Greene's Creationism Truth Filter  
Let us discern for ourselves
   what is right;
let us learn together
   what is good.

       —  Job 34.4
The heart of the discerning
   acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise
   seek it out.

    —  Proverbs 18.15
Site Navigation
 Home
 Links
 Essays & Articles
 "Live" Discussion with YECs
 Poetry
 Email Me

[ Sign GuestBook ]
[ Read GuestBook ]
GuestBook by
TheGuestBook.com
 Visitor # 
Counter

Young Earth Advocates Argue
Against An Ancient Universe
— What Does Reason Indicate?

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!)

This discussion regarding the ancient universe and its relevance to young earth creationism took place in the Let Us Reason discussion forum (LURlist) from June 18, 1999 through September 25, 1999. The LURlist is run mainly by Gil Yoder and Ron Cosby, two members of the Church of Christ, and a number of preachers as well as other church members participate regularly in the discussion forum discussing a wide variety of religious topics. The Church of Christ is a fundamentalist church, by which I mean that members hold to a strong concept of biblical inspiration (the Bible is God's Word in a strong sense), and thus proclaim the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
All of the participants in this discussion in the LURlist were young earth creationists, except for two: myself, and one other writer who made just a few posts but who said very little. As you read this discussion, keep in mind that disputing the young earth creed can get you into a lot of "hot water" in the Church of Christ — as many church members who have expressed such criticism have discovered, and as you will see for yourself from the attitude expressed by some (note, especially, the attitudes of the preachers) right here in this discussion. The reason is because in the Church of Christ the prevalent attitude is that if you deny that the earth (and the universe) is young, you are denying God's Word itself, so you cannot be a good Christian, pleasing to God, if you reject the young earth doctrine. (This attitude is what I refer to as "exclusivism" with regard to the young earth creed.)
While the Church of Christ is certainly conservative and committed to biblical inerrancy, please don't take from the discussion shown here the idea that young earth creationism is an "official creed" of the Church of Christ. As is occurring among the members of many other conservative churches, members and congregations of the Church of Christ are "struggling" over this issue. A few Church of Christ congregations openly support views different from the creed of young earth creationism. Additionally, unlike most churches, the Church of Christ has no hierarchy. Each congregation is autonomous. Since there is no organizational entity with any religious authority in the Church of Christ beyond each individual congregation, there is no "body" that decides on or dictates any kind of official creed for the church. (However, young earth creationism "exclusivism" is alive and well in the Church of Christ.) As you will see, my criticisms are directed at the young earth creationism doctrine and at the attitudes of many young earth creationists, and not at the Church of Christ. (Yes, the geocentrists are decreasing in numbers and influence, but it's a slow thing.)
If I have any criticism toward the Church of Christ in general, it would be this: What is it about the prevailing attitudes engendered in your particular "religious culture" that makes such common and blatant misrepresentation as this acceptable and respectable? To other people you preach adamantly (and, I believe, rightly) that they should examine the truth and take it for what it is, regardless of what they personally believe. Is that nothing more than a Sunday morning sermon?
The interesting and intriguing aspect of the ancient universe in the context of discussing the young earth creed is that when astronomers look out into the universe, they are literally observing the past. The trivial example is that the sun you see in the sky right now is actually the sun as it was about 8 minutes ago. The more distant the astronomical entity that is being observed, the farther in the past it is. Therefore, young earth advocates really have their work cut out for them in trying to deal with this particular aspect of reality.
Is there any way in which young earth advocates can deal with this? Read on...

There are dozens of posts in this discussion. I have broken them up into 10 web pages, to ease the download. Each page contains its own Table Of Contents, and the entire Table Of Contents of all posts is included below.
 [ TOC ]   [ PART 1 ]   [ PART 2 ]   [ PART 3 ]   [ PART 4 ]   [ PART 5 ] 
 [ PART 6 ]   [ PART 7 ]   [ PART 8 ]   [ PART 9 ]   [ PART 10 ]   [ HOME ] 

NOTE #1: The material written by others is shown here under "fair use" for purposes of discussion and criticism. (This is, of course, a non-commercial site.) Only the posts I specifically responded to are shown here. In other words, I have copied my own posts to this site, including the specific comments of people I was responding to, since my comments are embedded in the context of discussion with others. (If you click on the link provided at the top of each message, this will take you to the original message list archive. You will see several other related posts that I did not respond to, because I only picked the most relevant ones to spend my time on. However, please go to the archives of the original messages to get the "full flavor" of the antagonistic prejudice that pervades this group of young earth creationists — and I would claim, from my own experience over the years, that this is typical of the young earth creationist community in general.)
