A few months ago Todd Greene and I began planning a debate on the subject of the age of the universe and the age of the earth. He was to take the position that the age of the universe was over 100,000 years old and I was to take the positions that the earth was no more than 10,000 years old. Todd's original set of propositions were as follows:

The empirical evidence shows that the Universe has been in existence longer than one hundred thousand (100,000) years.

The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years old.

I immediately informed him that I did not intend to be limited to what I could see, hear, smell, touch, or taste so I didn't want the word "empirical" in my proposition. He did not want to stray from that fearing that I might get into the Bible. I informed him that I had no intention of getting into the Bible, but I would meet him strictly from a scientific viewpoint. After which he allowed me to affirm the following proposition: "Resolved, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old." Everything was going smoothly until Saturday, November 3, 2007. Todd came up with the idea that he wanted to change the wording of his proposition from "The empirical evidence shows that the Universe has been in existence longer than one hundred thousand (100,000) years" to "The scientific evidence shows that the Universe has been in existence longer than one hundred (100,000) years." I asked him what happened to the "empirical" evidence. He said that he was using "empirical" and "scientific" interchangeably. I informed him that even though scientific experiments had to be based upon what you could see, hear, smell, touch, and/or taste there were some things in science that we could not experience with our empirical senses. Todd, then came back and decided that my proposition had to read "The scientific evidence shows that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old." Since he had stated that he was using "science" and "empirical" interchangeably that I would not allow the change to my proposition, because I was not going to be limited to what I could see, hear, smell, touch, or taste. I pointed out that this was exactly what he had tried to get me to do earlier and I refused to do it then, and I was going to refuse to do it now. I insisted that Todd allow me to word my proposition, this was something that he refused to do.

During the process of our negotiations Todd had written that he did not want to debate the subject of Creation Vs. Evolution, but at no time did he say that I could not argue against evolution. Since geology and palentology were to be part of my proposition, I never dreamed that Todd would say that evolution had nothing to do with either one of those subjects. About 3 weeks, or so, ago Todd made a video entitled "Creationists Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science" and put it on Youtube at the following address http://youtube.com/watch?v=iM4wO-I-Sz4. In this video he criticized creationists because we say that evolution isn't science, and made the statement that scientists were writing books about evolution and if evolution wasn't science they wouldn't be writing about it as though it was. He made pictures of four books to advertise, all of which were books on geology, and one in particular "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple. I bought this book for the sole purpose of our debate because Todd recommended it to me. I also bought another book on Geology called "Physical Geology" written by Plummer, McGerary & Carlson. I bought a book entitled "Science and Earth History, The Evolution/Creation Controversy" by Arthur N. Strahler, all three which deal with geology and the fossil record. How in the world can one deal with the fossil record without dealing with biological evolution? It can't be done.

Among other books that I had bought, University Physics, Thermodynamics, Biology, Microbiology, etc., I also bought one called Astronomy Today by Chaisson and McMillian. In that book they stated:

Then on page 765 of the same book we read:

"The fossil record leaves no doubt that biological organisms have changed over time--all scientists accept the reality of biological evolution. As conditions on Earth shifted and Earth's surface evolved, those organisms that could best take advantage of their new surroundings succeeded and thrived--often at the expense of organisms that could not make the necessary adjustments and consequently became extinct" (Ibid, p. 765).

Todd had made the statement that evolution had nothing to do with astronomy and I produced both of these quotations. His first response was that I had misread what Chaisson and McMillian said, so I quoted them again, and this is when he came back deciding to change my proposition to "The scientific evidence shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old." I informed him that I would not allow this change, and it was because of his earlier statement that "empirical" and "scientific" were used, by him, interchangeably. After several hours of discussing back and forth Todd wrote and said that he would just call the whole thing off unless I put the word "scientific" somewhere in my proposition. After a while I went ahead and rewrote my proposition this way: "Resolved, the scientific evidences (which includes geology, palentology, and biology) and a refutation of evolution, shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old." He again refused this because he said it was basically the same thing. He said that he didn't want the debate to deal with evolution. I informed him of the books that he had advertised as teaching evolution as factual on his video and one of them was The Age of the Earth. He remained silent for a while then came back with the explanation that he was just too lazy to remove that picture that he had used on another video, but that he didn't intend for it to mean that those books proved evolution. Hmm, that's good! He advertises books as being books that prove the factualness of evolution, yet they really don't do that; he was just too lazy to change the picture. Well, what about all those people that saw that video? Don't they think that he is saying that those books prove evolution? Maybe nothing that he advertized proved evolution, he was just too lazy to change the pictures? Or, maybe, he hadn't thought that I would pick up on this, buy one of those books, and use it against him.

He granted me permission to deal with cosmic evolution, but notice what Chaisson and McMillian say about this: "Together, these evolutionary phases [particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological (bold mine jdm), and cultural evolution in the paragraph above, jdm] represent the grand sweep of cosmic evolution--the continuous transformation of matter and energy that has led to the appearance of life and civilization on our planet" (Ibid, p. 760). Now, since biological evolution is part of the seven phases of cosmic evolution, why is it that I am not able to use it? He would have no problem with my using stellar or planetary evolution in discussing the universe, but when getting into the age of the earth where I would need to get into the fossil record in geology, he objects. How can I deal with the age of the earth without dealing with geology and the fossil record? And the next question is: "How can I deal with geology and the fossil record without dealing with biological evolution"? These are questions that Todd can't answer, and it is questions like these that caused him to call of the debate.

