton about atheism many years ago. This should be up
on my website in a few weeks.)

> Todd, you believe in God. You know it and I know. Stop pretending.
> This atheist put on is ridiculous.

Perhaps now Marion will start telling you about the sin of presuming
to know what's in a man's heart. Of course, due to my experience in
discussion with him, I fear that his bias runs even deeper than yours
such that due to his own double standard he actually will not do so.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

[email to several CFTF list members, including Keith Sisman]

From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/17/02
Subject: CFTF Moderators Ban Critic of their YEC Errors

Hi, CFTF list member.

As is usual with discussion groups like the CFTF list, discussion by
a real live atheist is considered intolerable, so I've been banned
from the list. People love to caricature what atheism is or what an
atheist might say, but when a real live atheist shows up and blows
away the caricature for the misrepresentation that it is, moderators
of such groups as the CFTF list just can't handle the truth. (Of
course, I think we all know that the purpose of your
misrepresentation of the position of atheism is to aid and comfort
you in your religious belief, and is not intended for the purpose of
correctly and accurately representing the position of atheism, so
perhaps my expectations of you are just a little too high.)

I can tell you based on years of experience with these kind of people
that this is very typical. Even in the post that Ryan Kepke wrote in
regard to banning me from discussion, he misrepresented most of what
I have already very explicitly explained, such as that the moon
recession issue is completely irrelevant to the subject of God's
existence. (Indeed, the man couldn't even spell my name right!) These
men cannot represent matters accurately, because to represent matters
accurately would expose the irrationality of their position.

Now look at the silliness of what these CFTF moderators did. I left
the list because of the offensive manner of one of the moderators.
(Indeed, that same moderator then made a point of how I had
voluntarily unsubbed from the list!) I was purposely invited back
onto the CFTF list by another moderator, then after a single day was
banned from discussion by yet a third moderator. What crazy games
these guys play, the silliness that they engage in in the interest of
trying to cover up the silliness of their position! I knew all along
that this is what these guys would do, because of the fact is that
they *cannot* handle their errors being pointed out to them, and
since they obstinately refuse to acknowledge and correct their errors
they must resort to silence their critics whenever it is in their
power to do so. They absolutely hate it when people explain how wrong
they are and actually expect them to clean up their act a little bit.
These guys are extremely obstinate in refusing to correct their
errors. Thus, they have to get rid of anyone who forthrightly
explains and criticizes their errors. These guys know what real
truth-seeking is, and they hate it. These guys are full of
hypocritical contradictions, and they can't stand having anyone
around who points this out about the manner in which they behave.

For those of you who are genuinely interested in truth, and who go
around insisting on truth from your brethren, I will expect to see
you insisting on some truth from Marion Fox about his espousal of
such obvious factual errors in his book regarding moon recession,
short-period comets (and his denial of the existence of the Kuiper
Belt), and the YEC argument about the sun shrinking. Of course, for
those of you who are young earth creationists (who really are not
interested in the truth), I know that expecting such truth-seeking
responsibility from you is a standard you are incapable of meeting,
because I know that you aren't really interested the truth. Go ahead
and prove me wrong, if you think it is possible, by insisting that
your YEC brothers correct their errors!

I leave you with this question: Would you rather pay more attention
to a statement made to you by an atheist who tells the truth, or a
statement made to you by a Christian who is lying? Now, for
Christians whose concept of truth-seeking is based on little more
than irrational prejudice, this is a genuine quandary!

Have a good summer!

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene

P.S.: Keith, if you will acknowledge that the moon recession
argument, which you used in one of your posts, is an erroneous, as I
pointed out and explained to you, then I will not put the

http://www.creationism.cc/moonrecession.html

up in the form in which it is currently taking shaping. Currently, it
is focused very heavily on showing the fact that you have
demonstrated so far, which is that YECs espouse obvious errors, yet
when their errors have been pointed out and explained to them they
obstinately refuse to correct their errors, and by behaving in this
manner they show themselves to be liars, plain and simple. If you
correct your error, of course, then I will not be able to use your
example as an object lesson. As I wrote in my very first email to you
on this, I would give you about two weeks, which works out to June
21st. That's coming up real soon. You are still able to sway me to
change this web page, but there's only 4 days left, and then the web
page will go up. After that, I will only revise the web page with
additions if at all, but will not significantly alter the original
form.