And just in case anyone would like to pretend that I have misrepresented anything at all out of context (the way many young earth advocates love to do things), please email me and state your case. The discussion will, of course, be public (added to this site), and thus I'll be providing you with the opportunity to "show me up" right here on my own website.
NOTE #2: The "Let Us Reason" discussion list is dominated by preachers (see the LUR Staff page), so be aware that the discussion from them that you see here is the kind of thing that is being taught from the pulpit every Sunday, from the church bulletins and other periodicals, and in the preacher schools. (Dare I use the word "propaganda"?) If you don't think this is "preachers versus science," you just don't get it. What some preachers (such as these) refuse to recognize is that they really don't have a corner on truth.
NOTE #3: In a couple of my posts, you'll see me refer to the fact that I had no "hidden agenda" behind posting to LURlist@onelist.com. That's true. I didn't. I ended up there for two reasons. First, I have had this idea for a number of months now of writing an article regarding the creationist issue in the Church of Christ. This is the "coming soon" you see on my home page. (My intention with that is to write about people who and ideas that disagree with young earth creationism.) Second, a member of the Church of Christ whom I had been corresponding with pointed out LURlist to me, and I took the opportunity to "put out feelers" to possibly get more information on "non-young earthers" from there (LUR = "Let Us Reason"). This discussion just developed on its own. I wrote a lot of material that I thought was highly relevant to this site, so here it is. (Of course, I think most of it is pretty good material, too, but my opinion on that is, I think, a little biased!<grin>)

Table Of Contents    (all posts, Parts 1-10)
  • LURlist Archive 250, Message 1   (6/18/99, Part 1)
    I begin the discussion. I advocate an ancient universe based on the direct empirical information that astronomy has provided to us.
  • LURlist Archive 250, Message 11   (6/18/99, Part 1)
    Several people responded. They did not recognize my "empirical information". I start getting into some details.
  • LURlist Archive 251, Message 4   (6/19/99, Part 1)
    I respond to Andy Boshers' "apparent age" argument.
  • LURlist Archive 251, Message 5   (6/19/99, Part 1)
    I respond to Gil Yoder's various claims: that the ancient universe information is not really "empirical"; that Big Bang cosmology is conjectural (how is this even relevant?); that young earth creationism is not just human interpretation; and various speculations he makes.
  • LURlist Archive 252, Message 1   (6/20/99, Part 1)
    Andy Boshers tries to say he did not advocate the "apparent age" concept. I prove that, yes, he did, whether he wants to call it that or not.
  • LURlist Archive 252, Message 2   (6/20/99, Part 1)
    Kyle Cowden claims "yom" must mean a literal day. I show that it does not. Like others, he brings up the conjectural nature of Big Bang cosmology. I ask what he's talking about since the Big Bang is irrelevant to what I'm discussing.
  • LURlist Archive 252, Message 4   (6/20/99, Part 1)
    Brian Galloway advocates the "apparent age" concept, so I discuss that subject some more.
  • LURlist Archive 253, Message 4   (6/21/99, Part 1)
    Dr. Marion Fox enters the discussion and makes several criticisms. I show how every single one is irrelevant to what I have been discussing. I also immediately "call him" on his use of prejudicial terminology in attempting to paint the concept of an old universe/old earth with the brush of "atheism," - a rhetorical technique many young earth creationists love to use. (The misrepresentation begins - whether intentional or not - and I forthrightly try to clear it up.)
  • LURlist Archive 253, Message 5   (6/21/99, Part 2)
    I clarify, in detail, Kyle Cowden's several misunderstandings. (Especially his absurd claim that scientists are just a bunch of "yo yos.")
  • LURlist Archive 253, Message 6   (6/21/99, Part 2)
    I was going to respond to Tim Nichols, but it was getting late, so I promised to respond to him next.