Recently he sent the following email: (my responses are all in italics jdm).

"I see that Jerry McDonald has been going around lying about me and lying about events in regard to our proposed debate on the antiquity of the universe and the antiquity of the earth. I'm sending this email to you to set the record straight. You can see documentation about the events, and what Jerry did, at this web page: http://creationism.outersystem.us/debateinfo.html. The fact of the matter is that it is Jerry who backed out the debate BECAUSE I REFUSED TO LET HIM CHANGE THE SUBJECT. The subject of the debate, from the beginning, was about what the scientific evidence shows about the antiquity of the universe (astronomy) and the antiquity of the earth (geology).

I have not been telling any lies about Todd or anyone else. What I am producing at this time are the emails that deal with negotiations of the debate that Greene is talking about.

Greene, August 22, 2007, Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Re: Jerry McDonald's anti-atheist prejudice flapping in the wind. #11712. Here you go, Jerry McDonald. Let's see if you can even ATTEMPT to get your facts straight. (Of course, we know you can't because such asimple feat is apparently beyond your capabilities.) What makes your behavior so amusing is because of how it gives us a great example demonstrating a Christian - you - doing EXACTLY what, due to anti-atheist prejudice, he slanders atheists for doing! (Actually, I think that when it's in writing it's called "libel.") As Jim Lippard points out, "They write things like [this] as propaganda against atheism, not as an expression of interest in truth." This is just so like you,such as when those many years ago I pointed out your error in referring to Hugh Ross, an old earth creationist (who is, by the way, known for his anti-science writing attacking evolution) as a theistic evolutionist.

Jerry, you are simply incapable of dealing with the facts and correcting your erroneous statements. The general principle about this is (1) you need to get your facts straight, and (2) if you are not capable of getting your facts straight then you should simply shut up and try to restrain yourself from promoting falsehoods. The general lesson about this is that, due to some sort of fundamental failure that is inherent to your particular ideology you not only will deliberately ignore (1) and (2), even while your ideology requires you to falsely tell people all the time that you adhere to (1) and (2). This sort of blatant hypocrisy is thus apparently a fundamental component of your ideology. (This same problem of being "honesty-challenged" was brought out in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, and was strongly criticized by Judge John E. Jones in his published decision.) This is one of the reasons why when Christians like you try to get in discussions with me about "objective morality" I just laugh and laugh and laugh.
- Todd Greene

McDonald, August 23, 2007, Re: Jerry McDonald's anti-atheist prejudice flapping in the wind --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"<greeneto@...> wrote: Here you go, Jerry McDonald. Let's see if you can even ATTEMPT to get your facts straight. (Of course, we know you can't because such a simple feat is apparently beyond your capabilities.) What makes your behavior so amusing is because of how it gives us a great example demonstrating a Christian - you - doing EXACTLY what, due to anti-atheist prejudice, he slanders atheists for doing! (Actually, I think that when it's in writing it's called "libel.") As Jim Lippard points out, "They write things like [this] as propaganda against atheism, not as an expression of interest in truth." This is just so like you, such as when those many years ago I pointed out your error in referring to Hugh Ross, an old earth creationist (who is, by the way, known for his anti-science writing attacking evolution) as a theistic evolutionist.

McDonald
Hello Todd, as I pointed out so many years ago, if you look like a theistic evolutionist, smell like a theistic evolutionist, talk like a theistic evolutionist and take sides with the theistic evolutionist, don't be surprised when someone calls you a theistic evolutionist. If you don't like to be called a theistic evolutionist don't jump into bed with them. Birds of a feather flock together. I am glad that you brought up Capaldi's book. Did you read my post this morning? I have yet to hear from him on what his beliefs are, but I am sure that he will tell us. However, as far as my learning about this book is concerned I learned about it on the internet and ordered it. I found that it came from Prometheus Publications (which is well known for its publication of atheistic material). If I was to want to publish a book Prometheus wouldn't even be on the list. If Capaldi is a faithful Catholic, what is he doing publishing his material through Prometheus? If Capaldi is so faithful, why does he hold to the ideas of John Stuart Mill, who held to the views of Jeremy Bentham, who held to the views of the Epicureans, whose philosophy was said to be fit only for pigs? I did, however, write Mr. Capaldi and ask him. If I am wrong about him, I will make the correction and make a formal apology, not only to him, but on this list and the errancy list. It doesn't seem that those on the errancy list were too bothered by my calling him an atheist, it seems that they kind of liked the idea.

TGreen
Jerry, you are simply incapable of dealing with the facts and correcting your erroneous statements. The general principle about this is (1) you need to get your facts straight, and (2) if you are not capable of getting your facts straight then you should simply shut up and try to restrain yourself from promoting falsehoods. The general lesson about this is that, due to some sort of fundamental failure that is inherent to your particular ideology you not only will deliberately ignore (1) and (2), even while your ideology requires you to falsely tell people all the time that you adhere to (1) and (2). This sort of blatant hypocrisy is thus apparently fundamental component of your ideology. (This same problem of being "honesty-challenged" was brought out in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, and was strongly criticized by Judge John E. Jones in his published decision.) This is one of the reasons why when Christians like you try to get in discussions with me about "objective morality" I just laugh and laugh and laugh.

