RE: [asa] George and geocentricty (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 12:40:48 EDT

Hi George- please directly address my original question.

Here it is again:

Two hypotheses of the operation of the cosmos:

 1. Heliocentric: The planets in our solar system orbit the Sun.

 2. Geocentric: The universe revolves around the Earth. The Earth is the
 center of the universe.

 I hear you telling me there is no such experiment that can be set-up to
 determine which one is true. Is that correct?

George said:
"1st, the term "geocentric" can be misleading because it means that everything is "centered on the earth. That's not really the point (though in view of the history the term is hard to avoid). "

No- I think that is the point. My point is that their model of the cosmos was wrong- because they thought the Earth was the center of the universe and it isn't. That is what I mean by "geocentric." Can this be proven or not?

You didn't have to go into more depth about general relativity because I already agree with you on that point from the start.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:29 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] George and geocentricty (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

Bernie -

I think some clarifications may help. 1st, the term "geocentric" can be
misleading because it means that everything is "centered on the earth. That's
not really the point (though in view of the history the term is hard to
avoid). It would be better to refer to a "fixed-earth" reference frame & a
"fixed-sun" one, which in the sequel I'll abbreviate with E & S
respectively.

For simplicity let's assume that orbits in S of the earth & other planets
are circular. The transformation from coordinates in S (X, Y, Z, T) to
those in E (x, y, z, t) is

x = X - RcosWT, y = Y - RsinWt , z = Z, t = T

to an adequate approximation, if orbits are in the X-Y plane. Here R is the
radius of the earth's orbit & W the angular frequency of its orbital motion
in S. In E the earth is at rest, the sun orbits the earth in a circle of
radius R, & the other planets orbit the sun as it moves on that orbit. Thus
they move on circles which whose centers at the same time move on a circle
around the earth.

Historically this is the type of model for which Tycho Brahe argued. Since,
however, the earth rotates once every 24 hours its in the class of
"semi-Tychonic" models. It has long been recognized that Tycho's model is
kinematically equivalent to that of Copernicus. What general relativity
shows is that they're dynamically equivalent. But Tycho's model is not
equivalent to a Ptolemaic model. E.g., in Ptolemy's model Venus should not
go through a full range of phases but in the models of both Copernicus &
Tycho it should. & it does!

The "fixed stars" (to use the old term) do not move around the earth at all
in E. A located at X = L, Y = 0 in S, with L >> R, instead moves in a
circle with the same radius frequency as the earth (in S). From the (fixed)
earth in E it will appear to shift back & forth by a total amount 2R in the
Y direction over the course of the year, producing a small angular shift
2R/L << 1. This is the effect that in S is described as parallax. There
will also be a Doppler shift as the star moves toward & away from the earth.
In E it's ascribed to the motion of the star & in S to the orbital motion of
the earth.

We all have a gut feeling, when we're standing beside a busy highway, that
the cars are "really" moving past us at ~ 100 km/hr. But the drivers of
those cars are equally justified in saying that they're at rest & we're
moving. You're gut feeling that the earth really does move around the sun
is of a different nature, however. It's not due to the fact that the earth
is "obviously" moving (because of course when you're standing on the earth
it doesn't seem to be) but to the fact that you've been taught since you
were little that the earth moves around the sun & not vice versa. People in
1500 had a gut feeling that it was just the reverse. In any case, gut
feelings are of limited value in physics.

I should emphasize 2 other things. First, I haven't claimed that the earth
is "really" stationary & the sun "really" moving. That would be just as
wrong as the reverse. All motion is relative. Both frames S & E are
equally valid - & for that matter so is one in which Mars is at rest, the
sun orbits it & all the other planets, including earth, orbit the moving
sun.

& with all of this, it's still the gravitational force of the sun - or in
Einstein's terms, the curvature of space-time due to the sun's mass - that
is responsible for the fact that the planets don't move on straight paths.

I hope this is helpful.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] George and geocentricty (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