  • LURlist Archive 254, Message 14   (6/22/99, Part 2)
    I give a general outline of the approach of old earth creationism.
  • LURlist Archive 254, Message 16   (6/22/99, Part 2)
    I point out to Glen Young that the dynamic nature of the process of science does not obviate the fact that there really are such things as facts.
  • LURlist Archive 254, Message 17   (6/22/99, Part 2)
    Brian Galloway, who had earlier advocated the "apparent age" concept (which accepts that the empirical evidence exists but says it is only "apparent"), now writes that the empirical evidence doesn't really exist. I point out the contradiction.
  • LURlist Archive 254, Message 18   (6/22/99, Part 2)
    As an attempt to get people to think for themselves a bit, I set up an arithmetic problem for people to use to work out on their own just how long ago SN1987a actually blew up.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 10   (6/23/99, Part 2)
    Dr. Marion Fox again makes several misrepresentative or irrelevant criticisms. He also tries to pretend that there is absolutely nothing prejudicial with his terminology. As usual, I have to spend a lot of words just clearing everything up. The only good thing about Dr. Fox's discussion is that he brings up interesting details for discussion that no one else is even aware of. Too bad his discussion is such a mixed bag.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 11   (6/23/99, Part 2)
    I point out to Glen Young how he has "responded" without actually having considered a single point I raised regarding the inadequacies of his rudimentary argument.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 12   (6/23/99, Part 3)
    Don Galaway enters the discussion with a post in which he makes all kinds of misrepresentative insinuations. I clear things up.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 13   (6/23/99, Part 3)
    Dr. Fox keeps trying to claim that their is no human element involved in biblical interpretation. I keep trying to point out that there is.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 14   (6/23/99, Part 3)
    Brian Galloway tries to make the same distinction as Dr. Fox on this epistemology thing. I point out that such a distinction just doesn't exist.
  • LURlist Archive 255, Message 15   (6/23/99, Part 3)
    Brian tries to ignore the homework problem I gave him. I don't let him. He tries to evade the direct empirical information of SN1987a by discussing some of the inherent complexities and epistemological considerations of the scientific process. I try to draw his attention back to the details of the specific case at hand. (Please Don't get me wrong. I love a good discussion about abstract principles. But it's just not relevant to the details I've brought up in this discussion regarding the ancient universe.)
  • LURlist Archive 256, Message 2   (6/24/99, Part 3)
    Kyle Richardson enters the discussion, trying to chastize me based on various mischaracterizations of the whole discussion as it started and has progressed over the previous week. I clarify things for him.
  • LURlist Archive 256, Message 3   (6/24/99, Part 3)
    Don Galoway "apologizes" and then continues to discuss things based on his continuing mischaracterizations of my discussion. I point this out to him unambiguously.
  • LURlist Archive 257, Message 9   (6/25/99, Part 3)
    Gil Yoder tries to "manage" my discussion, by telling me how I must conduct it. He makes his comments explicitly "as the moderator of this list" instead of as criticisms by a participant in the discussion. Sorry, but I don't participate in discussions under these kinds of unfair conditions.
  • LURlist Archive 258, Message 1   (6/26/99, Part 3)
    Gil Yoder now comes back trying to pretend that I was at fault for not being responsive to other people's questions. I'm not being responsive? Wow! What can I say? His highhandedness ticks me off, so I take the opportunity to philosophically rub his nose in his own hypocrisy. Of course, since he is the list moderator and he did let me do this, I take this as an "Okay, I'll leave you alone for now, as list moderator," so in practical terms Gil was not as highhanded as he came across.
  • LURlist Archive 266, Message 1   (7/4/99, Part 4)
    I point out some poignant details regarding various misrepresentations that some young earth advocates have made, and I make further comments regarding the relevance of this to overall attitude.
  • LURlist Archive 281, Message 14   (7/20/99, Part 4)
    I begin dealing with the Moon & Spencer topic in detail - Moon & Spencer (Part 1).
  • LURlist Archive 281, Message 15   (7/20/99, Part 4)
    I point out some of Dr. Marion Fox's mischaracterizations — again.
  • LURlist Archive 281, Message 16   (7/20/99, Part 4)
    I point out more of Dr. Fox's mischaracterizations.
  • LURlist Archive 282, Message 12   (7/20/99, Part 4)
    I point out even more of Dr. Fox's mischaracterizations.