McDonald
Well, I'll tell you what Todd, Doug Krueger and I were going to meet in Fayetteville, AR in November for a two night debate on Biblical Ethics vs. Humanistic Ethics, but I couldn't get Doug to agree to a date or a set of rules. So why don't you meet me in a four night debate here at Belle. I am sure that I can get the use of the building for four nights and we are around 25 miles from East Central College in Rolla, plus The University of Missouri in Rolla and about 65 miles from the University of Missouri in Columbia. I think I can get a pretty big audience of college students for you. We will see how much you laugh then. Would you take Krueger's place?

Todd didn't get back with me on this subject so I sent him the following email: "Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not? jdm" (August 24, 2007 on Baty's list). Later that day he wrote the following email:

Greene:
Re: Debate --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772): Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not? jdm

Hi Jerry,

First of all, young earth creationists don't have any credible ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young earth creationists.

Just so you know.

Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a subject I've studied or am interested in studying. I do know that "humanist ethics" condemns both slavery and the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, while "biblical ethics" endorses both of those, so I'm not all that concerned about such serious cognitive dissonance problems on my end.

What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and have studied, and have discussed at length with young earth creationists, and that I will debate you on, both in writing or in a public speaking engagement, and about which I have challenged other young earth creationists.

Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your consideration:

| Proposition #1:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth has
| been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #2:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| has been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #3:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
| less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
| old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S Greene
|
| Proposition #4:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
| years old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S. Greene

Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in writing or in a public speaking engagement? If you're serious, instead of just engaging in the typical rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by such guys as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also take a look at practical issues that I've already mentioned in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

- Todd Greene

McDonald, post # 11712: Re: Debate

Todd, weren't you the one who said that you loved the creationists because of the "objective morality" view and that it makes you laugh and laugh? This is what I was going on.

Robert and I are already having an unofficial debate on the challenge list on the age of the earth. If Robert wants to defer to you, that is fine with me. My proposition, however, will be written by me, not
you. jdm

On August 25, 2007 Greene wrote: #11819
Re: Debate --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11792): Todd, weren't you the one who said that you loved the creationists because of the "objective morality" view and that it makes you laugh and laugh? This is what I was going on.

You're right, Jerry. I did. It's the ironic nature of young earthcreationist hypocrisy that I find so amusing. Here is what I wrote:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11712 The general principle about this is (1) you need to get your facts straight, and (2) if you are not capable of getting your facts straight then you should simply shut up and try to restrain yourself from promoting falsehoods. The general lesson about this is that, due to some sort of fundamental failure that is inherent to your particular ideology you not only will deliberately ignore (1) and (2), even while your ideology requires you to falsely tell people all the time that you adhere to (1) and (2). This sort of blatant hypocrisy is thus apparently a fundamental component of your ideology. (This same problem of being "honesty-challenged" was brought out in the 2005 Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, and was strongly criticized by Judge John E. Jones in his published decision.) This is one of the reasons why when Christians like you try to get in discussions with me about "objective morality" I just laugh and laugh and laugh.

So which part of that did you not understand?

By the very fact of their being young earth creationists, young earth creationists demonstrate that there is something fundamentally flawed with whatever moral standard they purport to have. Why would I waste
any time on a time-consuming discussion of such a subject with people who have less than zero credibility on it, whose moral judgement is already known to possess critical flaws? Lying for Jesus is not moral. The fact that "Jesus" is used in that statement is completely irrelevant. The deceitful nature of The Young Earth Creationist Way
is not moral. It's a cliche, but this is most appropriate in this context: "Actions speak louder than words."

Robert and I are already having an unofficial debate on the challenge list on the age of the earth. If Robert wants to defer to you, that is fine with me.

Currently I don't know where that discussion group is located. Additionally, I was under the distinct impression that I was not only not welcome to participate in discussion of creationism in that group, but that I would either not be allowed to join if I tried to do so, or that I would be quickly banned were I to join. I already know for a fact that getting involved in any discussion group run by you is a bad idea because you oppose open discussion and will just up and ban people who disagree with you and point out your errors. (You've already done this to me. You yourself are one reason I started the "creationism" discussion group in the first place.) So I just don't see the point of it. This "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group is an open discussion group. My own "creationism" discussion group is an open discussion group. There are other open discussion groups. You are welcome and indeed invited to discuss the issues in any such open discussion groups. So I see no need to get involved in any group run by you, and see reason to refrain from doing so.

My proposition, however, will be written by me, not you.

And I did not say otherwise. I clearly wrote "Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your consideration." Perhaps you missed that part. You should feel free to discuss the wording of the
propositions, especially regarding what you would be affirming. (However, I note here that you did not happen to state what problem there might be, if any, with the wording of the propositions that I wrote. I'm very curious to see you explain what problem, if any, you think there might be.)