--- In CFTF, George Jackson wrote (post #1717; 6/13/02):
> Subject: The fool hath said...
>
> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14:1a)
>
> My Pa learned me to niver arkge witth a fool... thoes uther fokes
> listin may not knowns who is the fool.
>
> George Jackson



--- In CFTF, Keith Sisman wrote (post #1719; 6/13/02):
> Dear Todd,
>
> Lighten up, enjoy life. No one is pressing for a debate now.
>
> I will read your post later.
>
> Kind regards, Keith Sisman.



--- In CFTF, Ryan W. Kepke wrote (post #1844; 6/15/02):
Subject: Re: Steven E's thought about truth and antiquity

Todd you wrote,
> Please go right ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not
> believe I have specifically discussed the Bible at all on this
> list, nor have I discussed anything about the implications that the
> antiquity of the world has with respect to biblical
> hermeneutics....
>
> ...How do you know what I uphold? How do you know what I'm trying
> to get others to believe? So far, all you really know is that I
> have strongly criticized some for promoting the erroneous argument
> that the moon's recession somehow supports the idea that the
> Earth/Moon system could not have existed more than about 6,000
> years ago...."

Todd,
You have been allowed to post to this list for the express purpose to
discuss the issue of the existence of God with Marion Fox. The the
mood recession concepts would come about eventually, were you to
debate Marion Fox. Since the debate has been postponed until Fall, we
the CFTF list moderators, no longer will allow you to post to CFTF
list. We ask you to please comply with this request. When your ready
at the time you indicated or before, we will then consider and
encourage such discussion.

CFTF list is a Christian list with the main purpose to "contend for
the faith" of Christ, which is revealed in the Bible. We as
moderators believe it is past time and thus want everyone to get back
to discussing the purpose of the CFTF List. Thus, let us all get into
the Bible and do some studying.

CFTF Listers,
A request herein is put to each of you relative to Tod Greene. Cease
and desist using his name and posting to him over CFTF list. It would
be unfair for messages be posted to him (with this one exception as
it is an explanation), without him being able to post to the list in
response. Mr. Greene when your ready to debate Marion Fox, let us
know and we shall then discuss the particulars as to the debate
between you and Marion Fox.

One of three moderators,
Ryan W. Kepke

[email to Raymond Wiseman]

To: Raymond Wiseman
From: Todd Greene
Date: 6/24/02
Subject: Re: If there can be some honesty...

Hi, Raymond.

Regardless of the fact that Marion Fox is a professing Christian who
thus believes in God, the man is an inveterate liar. In 1999, a full
seven years after the fact, this man attacked me for pointing out the
error of his claim that "evolutionists" (the term he uses to refer to
people who are really professional astronomers) had no explanation
for short-period comets. I pointed out to Marion Fox and others (such
as Darrell Broking, Gil Yoder, and Ron Cosby) that astronomers
certainly do have an explanation for short-period comets, which
explanation is called the "Kuiper Belt" after the astronomer Gerard
Kuiper who first proposed it, and they have had this explanation
since the year 1950 which is when Kuiper first discussed it. I also
pointed out to Marion Fox and others (such as Darrell Broking, Gil
Yoder, and Ron Cosby) that the Kuiper Belt explanation began to
receive direct empirical verification in 1992, due to advances in
telescopes and telescope imaging technologies, and that since 1992
several hundred Kuiper Belt objects had been sighted and their
trajectories mapped.

Rather than acknowledging that he was in error, Marion Fox simply
continued to lie, and he has continued to lie about this to this day.
The moon recession issue that I discussed on the CFTF list (that
Keith Sisman originally brought up) was simply another clear example
of how people like Marion and Keith would rather lie than accept and
acknowledge the fact that they have screwed up yet again. I call this
obstinacy-in-error.

The YEC argument on short-period comets, as made by Marion, is just
one example of how these guys intentionally lie to us about various
matters, because, you see, as far as they are concerned they "know"
the truth ahead of time regardless of the relevant objective
information from the real world itself. So they consider themselves
entitled to preach whatever it is they want to preach on these
matters without feeling the need to take the proper truth-seeking
responsibility to be careful about what they claim to be so and with
complete disdain for taking any responsibility whatsoever for
acknowledge when they are in error. Because this is the path they
have chosen to follow, they have become liars, and for this reason
they show themselves to be complete hypocrites whenever they try to
preach anything about respecting truth and truth-seeking, because in
fact they have proved that they don't have any respect for these at
all.

Sincerely,
Todd S. Greene