> Hi George- I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
>
> You say that you can use a geocentric or heliocentric model to model the
> cosmos because of general relativitity.
>
> Let me ask it this way. There are two hypotheses:
>
> 1. Heliocentric: The planets in our solar system orbit the Sun.
>
> 2. Geocentric: The universe revolves around the Earth. The Earth is the
> center of the universe.
>
> I hear you telling me there is no such experiment that can be set-up to
> determine which one is true. Is that correct? If you believe that, I
> would like to challenge it. My gut tells me it should be possible to
> disprove geocentricity.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:26 PM
> To: asa; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>
> Bernie -
>
> Some qualifications are indeed needed about a geocentric reference frame.
> 1st, you run into trouble if you try to make everything rotate around a
> stationary earth because objects beyond about the orbit of Neptune would
> then be travelling faster than light. I.e., your coordinates break down
> at that point.
>
> But you can use coordinates in which the center of the rotating earth is
> stationary & everything else moves relative to it. This is NOT a rotating
> coordinate system & objects at great distances do not have superluminal
> speeds in it. An observer at rest on the earth in that system can say
> that the rest of the universe is moving with respect to him/herself.
>
> Of course some coordinate systems are much better than others for one
> purpose or another. But general relativity, as I said before, really is
> general. It is meaningless to talk about which observer is "really"
> stationary & which is "really" moving in any absolute sense.
>
> I'll be happy to send you a copy of a paper I gave about this at an Ohio
> Section meeting of the American Physical Society some years ago. It would
> have to be hard copy since the file from an old computer is gibberish on
> my current one.
>
> Please do not trouble to write anything further here on DNA. DNA simply
> is not the issue. If you think that saying more about DNA will prove your
> point then you simply don't understand the problem.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>> Hi George- I have more to say tomorrow- but one point on your comment
>> below.
>>
>> You said:
>> "1st, although this is peripheral to the question at issue I have to
>> repeat that in the context of general relativity a geocentric reference
>> frame is, in principle, just as good as a heliocentric one. General
>> relativity really is general."
>>
>> I disagree. I think it is impossible to make a model of the universe as
>> orbiting the Earth, because it doesn't. I know you can make a model of
>> the universe operating relative to the earth (if you call that
>> geocentric), but that model also takes into account the universe actually
>> operating heliocentrically.
>>
>> I think you are being murky on what geocentric means. When speaking of
>> "geocentric vs. heliocentric" per the ancient debate, geocentric means
>> "the universe revolves around the earth." Or "The earth is the center of
>> the universe." The term "geocentric" today can also refer to the view of
>> things from the earth's position. That is two different uses of the word
>> "geocentric."
>>
>> Do you really think there's a way to model everything with the earth as
>> the center of the universe, with the universe revolving around the earth,
>> as the ancients believed? I strongly disagree.
>>
>> Tomorrow I hope to comment on the DNA part.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:23 PM
>> To: asa; Dehler, Bernie
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>>
>> Bernie -
>>
>> 1st, although this is peripheral to the question at issue I have to
>> repeat that in the context of general relativity a geocentric reference
>> frame is, in principle, just as good as a heliocentric one. General
>> relativity really is general.
>>
>> 2d, statements about what happened in the past are susceptible to
>> apparent age arguments while claims about what is going on in the world
>> aren't.
>>
>> 3d, you are simply missing the point of apparent age arguments. A YEC
>> who uses them freely admits that the things in question - DNA, isotopic
>> abundances, &c - make it appear that the systems in question are very
>> old. You don't need to keep repeating your scientific arguments because
>> the YEC accepts them. Then he says that things didn't really happen that
>> way but God created those systems recently and arranged everything -
>> EVERYTHING - to make them look old. & there is simply no SCIENTIFIC way
>> to refute that argument.
>>
>> Put it this way. The idea of a "crucial experiment" is often
>> over-emphasized but here it's helpful. You have 2 theories:
>>
>> A Changes in human DNA took place over a period of many thousands of
>> years through evolutionary processes.
>>
>> B Human DNA was created about 6000 years ago pretty much as it is now,
>> and at that time was designed by God to make it look as if it had evolved
>> exactly as proposed by theory A.
>>
>> What scientific experiment or observation would you propose in order to
>> distinguish between those two theories?
>>
>> Again, lest there be any doubt, I absolutely reject & abominate apparent
>> age arguments. They represent wretched theology and, among other things,
>> would make any attempt to learn what really happened in the past
>> impossible. But it is not possible for someone operating within the
>> confines of science to show that they're false.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
>>
>> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>> > George- would you say the same thing to a person who is combating the