I'm not like the deceitful David P. Brown, Daniel Denham, Keith Sisman, and others, who deliberately misrepresent my position, write a proposition that deliberately misrepresents my position, and then lie to people that I will not debate them simply because I will not affirm a proposition that THEY wrote that does not represent my position (and they lie like this, knowing that I have already written my own proposition that does represent my position that I have told them I will debate). This is how deceitful these men are.

Jerry, since you apparently recognize the fact that other people should not be writing misrepresentative propositions and expecting you to sign on to them as representing your position, I shall look forward to you pointing out the lying ways of David P. Brown and others in his "buddyhood" who have emulated those lying ways on this.

Unless, of course, you're just another hypocrite like them.

- Todd Greene

Then on August 28, 2007 I sent the following email to Greene: #11884.

Todd, would you be up for a four night debate on Creation vs. Evolution here at the Belle church of Christ? As I said we are within driving distance of several colleges and the university of Missouri.

In Christ,
Jerry McDonald

Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote (post #11884): Todd, would you be up for a four night debate on Creation vs. Evolution here at the Belle church of Christ? As I said we are within driving distance of several colleges and the university of Missouri.
In Christ,
Jerry McDonald

Jerry, I require your direct (not indirect or evasive) response to
this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11792

and this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11819

Don't attempt to change the subject. Your rhetorical maneuvering is
transparent to us.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ? Post # 11907

All right Todd, why don't we just debate the "age of the earth" here at Belle?
jdm

"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote: You are correct. Jerry wants to debate "Creation vs. Evolution" because he wants to run all over the map like a Gish gallop and never get at the heart of the issue. The heart of the problem with young earth creationism is that it is a scientifically false idea about reality, because it is a scientific fact that that Universe and the Earth have been in existence far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years.

Previously, Jerry indicated that he should write his own proposition that he would affirm, which I stated I do NOT have any problem with, but it must be an unequivocal statement and it must be relevant. I told Jerry this, pointing out that the propositions I wrote were for his "consideration" to get the ball rolling. He intimated that he had some problem with what I wrote, and I asked him to explain what the problem may be, but as yet I have seen nothing from him providing any such explanation. Then the next thing I see from him in regard to any debate is this post in which he fully retreats from the whole subject, trying to change the subject to "Creation vs. Evolution." I will NOT debate the subject of evolution with any young earth creationist, because they are incapable of comprehending the subject, because they have no framework for comprehending it, because their minds are mired in pre-19th century religious doctrine that was scientifically falsified by geological studies over 200 years ago. (Of course, since I made the post on this, it has become clear to me
that Jerry - and David P. Brow - are advocates of the apparent age argument, which means that both of them actually AGREE WITH ME that the geological and astronomical evidence is exactly what we expect to see for an Earth and a Universe that have been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. They just say that the empirical evidence
is that of an ancient Universe and ancient Earth, because GOD MADE IT LOOK THAT WAY. In other words, God put fake fossils in the rocks of fake geologic strata, and God put fake illusions in the sky of star explosions that never happened.)

However, since I'm aware of the fact that due to their cluelessness about basic science very many young earth creationists don't even know the difference between GEOLOGY and ASTRONOMY, and evolution, so
it may even be the case that due to this YEC confusion about science when Jerry referred to "Creation vs. Evolution" he *meant* to refer to what I had already discussed. We shall have to see what he's really aiming if he will be more specific when he responds on this matter. The ball is in Jerry's court to clarify everything about this.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?

Why not debate the following propositions?

Resolved the universe has been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred
thousand years).

Todd Greene Affirms.
Jerry McDonald Denies.

Resolved the earth has been here less than a few thousand years.

Jerry McDonald Affirms.
Todd Greene Denies.

We will have two nights for each proposition.
jdm

Re: [M & B] Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ? Post 11909

I believe that I have already answered that as far as the propositions are
concerned. As far as my being willing to actually meet you. If you are willing
I'll meet you!
jdm

"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote (post #11884):
Todd, would you be up for a four night debate on Creation vs. Evolution here at the Belle church of Christ? As I said we are within driving distance of several colleges and the university of Missouri.
In Christ,
Jerry McDonald

Jerry, I require your direct (not indirect or evasive) response to
this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11792

and this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11819

Don't attempt to change the subject. Your rhetorical maneuvering is
transparent to us.

- Todd Greene

Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11908):
Why not debate the following propositions?

Resolved the universe has been in existence longer than 100,000 (one hundred thousand years).

Todd Greene Affirms.
Jerry McDonald Denies.

Resolved the earth has been here less than a few thousand years.

Jerry McDonald Affirms.
Todd Greene Denies.

We will have two nights for each proposition.
jdm

Hi Jerry,

I think we're getting close.

I'd like to understand why you want to remove the phrase "The empirical evidence shows that" from the wording of the propositions. Will you explain this, please?

Also, please note that "a few thousand" can be interpreted equivocally. I've always thought of a "a few" as being like three or four, and "several" as being like six, seven, or eight, or so. I never think of 10,000 or 12,000 or 25,000 as being "a few thousand," yet I know that some young earth creationists use numbers like that, so it seems to me that that should be stated less equivocally.

