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

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 16:44:52 EDT

My apologies for jumping in between you two. I saw "George and
geocentricity" and failed to look before I leaped. This topic fascinates me
regardless of the forum I find myself. I plan to teach a Sunday School
lesson on science and religion and this topic serves as a great analogy to
today's assumed conflict.

George, the "Coope"

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:27 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] George and geocentricty (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

Bernie -

I think I've made it clear that I am not defending a "geocentric" universe
in the strict sense of the everything being centered geometrically on the
earth &/or orbiting it.

Below you've failed to specify who "they" were - i.e., "they" whose model
was wrong. Ptolemy was wrong. The models of Tycho & Copernicus, OTOH, are
equivalent as far as motions in the solar system are concerned. The status
of extra-solar stars in those models isn't as clear because both of them
still had the "fixed stars" outside the solar system & of course there
aren't any "fixed stars" - but the 1st discovery of proper motion of a star
wasn't found till later in the 17th century, by Halley.

The point I wanted to make originally was that one can say that from the
standpoint of GRT a semi-Tychonic model is as legitimate as a Copernican
one. I've said it sufficiently & so will conclude the discussion from my
end.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] George and geocentricty (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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 16:45:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 16:45:45 EDT