  • LURlist Archive 293, Message 5   (8/1/99, Part 4)
    Dr. Fox just won't quit with this one. Either the whole point really did go over his head, or he is just trying to score "cheap rhetorical points" against me. There are plenty of people who believe the Bible is God's Word (and thus are not agnostics or atheists) who also accept the fact that the universe and the earth are ancient. Why does Dr. Fox work so hard at trying to ignore this, the primary point?
  • LURlist Archive 293, Message 7   (8/1/99, Part 4)
    Terry Hightower's shows his antagonistic attitude.
  • LURlist Archive 293, Message 8   (8/1/99, Part 4)
    I discuss the "meat" of the Moon & Spencer topic in the context of its relevance in the old universe/old earth discussion - Moon & Spencer (Part 2).
  • LURlist Archive 293, Message 9   (8/1/99, Part 4)
    Glen Young tries to cover up his antagonistic attitude. I don't let him.
  • LURlist Archive 297, Message 1   (8/5/99, Part 5)
    I point out that the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was not intended to be a scientific treatise. A geocentrism tie-in.
  • LURlist Archive 298, Message 5   (8/6/99, Part 5)
    I have to quote myself in context to show that I already clarified my statement that "the Bible is not scientifically accurate" because all comments were ignoring what I had already said. I comment a bit more about "anthropocentric," or "phenomenological," language. I give some other miscellaneous clarifications.
  • LURlist Archive 300, Message 3   (8/11/99, Part 5)
    I take Dr. Marion Fox to task for trying to use the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture as a "smoke and mirrors" debate tactic, and use this to draw some important lessons about attitude and about Church of Christ "culture" in general.
  • LURlist Archive 302, Message 1   (8/12/99, Part 5)
    I discuss some of Kyle Richardson's comments in order to clarify my own specific position regarding the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis 1 (I don't advocate it, but some thought I did). I also take the opportunity to drive home various points I had already made in this discussion.
  • LURlist Archive 305, Message 4   (8/15/99, Part 5)
    Dr. Fox had not appreciated my taking him to task. But he responded with pure rhetoric, not addressing a single point I made, while throwing in more misrepresentation besides. What a shame that a man of his talent should go this route. I continue to find it amazing and amusing that such young earth advocates find it so difficult to acknowledge their own prejudicial misrepresentation. I point out several examples of where LUR respondents had jumped right in with highly prejudicial remarks right at the beginning of the discussion. I ask Dr. Fox to write something substantive if he really wants to discuss the points I made regarding his use of the discredited Moon & Spencer conjecture.
  • LURlist Archive 305, Message 6   (8/15/99, Part 5)
    I launch into a lengthy discussion of Genesis 1 and biblical hermeneutics in light of the fact that the universe is ancient, and I point out some approaches consistent with biblical inerrancy.
  • LURlist Archive 305, Message 14   (8/15/99, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    Jerry Brewer "enters the scene," with his subtle sarcasm flowing. I return it to him.
  • LURlist Archive 308, Message 10   (8/19/99, Part 6)
    Jerry Brewer again.
  • LURlist Archive 308, Message 11   (8/19/99, Part 6)
    And again.
  • LURlist Archive 308, Message 12   (8/19/99, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    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, Part 6)
    Finally, a decent question, with no misrepresentation or antagonism. Thank you, Brad Cobb!
  • LURlist Archive 311, Message 5   (8/21/99, Part 6)
    I give Mickey Hukill an example showing why the "literal" interpretation is, perhaps, not always the best one.
  • LURlist Archive 311, Message 7   (8/21/99, Part 7)
    Terry Hightower raises his "burning issue" of Jesus travelling through space at the speed of light. I don't understand what in the world he is trying to ask nor do I understand the point he is trying to make. Terry, as you will note, is one of those young earth "exclusivists" who teach that you can't be a good Christian if you do not accept the young earth doctrine.
  • LURlist Archive 311, Message 12   (8/21/99, Part 7)
    Over the weeks of this discussion, a few had disputed the idea that the Bible even contained anything like phenomenological language regarding a stationary earth (geocentrism). I realize that I had let this go too long, so here I provide some extensive detail showing this basic point, which I had wrongly thought was already clearly understood.