Additionally, in regard to practical considerations, please read this post I wrote several weeks ago:

Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate (July 1, 2007)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ? Post # 11936
If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues of knowledge rather than just empirical knowledge. I will deal with some of those things that we can have through empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as well. However, if you want to go with just empirical evidence, then be my guest.
jdm

Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ? Post # 11954

Hi Jerry,

Thank you for addressing my question about the "empirical evidence" wording. It's what I suspected, but I thank you for stating this plainly. I do indeed want the words "empirical evidence" in my proposition. (Indeed, there is no other evidence, unless you're making a circular argument. But if you want to use a circular argument on your end of the debate, I will enjoy that thoroughly.)

Please note that you did not address the problem of the equivocal wording of "a few thousand."

But, as I previously stated, I do think we're getting close.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ? Post 11957

I do believe that in my private post I sent you an alternative proposition.
jdm

"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
Hi Jerry,

Thank you for addressing my question about the "empirical evidence" wording. It's what I suspected, but I thank you for stating this plainly. I do indeed want the words "empirical evidence" in my proposition. (Indeed, there is no other evidence, unless you're making a circular argument. But if you want to use a circular argument on your end of the debate, I will enjoy that thoroughly.)

Please note that you did not address the problem of the equivocal wording of "a few thousand."

But, as I previously stated, I do think we're getting close.

- Todd Greene

In a private email on August 29, 2007 I wrote:

I have the brethren's permission to have a four night debate with you on the issue of the age of the universe and the earth.

The proposition that I want to affirm states:

Resolved: Our planet, Earth, is a relatively young planet, no older than 10,000.

I will affirm and you can deny.

You can have whatever proposition that you want to have.

I won't be able to have the debate until around the end of May 2008. I just have too many things to get done between now and then, plus I am going to have to order books and make up charts for the debate.

Jerry

[M & B] Jerry, let's do this thing! The debate is on, as far as I'm concerned. Post # 12044
There you go! All that remains is the logistics.

- Todd Greene ;-)

From this point on I began studying for and buying books for the debate from a scientific standpoint He had agreed to my proposition which stated "Resolved: Our planet, Earth, is a relatively young planet, no older than 10,000. There were no disagreements, no problems with the propositions until November. I had purchased the book Astronomy Today by Chaisson & McMillian. Earlier in November I made a comment about Todd Greene's youtube video entitled "Creationists Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science" and I stated that if that was all he had then he was in trouble when he got to Belle in May. This started another barage of email exchanges on whether or not evolution was science. Something had been said about evolution not being part of astronomy or geology. I informed Todd that I had purchased one of the books that he advertised on his video as proving evolution, and it was about Geology. I also informed him that Chaisson's & McMillian's book on astronomy considered biological evolution as part of both astronomy and biology (you can find both of these quotes at the beginning of this article). Then on November 2, 2007 Todd wrote the following email:

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13182

Actually, probably tomorrow. I'm hoping that Saturday is still part of the weekend. ;-)

I've compiled some stuff and HTMLized most of it already, but not completely yet, so I'll finish that up and get it up on my website either late tonight or sometime tomorrow.

At that time (i.e., tonight or tomorrow) - assuming it is agreeable to Jerry as well - I will give a final signoff on the specific wording of my affirmative proposition for the debate, for public consumption as "this is it." In regard to Jerry's affirmative proposition, I have already stated my qualms about him removing any reference to scientific evidence from the proposition (and have compiled Jerry's specific response to my comments promising that his discussion will be strictly about the relevant science, just in case I need to bring up his promise to me in the debate itself). We will have to ask Jerry about his "official signoff" on that proposition as currently worded.

- Todd

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13199

No, Todd, there was no disagreement about "scientific evidence," but "empirical evidence." Empirical evidence is what I did not want in my proposition. I wanted it left open to any kind of evidence, not just what I can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. I will certainly use scientific arguments in defense of my proposition, but I will not restrict it to what I personally can see, hear, smell, touch, and or taste.
jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13213

There you go. This is EXACTLY the silly deceitful word game tricks I'm talking about. Jerry, let me be very clear with you right here and now. These word game tricks are not going to fly with me.

We're talking about science, plain and simple, AND YOU KNOW THAT. Do not attempt to lie to me about this with crap like this and waste my time.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13214

Todd, empirical evidence is only those things that you can see, hear, smell, touch, taste happening. I understand that scientific evidence has to be tested in this way, but the problem is you can't test evolution empirically. You can make some scientific arguments for it (though they don't hold up) but you can't make any empirical arguments for it. The reason for this is because it is not something that is repeatable.
jdm

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13216

Geology is a science, astronomy is a science, etc., and you can make arguments in these areas, but you can't make empirical arguments in these areas because you weren't there to be able to see, hear, touch, smell or taste those events.
All you can do now, is to look at the results and make some scientific arguments in favor, as I said, however, they won't hold up.
jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13223

See, Jerry?, you're wrong, but you use this opportunity to play these word games. Your very behavior here EXPLAINS precisely why I change "empirical" to "scientific," because I'm not in this debate to waste my time playing word game with people. Apparently you are, but I'm not going to. I need you to be absolutely clear about this. I'm certainly NOT going to play games with you about the scope of the debate. I absolutely insist that this debate be scope to discussion of the science, and I must have your absolutely unchanging assurance that this is so. There are no word games allowed on this matter.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13225

As far as your proposition is concerned, you may defend it as you please, but I will show that evolution sticks to you like superglue and I will defend my proposition however I please.
jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post 13219

Jerry, right here and now I'm going to get into some long drawn out discussion with you about your young earth creationist distorted philosophy of science (that doesn't even exist in the world of professional science).