>> > believer who insists that the universe revolves around the Earth? God
>> > could make it look otherwise there, too (heliocentricity is an
>> > illusion, etc.). My argument is that you can prove evolution from DNA
>> > just as easily as you can prove heliocentricity. Neither can be
>> > denied. Both are obvious once confronted with the facts.
>> >
>> > Hypothesis A: Humans created biologically from dirt.
>> >
>> > Hypothesis B: Humans created biologically from other creatures.
>> >
>> > I have no tolerance for someone who sticks to hypothesis A, recognizes
>> > the evidence of hypothesis B, and says God could have accomplished A by
>> > making it look B.
>> >
>> > Each hypothesis has its own consequence of what the DNA record would
>> > look like if true.
>> >
>> > ...Bernie
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 5:06 PM
>> > To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
>> > Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> >
>> > Bernie -
>> >
>> > I did not say that apparent age arguments were good, just that they
>> > can't be
>> > refuted by arguments that are only scientific or philosophical. From
>> > the
>> > standpoint of a sound theology that takes scientific evidence
>> > seriously,
>> > they're preposterous. But that's a theological assessment. As soon as
>> > a
>> > person responds to your arguments about DNA by saying "But God could
>> > have
>> > ..." you're going to have to start talking theology & not just science.
>> >
>> > Shalom
>> > George
>> > http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> > To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 6:09 PM
>> > Subject: RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> >
>> >
>> > > George said:
>> > > "Cameron is right on the basic point here: The "apparent age"
>> > > argument -
>> > > of which appropriate fabrication of human DNA would be a special
>> > > case -
>> > > cannot be refuted scientifically"
>> > >
>> > > We all know how strong the DNA evidence is in a court of law. If you
>> > > are
>> > > accused of killing someone, and have the victims blood all over your
>> > > clothes and on your person, yet claim to have been somewhere else
>> > > when the
>> > > murder happened, the "science" takes over and no one will believe
>> > > your
>> > > story. The DNA evidence must be accepted. It is overwhelming. It
>> > > is not
>> > > absolute 'proof,' but it is obvious.
>> > >
>> > > In the same way, the DNA evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In
>> > > the
>> > > same exact way, any court of law could say evolution happened beyond
>> > > a
>> > > reasonable doubt, because of the DNA evidence.
>> > >
>> > > If theologians want to put their head in the sand, they can, but I
>> > > see no
>> > > valid scientific way to explain away the DNA evidence- and it is on
>> > > exhibit in the 'court of public opinion.' It is the same as if they
>> > > rejected heliocentricity for theological reasons. Anyone can claim
>> > > heliocentricity can't be proved scientifically too- but of course
>> > > they
>> > > would be quite ignorant scientifically to deny heliocentricity. Same
>> > > exact thing with the DNA genomic evidence.
>> > >
>> > > About 10 years from now, to argue against the DNA evidence for
>> > > evolution
>> > > would be the same ridiculous thing as arguing against
>> > > heliocentricity, as
>> > > genomic studies make the case stronger and stronger. It is already
>> > > an
>> > > "open and shut case" but meanwhile, the genomic evidence keeps
>> > > building.
>> > > But 10 years from now I think kids in grade school will be learning
>> > > these
>> > > things- just as they now learn about heliocentricity in grade school.
>> > >
>> > > To even be accepting of ignorant people (preachers at our local
>> > > churches
>> > > no less) who reject the DNA evidence is a mockery on Christianity.
>> > > Atheists claim that Christians are idiots, and this serves to justify
>> > > their claim.
>> > >
>> > > Just my opinion.
>> > >
>> > > And Cameron- I have a strong opinion, not because I accepted
>> > > evolution and
>> > > am doing a boomerang. It is because I have a strong interest in
>> > > evangelism and meet regularly with atheists. The short-comings of
>> > > Christianity need to be identified and corrected. If we don't
>> > > self-correct, we either rot, or have to get corrected by outsiders.
>> > > It is
>> > > time to clean house. Too many are resigned to living in a condemned
>> > > home,
>> > > because they are comfortable within it, or because acceptance of
>> > > peers is
>> > > more important to them than truth... (correcting is painful).
>> > > Correction,
>> > > I'm sure, is NEVER fun.
>> > >
>> > > ...Bernie
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>> > > On
>> > > Behalf Of George Murphy
>> > > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:09 PM
>> > > To: Cameron Wybrow; asa
>> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> > >
>> > > Cameron is right on the basic point here: The "apparent age"
>> > > argument -
>> > > of
>> > > which appropriate fabrication of human DNA would be a special case -
>> > > cannot
>> > > be refuted scientifically or, for that matter, philosophically.
>> > > Among
>> > > philosophers of science this goes by the name "Russell's Paradox."
>> > > (Bertrand Russell, who pointed it out, obviously was not trying to
>> > > defend
>> > > the historicity of Genesis!) One discussion of it is Malcolm Acock,
>> > > "The
>> > > Age of the Universe", Philosophy of Science 50, 1983, 130. The
>> > > argument
>> > > against apparent age has to be basically theological, & I think can