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 2   (8/22/99, Part 7)
    Kyle Richardson - who, by the way, really does strike me as a nice guy - repeats some points that I had already addressed clearly and repeatedly. I point this out.
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 4   (8/22/99, Part 7)
    Terry Hightower restates the "burning issue" of Jesus travelling through space, but he still doesn't explain its meaning or its supposed relevant to the discussion. This time I go ahead and guess at what he's trying to get at.
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 5   (8/22/99, Part 7)
    Kyle Richardson writes this time, with his sincerity clear. I oblige him with some explicit references and a few concise comments in clarification.
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 6   (8/23/99, Part 7)
    Kyle thinks there is something wrong with my syllogisms (a la Dr. Marion Fox), so I clear up his misunderstanding. I acknowledge my intentional use of a "double negative". (Hmmm... Gotta watch those, I guess! But, wait, I'm a programmer - they're perfectly legitimate in logical terms!) I comment on the simplistic nature of three-line syllogisms. (Hint: Yes, it's an indirect reference to one of Dr. Fox's rhetorical debate tactics!)
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 7   (8/23/99, Part 7)
    Terry Hightower - with a Masters degree in the Philosophy of Religion & Apologetics, no less! - still does not explain his "burning issue" of Jesus travelling through space, but he takes the opportunity to turn on the spigot for a good flow of misrepresentation and prejudicial comments. Terry even tries to misrepresent his own position by trying to pretend that he is not an exclusivist with regard to the young earth creed. I am clear and forthright in my response to him.
  • LURlist Archive 313, Message 8   (8/23/99, Part 7)
    Whoops! In my response to Terry, I goofed badly on the edit of one of my sentences, so here I restate the sentence correctly.
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 2   (8/23/99, Part 8)
    Here's Jerry Brewer again. Again with his sarcasm. Again trying to pretend that I haven't discussed what I've already discussed.
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 10   (8/23/99, Part 8)
    Here's Douglas Young, stepping into line behind Tim Nichols and Jerry Brewer. Prejudice. Antagonism. Misrepresentation. Sarcasm. Absolute Refusal To Acknowledge even one, single legitimate point made by someone you disagree with. Pretended Innocence with regard to possessing this kind of attitude. (Wow! No wonder they don't like it when someone focuses on a discussion of attitudes.)
  • LURlist Archive 314, Message 12   (8/23/99, Part 8)
    Glen Young steps into line behind Douglas Young.
  • LURlist Archive 315, Message 22   (8/24/99, Part 8)
    Darrell Broking, an LURlist regular and LUR staff member, but who had not participated in the discussion regarding an old universe, posted a sermon on Genesis 1. In that sermon was this discredited argument of young earth advocates claiming that "non-young earthers" have no explanation for short-term comets. I took the opportunity to treat this as a "case in point" of a bad argument that, due to the lack of responsibility that is so prevalent in young earth circles, just refuses to die an appropriate death. (Now, watch what happens after this! See if any of the young earth advocates in the LUR forum practice any sort of responsibility on this. This turns out to be a "case in point" in more ways than I originally thought.)
  • LURlist Archive 316, Message 9   (8/25/99, Part 8)
    Douglas Young returns, pretending innocence. I explain his guilt to him, and use this as an object lesson in what it takes to be a responsible truth-seeker.
  • LURlist Archive 316, Message 10   (8/25/99, Part 8)
    Not my post. I had to put this one in here just to show you that at least one young earth advocate had the courage to acknowledge the obvious. Thank you, Gary Palmer! ("A question that is an abyss." What a neat phrase!)
  • LURlist Archive 320, Message 6   (8/29/99, Part 8)
    Dr. Marion Fox practices his usual "smoke and mirrors" debate tactics with the alleged short-term comet mystery. It backfires on him.
  • LURlist Archive 320, Message 8   (8/29/99, Part 8)
    Kyle Richardson tries (like many others) to pretend that I haven't been addressing people's questions, as if this, somehow, excuses the extreme reluctance of any LUR forum participant to exercise even one iota of truth-seeking responsibility by acknowledging the truth about the Kuiper Belt as an empirically verified explanation for short-term comets. Of course, I'm not about to let Kyle do this. (By the way - just to let you know - not a single LUR participant ever acknowledges this.)