We're dealing with the basics of getting this debate set up, and here we're dealing with THE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.

Because of this, I am going to be crystal clear with you. This debate is about the science. Period. That is what I stated at the beginning. It's what I've stated all along. And it's what I'm telling you now.

AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, JERRY.

I absolutely will not play your word games about this. If you do not agree that the scope of this debate is about the relevant science, then I will not be participating in it.

Jerry, I need to able to trust that we can make these arrangements, and that you are not in this very basic matter still playing word games trying to deceive me about anything. If I cannot trust you on this most basic matter, the topic of the debate itself, I will not be in any such debate.

Indeed, now that I have seen what you are doing right now, I am going to INSIST on the following. This is no longer just a "concern" of mine about your removal of the reference to science. Now I DO ABSOLUTELY INSIST that your proposition have reference to science in it, indicating to everyone that the scope of the debate is ABOUT THE SCIENCE. I have no problems discussing how it should be specifically worded, but the wording MUST scope it to dealing with science. If you refuse to scope the debate to the science, I refuse to participate in
it.

Apparently when I had my misgivings previously when you removed the reference entirely, I should have stuck to my guns and been a stickler about it. I should have gone with my gut instinct. Live and learn. Anyway, I'm taking care of my mistake right now.

- Todd Greene

P.S.: As I've previously indicated, not only can you talk about evolution all you want in your part of the debate, I HOPE YOU DO, because you'll be wasting your time completely talking about nothing of any relevance to the debate, and it will thus give me more time spend educating the audience about various details in astronomy, or
geology, that contradict young earth creationism.

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? - correction Post # 13228

I wrote, "I'm going to get into some long drawn out discussion with you about your young earth creationist distorted philosophy of science." I meant I'm NOT going to get into it now. We have things to get straight first.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13224

If all you want to do is to make scientific arguments for your proposition, that is fine with me (though I feel that you are backwatering on me), but I will use all available evidence at my disposal to defend my proposition. As I told Farrell Till, so I tell you: You will not make any demand as to my proposition or how I defend it. You can do whatever you please with your's, but I will do as I please when I get into the affirmative. Got It? Is that clear enough for your, or do I need to draw you a picture?
jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13228

That's okay, Jerry, I'll go ahead and draw the picture for you.

I have been absolutely honest with you from the beginning that I would debate you on the science, and that it would be about astronomy (what does the scientific evidence show about whether the universe has been in existence for longer than 100,000 years or not) and geology (what does the scientific evidence show about whether the universe has been in existence for longer than 100,000 years or not).

I have never changed that one bit.

But I see that you are unable to keep this debate scoped to dealing only with the science (even though previously you assured me otherwise).

Therefore, I am calling this whole debate thing off, unless your debate proposition states right in the wording in some way (come up with your own wording, if you don't like mine) that is is ABOUT THE SCIENCE. I am going to be an absolutely stickler about this one, as I should have been a couple of months ago when you totally removed the reference (i.e., you didn't change it, you removed it altogether). I consider this my fault. I've had enough experience with how much you young earth creationists love to play word games, I certainly should
know better than to waste time going down this road of misapprehension.

Jerry, I told you, I'm not playing any games with you about this most basic aspect of a debate. I was clear with you from the beginning. Guess I should have been even clearly.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13229

Okay, I get it, another atheist runs for the hills. Good job. You make it two this year.
jdm

It was at this point in the negotiations that I realized that this debate probably wasn't going to take place, even though I had spend closed to $500.00 on books in preparation, I still knew that it was probably over. The emails continued for the next couple of days.

McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13231

Yes, precisely because the young earth creationist told the atheist that the debate of the subject would be "strictly from a scientific standpoint," but then the atheist found out that the young earth creationist was lying to him.

Good job, Mr. Creationist.

This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

- Todd

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13232

And we can prove this all over again.

Jerry, will you state here and now that this debate would be strictly from a scientific standpoint. Indeed, will you state it so clearly that you will PUT THE WORDS RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION.

Indeed, here we go, I'll do it for you, here is the proposition as you had worded it WITH YOUR OWN words put into it:

Resolved, strictly from a scientific standpoint, the earth has been here less than a few thousand years.

There you go, Jerry, will you sign off on that proposition USING YOUR OWN WORDS?

No?

I didn't think so.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13233

(Moderator's Note: Jerry McDonald has left the list:

Nov 3, 2007 5:17 pm
jerry d mcdonald
Left group via email

Following is the full, unedited message he sent for posting as a non-member.)

