RE: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 18:31:50 EDT

Hi Ian,

 

An even bigger photon/age example comes from the 1987A supernova in the
Large Magellanic Cloud. Triangulation of the light echo places the
distances at about 167,000 lightyears, which is consistent with other lines
of observational evidence that supports that same distance. [More here:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm]

 

In our galaxy, another example is found with V838 Mon, which has three light
echos that allow triangulation demonstrating a distance of, roughly, 20,000
lightyears.

 

 

 

Hi David,

 

I knew George was making a philosophical (religious) argument, and I'm
confident it is one contrary to his own view. That is my point, too.
I disagree, however, that you can "prove" YEC itself wrong since one can
only falsify (assuming science reaches such a level) the objective elements
that are embedded within the religious view. YEC is not a scientific
view, but a religious one. Consider another Galileo analogy. The
discovery of the phases of Venus, both gibbous and crescent, did disprove
the Ptolemy model, but it did not disprove the Earth was the center of the
Universe. The Tychonic model, which is Geocentric, was adopted by the
Jesuits scholars and it worked. So, a 17th century citizen with a
teleological mindset that preferred a Geocentric model had little reason to
change. YEC, of course, does not have it so easy with today's modern
science, but as long as it is a religious view, the scrutiny of science can
only impact those claims that are exposed to science. Admittedly, there is
much there to clobber them with, but it takes more explaining than most like
to listen to.

 

Coope

 

 

 

From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:48 PM
To: George Cooper
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

 

 

George is correct that we can not prove YEC wrong because there is the
possibility that the universe was made very recently.

I'm sorry, I must object. When George said it he could have meant he was
describing a philosophical position that is contrary to objective reality.
Describing the position doesn't necessarily mean he believes that position.
The position, as far as I know, is entirely counter to all of science.
Science assumes physical phenomena extend in both directions in time in
a continuous differentiable fashion. A major discontinuity in physical
laws is outside of and contrary to physics. It is an absurd
metaphysics that is more bizarre than all the nutty ideas physicists have
dreamed up about the origin of the universe and grand unified theories and
the multiverse and all that jazz. Next we will be told that if Taoist
monks can write down the nine billion names of God then the universe will
dissolve.

Philosophers of science Laudin and Quinn wrote in Mike Ruse's collection
why creationism is science...they argue it is because creationism can be
proven wrong and the theory evolves with tentative conclusions, etc, etc. So
George is correct that YEC is not by definition wrong. But the reason isn't
because the universe could have been created a millisecond ago. This latter
idea is insane.

  

  

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 30 18:32:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 30 2009 - 18:32:37 EDT