  • LURlist Archive 322, Message 1   (8/31/99, Part 8)
    I answer some of Kyle Richardson's questions regarding the biblical hermeneutics and theology. I also take the opportunity to discuss just what it means to "dig into the details."
  • LURlist Archive 322, Message 2   (8/31/99, Part 9)
    Here comes another preacher, Jerry McDonald. Jerry runs his own email discussion list. Jerry misrepresents Dr. Hugh Ross as a "theistic evolutionist." I (and others) had challenged him on this in his discussion forum a few months prior to this discussion I was in on the LURlist forum. As almost everyone else has tried to do, Jerry enters the discussion, tries to change the subject, and then attempts to misrepresent me using prejudicial "smoke and mirrors" tactics. He posts under the subject header "OEC - Comets Just Another Bad Argument," yet never acknowledges anything whatsoever regarding my direct criticism of the alleged "comet mystery." (Why do these guys operate like this? You should know the answer by now.)
  • LURlist Archive 322, Message 3   (9/1/99, Part 9)
    I had just discovered this article by Don Stoner, on the internet. It was directly relevant to what I had been saying all along, and it wasn't too long, so I posted it to the LURlist.
  • LURlist Archive 323, Message 1   (9/1/99, Part 9)
    Jerry McDonald again. Again trying to change the subject and misrepresent things. (Remember, Jerry is a preacher!)
  • LURlist Archive 324, Message 13   (9/2/99, Part 9)
    Robert Marden enters the discussion by promoting yet another mischaracterization that lives on in young earth creationist circles, that "there is wide disagreement among the scientists as to the age" of the earth. I call him on it by simply asking him to provide some citations to substantiate his claim.
  • LURlist Archive 324, Message 14   (9/3/99, Part 9)
    Ron Cosby, preacher and LURlist co-moderator, talks about my "manifest lack of respect" for Dr. Marion Fox. Actually, I'm glad he made just this kind of comment, because it gives me the opportunity to directly discuss the subject of hypocrisy. Ron also proposes a debate (what does he think I've been doing?), and asks me to write up some debate propositions. Is Ron honest about this, or is this just more "smoke and mirrors"? Keep reading. (Also, at the time I guessed from his post that Ron was about ready to draw this general topic to a close - which I was right about - and I worked to make statements in a flurry over the next few days to say things I wanted to make sure got said, including my final remarks on the Moon & Spencer conjecture which I had been working on over the previous several days up until this time.)
  • LURlist Archive 324, Message 17   (9/3/99, Part 9)
    Roy Lonsinger, another preacher, tries to imply that the empirical information just doesn't matter. I quickly mention what's wrong with what he says.
  • LURlist Archive 324, Message 19   (9/3/99, Part 9)
    Jerry McDonald just won't quit trying to change the subject. You see, to him, from his highly prejudiced perspective, if it's not "young earth creationism," then it's all just the same thing. That leaves it up to me to clarify his mischaracterization of this. (I would have loved to discuss the subject of biological evolution. But the truth, really, is that (1) biological evolution is a distinct subject from the age of the universe, and, hence, (2) this really would have been changing the subject. And then there's (3) Jerry really was trying to prejudice the discussion by having me talk about evolution. Never does Jerry acknowledge the fallacy of the alleged "comet mystery" or any other detail I had already brought up and discussed regarding the fact that the universe is ancient. That's why his prejudicial maneuvering was so obvious.)
  • LURlist Archive 327, Message 7   (9/4/99, Part 9)
    Robert Marden repeats his false claim. I point out that he has still not cited anything to substantiate his claim.
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 1   (9/5/99, Part 9)
    Moon & Spencer (Part 4). Dr. Marion Fox is a debater through-and-through. I'm not. I hate rhetorical maneuvering. It is this practice of young earth creationists that I came to absolutely despise when I studied my way out of young earth creationism many years ago. My approach is to "get at the details." I can't stand Dr. Fox's inability to write on this topic without engaging in profuse misrepresentation. So for all the rhetorical abuse Dr. Fox has heaped on me (plus the fact that at the time I was pretty sure my time was about up in LURlist), I let him have it.