I told you how my proposition was going to read, and I'll not change that. You find where I said that I would word my proposition the way you just said I would. Where is that proposition in my own words. If you want to call of the debate for this cause, go ahead. All that will do is to further confirm to me that you atheists are nothing but a bunch of loud mouthed cowards. It is easy to sit and talk when it's over the internet. It's quite another matter entirely get up in front of an audiance and defend and argue against. I don't believe you have the intestinal fortitude to do that. I will NOT change my proposition. You can word yours however you please, but mine will remain the same. You are no better than Doug Krueger who challenged me to a debate last year and this past summer backed out because I asked him to observe Hedges Rules For Controversy, one of which demanded that both sides treat each other as equals. Krueger said that he would not do that and there was nothing I could get him to do to do it. I told him that I would not go into any debate without both sides agreeing to those rules, and if he would not agree with them the negotiations were over. I even tried to re-write the rules to where the word "equal" wasn't there, but he wouldn't accept it then. He said "the debate is over." Now, here you are, doing the same thing. You accepted my proposition, then you lied and have turned around demanding that I do what you agreed that I didn't have to do. So if that is the way you must have it, then I guess that's the way you must have it. I wish I had known you were going to back out before I spent that $113.00 for that book on Astronomy the other day. My wife tried to get me to wait, but I told her that I thought you were honest enough to go ahead and honer the agreement we had made. I guess I was wrong.
jdm

Re: Who's running from what? -> "strictly from a scientific standpoint" Post # 13240

What a great demonstration of the deceitful, irrational behavior of young earth creationists.

The only thing that really bugs me is all the time I wasted (I spent numerous hours last night and early this morning alone, making up that debate info page, searching through the Maury_and_Baty list looking up relevant posts, and HTMLizing things) because I actually trusted what Jerry had told me. Never again. Live and learn.

What a deceitful people. I have to kick myself. I already knew this.

- Todd Greene

Re: Who's running from what? -> "strictly from a scientific standpoint" Post # 13277

Believe me Todd, you haven't spent near the time nor the money on this debate that I have. I am in trouble with my wife right now because she wanted me to wait before I spent $113.00 on "Astronomy Today," but I told her that you were honest enough to hold to our agreement. I have, so far, spent close to $500.00 on books for this debate, and if we don't have it, that money was spent for nothing. I do want this debate, but I will not change my proposition.
jdm

Re: Who's running from what? -> "strictly from a scientific standpoint"

Jerry, stop lying about me. I haven't backed away from anything. YOU are the one who backed away from your promise to me that this debate was going to be "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Lying about this matter is not going to get you anywhere or achieve anything except show everyone how you jump to lying about things when you don't like them.

You told me you were going to debate the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint AND THAT IS WHAT I AGREED TO. The moment you backed away from your agreement and told me you didn't really mean what you told me, you revealed to me that you were trying to trick me and jerk me around, and that you had no intention of living up to your word. THEREFORE, YOU MUST NOW PUT IN WRITING RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION what YOU told me to begin with, which is that you would discuss this strictly from a scientific standpoint. You may change the wording to whatever looks good/fits/flows well, but however you word it, it MUST in some way state explicitly that the debate is about the science (strictly from a scientific standpoint). THAT is what I signed on to, you know it, and I know that you know it. I agreed that you could compose the wording of your proposition. I did NOT agree that you could CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You can stop the lying.

And in regard to your over-the-top flaky behavior... well, enough said.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Who's running from what? -> "strictly from a scientific standpoint" Post # 13305
<snip>
"McDonald
Okay, Todd, I'll tell you what. I will put "scientific" in my proposition but you have to go back and put "empirical" in yours because you said that you were going to affirm that "empirical" evidence shows that the universe is over 100,000 years old. You can't change your's to scientific. I know you said that his is what you meant by empirical, but as you said to me, I say to you: I am not interested in what you meant, I am interested in what you said." And by the way, I have not backed away from anything. I still intend to discuss it from a scientific viewpoint. Where did you ever get the idea that I was going to use any religious text. I will discuss evolution, but don't you think evolution is science? You said it was in your Youtube video. That is the reason I didn't want scientific in my proposition. I don't happen to believe that evolution is science. I believe it is philosophy. I also want to be able to use logic. Where in there do you get "religion"?
jdm

It was at this point that Robert Baty jumped in and started trying to take over the negotiations and suggested that I get my moderator (Larry Yarber) to join the list and the two of them could work this out. I informed Robert that Larry would not do anything different than I would and I saw no point in getting him involved in the negotiations. I told him that if Todd and I could not work this out then it would not be worked out.

Re: Getting over the debate impasse - "strictly from a scientific standpoint" Post # 13262

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13245):
As I said, Larry won't agree to anything that I won't. Now I want this debate to go forward because I have too much money and time invested in it, but I won't allow any changes to my proposition.

Jerry, you must agree to add to the wording of your proposition, in some way shape or form, however you wish to word it, that this has to do with the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." I don't care so much how you word it, but however you word it, it MUST state EXPLICITLY that the discussion is about the relevant science (i.e., strictly from a scientific standpoint).

We agreed to let my proposition state: Resolved, the evidence shows tht the earth has been in existence for no more than 10,000 years. We had already agreed on that, now he wants to change it.

Now you are lying, by deliberately omitting what I stated at the time. I IMMEDIATELY expressed my concern about your removal of the reference to the science. It is deceitful to deliberately omit this. Then, to assuage my concern, you assured me that you would discuss the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Now today you
start playing word games with me and telling me you didn't really mean that you would discuss the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint. The MOMENT you told me that, I knew all bets were off, because you had misled me.