>> > > be
>> > > made
>> > > pretty strongly.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Shalom
>> > > George
>> > > http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
>> > > To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:34 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> Bernie:
>> > >>
>> > >> You seem to be impervious to even the most careful writing. It
>> > >> should be
>> > >> clear to you by now that I have not been speaking of my own doubts
>> > >> about
>> > >> the DNA evidence, but have been trying to explain to you how YECs
>> > >> can
>> > >> justify those doubts. And technically speaking, they are right --
>> > >> you
>> > >> cannot clinch the argument without resorting to a theological
>> > >> assumption -- i.e., that God would not produce DNA that could be
>> > >> mistaken
>> > >> to imply historical relationships. But I have never endorsed the
>> > >> YEC
>> > >> conclusion. I have said that I find the arguments from DNA
>> > >> reasonable.
>> > >> It's just that those of us trained in philosophy have higher
>> > >> standards
>> > >> for
>> > >> "proof" than Darwinian evolutionists do, so we qualify all
>> > >> knowledge-claims to a degree which does not please you.
>> > >>
>> > >> You are a former evolution denier, and therefore it is not
>> > >> surprising
>> > >> that
>> > >> you now vehemently affirm evolution, with the confidence with which
>> > >> former
>> > >> smokers attack smoking or former meat-eaters preach vegetarianism.
>> > >> Such
>> > >> extreme positional swings are not uncommon in these debates,
>> > >> especially
>> > >> among those who have swung from YEC to TE. But I was never a YEC
>> > >> and
>> > >> never an evolution denier. The only thing that has changed for me
>> > >> is
>> > >> that
>> > >> I have come to doubt that a wholly naturalistic explanation for the
>> > >> evolutionary process is possible. Darwin and his leading disciples
>> > >> have
>> > >> insisted on a wholly naturalistic explanation for the evolutionary
>> > >> process. I've come to think that this is unlikely, or at least that
>> > >> if a
>> > >> naturalistic explanation is available, it is on Dentonian rather
>> > >> than
>> > >> Darwinian lines.
>> > >>
>> > >> You say that you are amazed at the stubbornness of YEC people
>> > >> regarding
>> > >> DNA evidence. I'm amazed at the stubbornness of both atheist and TE
>> > >> Darwinists regarding the evidence for design in organic nature.
>> > >> Indeed,
>> > >> it's so obvious that TEs have to resort to a strained application of
>> > >> "methodological naturalism" (a principle innocent in itself) to rule
>> > >> out
>> > >> of court what every honest and rational person can see just by
>> > >> looking at
>> > >> nature. But perhaps Stephen Meyer's new book will convince you of
>> > >> the
>> > >> design of DNA; it comes out tomorrow. Happy reading!
>> > >>
>> > >> Cameron.
>> > >>
>> > >> ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> > >> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:08 AM
>> > >> Subject: RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> Cameron said:
>> > >>> "Therefore, your suggestion that I still need a bit of tutoring to
>> > >>> understand the evidence for evolution rather dumbfounds me. But if
>> > >>> you
>> > >>> are really convinced that I need such tutoring, perhaps you could
>> > >>> recommend one of your scientific publications to me, and I will
>> > >>> look at
>> > >>> it, to see if there are any arguments that I have missed.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You continue to miss the point of my argument about the fused
>> > >>> chromosome.
>> > >>> I said that it remains logically possible that God created humans
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> chimps independently, with exactly the chromosomal arrangements
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> they
>> > >>> have, and that your argument comes down to "God wouldn't have done
>> > >>> it
>> > >>> that way". But YEC people can just retort that God must have done
>> > >>> it
>> > >>> that way, since that is what we see. It is just one theological
>> > >>> statement against another, and science cannot resolve the impasse."
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cameron- as far as I'm concerned, if you really UNDERSTOOD the
>> > >>> evidence
>> > >>> for fused human chromosome #2, then there's no debate over
>> > >>> evolution.
>> > >>> You are familiar with the DNA evidence for evolution, but you don't
>> > >>> know
>> > >>> how to apply it. I think you are like someone who knows that 2+2=4
>> > >>> yet
>> > >>> can't apply it to real life (such as 2 apples plus 2 apples = 4
>> > >>> apples).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> If the chromosome #2 evidence, by itself, can't prove evolution to
>> > >>> you,
>> > >>> then NOTHING will. On top of that, ther is the pseudogene
>> > >>> evidence.
>> > >>> Each in its own right is enough evidence, but both together is
>> > >>> overkill
>> > >>> in showing that evolution actually happened.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You have to ask your "What evidence would I need to see to be sure
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> evolution happened?" If the answer is "Nothing will prove it to
>> > >>> me"
>> > >>> then
>> > >>> you are blind to all evidence. I think if you answer the question
>> > >>> intellectually and honestly, the answer is in DNA and the answer is
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> fused chromosome 2 and pseudogenes.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Just my opinion, from one former evolution-denier.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I'm amazed at the stubbornness of YEC's to refuse accepting the DNA