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 2   (9/5/99, Part 10)
    Robert Marden - remember, he's a preacher - does not take his responsiblity seriously. I point this out. (Robert is himself yet another example of why so many young earth advocates runs roughshod over truth-seeking. It was way back in my 6/23/99 post to Don Galaway where I said: "Though in the middle of the trees it may seem to be otherwise, the forest of my entire discussion is really about what I see as a wrong attitude." I am speaking the truth.)
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 5   (9/5/99, Part 10)
    Jerry McDonald - remember, he's a preacher - continues to try to take me to task for refusing to change the subject. I take him to task for refusing to give any reason whatsoever as to why I should change the subject and talk about biological evolution. What in the world does evolution have to do with the fact that the universe is ancient? Jerry never answers this question.
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 6   (9/5/99, Part 10)
    Ron Cosby - remember, he's a preacher - LURlist co-moderator, casts aspersions on my "decorum." Hmmm... I wonder why, through the few months of this discussion, he never ever mentioned the decorum of anyone else??? (Yes, my time in LURlist is growing short.)
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 7   (9/5/99, Part 10)
    Of course, other people are still asking me some honest questions. Harrell Davidson enters the discussion with a good one.
  • LURlist Archive 328, Message 8   (9/5/99, Part 10)
    Roy Lonsinger - remember, he's a preacher - continues to advocate that human interpretation of the Bible is infallible, and thus considerations of empirical information are irrelevant. I continue to point out the fallacy inherent in this viewpoint - the very same epistemological consideration that I have been making almost since the very beginning of this entire discussion (despite Dr. Fox's misrepresentations to the contrary).
  • LURlist Archive 329, Message 1   (9/6/99, Part 10)
    Here's Kyle Cowden, pretending to have the references I have been requesting from Robert Marden. Isn't it funny he never even cites a single one? I think the word for this attitude is "chutzpah"!
  • LURlist Archive 329, Message 2   (9/6/99, Part 10)
    Ron Cosby asks me to consider his formal debate request — and nothing else. I request his "indulgence for me to 'wrap up gracefully.'"
  • LURlist Archive 329, Message 3   (9/6/99, Part 10)
    Ron Cosby closes the "open discussion" on the topic.
  • LURlist Archive 339, Message 2   (9/18/99, Part 10)
    Strictly speaking, all of my posts from here on are not about the subject of the ancient universe, but about "arranging for formal debate." But watch how the profuse misrepresentation of many young earth creationists is demonstrated even here.
  • LURlist Archive 339, Message 12   (9/18/99, Part 10)
    Wow! Ron Cosby chooses to engage in misrepresentation even while just talking about what the debate topic should be! It is ridiculous how he tries to pretend that the alleged short-term comet mystery "neglects to focus attention on the issue of whether the universe is young or old." If this was true, then why in the world do young earth creationists use this as a criticism of the idea of an ancient universe? Ron totally ignores the fact that it was the preacher Darrell Broking (a young earth creationist on the LUR Staff) who brought up this subject in the first place. I simply showed that Darrell's claim was wrong, and absolutely no one who participated in the discussion in LURlist would acknowledge this.
  • LURlist Archive 340, Message 3   (9/19/99, Part 10)
    Misrepresentation is a way of life for some. Think about what it is that people who believe like this (denying that geocentrism is wrong) must do in order to maintain these kinds of beliefs in their minds. It makes you want to sympathize with Alice (in Wonderland).
  • LURlist Archive 345, Message 1   (9/25/99, Part 10)
    Now, wait a minute, Ron! You were the one who started debating about the debate proposition that you requested me to give. I hate hypocrisy! I am also getting tired of Ron simply using this "debate offer" as just another opportunity for misrepresentation, and I let him know this very clearly.
  • LURlist Archive 346, Message 1   (9/26/99, Part 10)
    The final post, by Gil Yoder. Further misrepresentation. Three monkeys. Obstinately refusing to acknowledge simple truths. Gil (like Ron) directly contradicts two of his own LUR staff members! Gil and Ron need to get with Darrell Broking and Dr. Marion Fox and get their stories straight regarding whether or not the alleged comet mystery is relevant, because Darrell and Marion sure thought it was. (Aren't hyperlinks wonderful?!) Remember, three of these guys are preachers, and all four of them are members of the LUR staff. What a tangled web these young earth creationists have woven!

1