>> > >>> evidence since it has recently been available. And the evidence is
>> > >>> building rapidly as genomic studies continue.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ...Bernie
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> > >>> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> > >>> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
>> > >>> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:35 PM
>> > >>> To: asa
>> > >>> Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Bernie:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I spent the early part of my life as a Darwinist and learned my
>> > >>> catechism
>> > >>> well. I could recite the entire litany of pro-evolutionary
>> > >>> arguments
>> > >>> (comparative anatomy, vestigial organs, ontogeny recapitulates
>> > >>> phylogeny,
>> > >>> peppered moths, antibiotic resistance, fused chromosomes,
>> > >>> biogeographical
>> > >>> distribution, etc.) in my sleep. I would have thought that the
>> > >>> level of
>> > >>> my
>> > >>> discussions would have made this clear to you. Therefore, your
>> > >>> suggestion
>> > >>> that I still need a bit of tutoring to understand the evidence for
>> > >>> evolution
>> > >>> rather dumbfounds me. But if you are really convinced that I need
>> > >>> such
>> > >>> tutoring, perhaps you could recommend one of your scientific
>> > >>> publications
>> > >>> to
>> > >>> me, and I will look at it, to see if there are any arguments that I
>> > >>> have
>> > >>> missed.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You continue to miss the point of my argument about the fused
>> > >>> chromosome.
>> > >>> I
>> > >>> said that it remains logically possible that God created humans and
>> > >>> chimps
>> > >>> independently, with exactly the chromosomal arrangements that they
>> > >>> have,
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> that your argument comes down to "God wouldn't have done it that
>> > >>> way".
>> > >>> But
>> > >>> YEC people can just retort that God must have done it that way,
>> > >>> since
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> is what we see. It is just one theological statement against
>> > >>> another,
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> science cannot resolve the impasse.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> You don't seem to grasp that you will never budge a YEC proponent
>> > >>> by the
>> > >>> fused chromosome argument, or any such argument. The problem is
>> > >>> not
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> YECs are dumb at science. Many of them are in fact quite bright at
>> > >>> science,
>> > >>> and hold down jobs in various scientific fields. The problem is
>> > >>> the way
>> > >>> that YECs read the Bible. They think that they have the religious
>> > >>> duty
>> > >>> not
>> > >>> to accept arguments for common descent because they think the Bible
>> > >>> offers a
>> > >>> literal account of origins. So even those YECs who have a very
>> > >>> keen
>> > >>> understanding of science will find ways, however contrived, of
>> > >>> re-interpreting the data in order to preserve literalism. Until
>> > >>> you can
>> > >>> change the way they read the Bible, you are beating your head
>> > >>> against a
>> > >>> stone wall to keep trying to amass genetic arguments, comparative
>> > >>> anatomy
>> > >>> arguments, etc.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As for your comments about outreach, your Americocentric remarks
>> > >>> show
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> you are entirely unfamiliar with the Canadian religious and
>> > >>> cultural
>> > >>> scene
>> > >>> and are therefore not in a position to say what would or would not
>> > >>> work
>> > >>> up
>> > >>> here. It is best that I say no more on this point.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cameron.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > >>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> > >>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:29 PM
>> > >>> Subject: RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Cameron- you also said that you might think it was possible that
>> > >>>> God
>> > >>>> created Adam, biologically, from scratch, from a pile of dirt.
>> > >>>> First,
>> > >>>> you
>> > >>>> need to understand and fully accept the biological origins for
>> > >>>> humans.
>> > >>>> You haven't done that completely yet. When you do, you will be
>> > >>>> able to
>> > >>>> rule-out the possibility of Adam being made, biologically, YEC
>> > >>>> style.
>> > >>>> Then you will come to see the danger of YEC to the evangelical
>> > >>>> church.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The people you want to reach, of course, won't consider
>> > >>>> Christianity,
>> > >>>> because they conflate it with YEC... which is unscientific. If
>> > >>>> you
>> > >>>> want
>> > >>>> to reach atheists, I think you also need to simultaneously rebuke
>> > >>>> the
>> > >>>> YEC's, who block the path to Christianity from the intellectuals
>> > >>>> who
>> > >>>> may
>> > >>>> want to join.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Too many think that you have to believe in a global flood and a
>> > >>>> young
>> > >>>> earth in order to be an evangelical. That's why they need to be
>> > >>>> told
>> > >>>> of
>> > >>>> another way into Christianity.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> ...Bernie
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 29 12:41:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 12:41:51 EDT