I have said or done nothing to make him change it except to let him know that I am preparing for it.

Here you're merely engaging in more deceit to cover up the fact that you told me that you didn't really mean "strictly from a scientific standpoint" after all, and that you were going to discuss other mysterious subjects.

I don't think he liked the quotations from "Astronomy Today" and is trying to get around my using it and other books like it.

Here you go lying again. Not only have I already responded to what you quoted and the way you misrepresented the matter, but you know as well as I do that I would love having you waste your time talking about irrelevant subjects.

Indeed, this is why debate propositions are fundamental, because they dictate the SCOPE of the debate. I TOLD YOU what the scope of the debate was to be AT THE VERY BEGINNING of my comments to you. THAT HAS NEVER CHANGED. When you removed the reference to the discussion being about the relevant science from the geology-related proposition, the only reason I went along with it is because you specifically assured me that you would discuss it "strictly from a scientific standpoint," yet here you are now telling me you didn't really mean what you wrote. So you deceived me by telling me something you didn't mean in the first place. You got exactly the response you should have expected to get, when I learned today that you had deceived me when you wrote "strictly from a scientific standpoint," since apparently you had no intention of abiding by what you told me.

I have books on Geology, evolution, microbiology and university physics. I intend to attack this from all directions.

The question is, do you intend to discuss the propositions strictly from a scientific standpoint? That is the only question here. Either you do, or you don't. If you do, we're on. If you don't, the debate is off. It's that simple.

This is why Todd is changing his mind. He is the one who has changed his mind, not me. jdm

This is a flat-out lie, Jerry, and you know it.

Are you going to debate the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint AS YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE GOING TO DO? That is the way this has been FROM THE BEGINNING, because that is WHAT I TOLD YOU TO BEGIN WITH. I have NEVER changed on this. It is only YOU who has changed it. YOU are the one who removed the reference to the science from the wording of the proposition. *I* am the one who immediately called you on it. YOU are the one who then got me to go along with it by promising me that you would debate the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Yet here we are today with you telling me that you don't really mean what you wrote, that you will bring up whatever you like rather than discussing the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint. Jerry, I'm not putting up with your word games about this. You have to be straight with about this. It's like a contract. If you lie in the contract, the contract is null and void. It is precisely because you are now playing word games with me about your previous agreement that I am no longer willing to let slide THE CHANGE THAT YOU MADE early on, because your word games in discussion now caused it to come out that when you assured me several weeks ago that you agreed to the debate "strictly from a scientific standpoint," you didn't really mean it. Therefore, I INSIST that this reference to deal with the science be PUT BACK into the proposition in some way so that it AGAIN states explicitly that the subject is in reference to the relevant science. Because it is the propositions that dictate the scope of the debate, it is the propositions that are published and that people read to know what the debate is about, and it is the propositions that in dictating the scope of the debate guide our preparations.

Jerry, it is YOU who has shown me that I cannot trust your word. Therefore, I insist that the explicit wording, in some way, be RETURNED to the proposition so that it states that the subject is about what is relevant in terms of science.

By the way, I noticed your silly remark previously about atheist cowards. But if you run away from agreeing to discuss the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (which, after all, is what you told me you'd do), we would then be observing who it is who really is afraid of the science.

- Todd Greene

Re: Getting over the debate impasse; a moderator's exercise! (Corrected!) Post # 13278

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:

Hi Robert,

Just to make this explicitly clear for you, should there be productive developments in the future on this, I have NOT closed off consideration of debate with Jerry. All I have stated is that the debate MUST be about the subject I proposed and that Jerry agreed to to begin with. The debate is to be about the young earth creationist claims that the universe, on the one hand, and the earth, on the other hand, have not been in existence more than several thousand years, and the debate is to be ABOUT THE RELEVANT SCIENCE. That has always been the SUBJECT of the propositions I wrote, which I wrote and have discussed long before Jerry came along. If he is willing to debate the subject, as I had thought he had already agreed to do, then I am certainly still interesting in moving forward with arrangement. But if Jerry cannot be straight with us and agree to what he had already agreed to in previous posts, and not try to be changing the subject behind our backs by playing word games, then there's really nothing further to discuss.

If Jerry cannot abide by his previous statement agreeing to discuss this subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint," there's really nothing further to discuss in terms of this proposed oral debate in Belle, Missouri. I was looking forward to it, but too bad, I guess.

- Todd Greene

McDonald
Todd, did you not agree to allow me to affirm the following proposition: Resolved: The Evidence shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old"? Yes, or No? I told you that I don't intend to bring up the Bible, unless you. My arguments will be taken from science, but I will also make arguments against evolution (it is imparative that I do that). The thing that bothers you is that I plan on dealing with evolution. Don't you think evolution is science? Yes, or No? If evolution is science what is the problem with my bringing it up. I have never planned on dealing with the Bible. However, I do plan on using logic, philosopny, geology, biology, palentology and any other means at my disposal, other than the Bible. I told you that the only reason that I will talk about the Bible is if you bring it up. The only reason you are having a problem with this is because I have shown you where evolution is involved with astronomy; and I showed you this by your own people. Now I am still willing to debate and debate from a scientific viewpoint, but I will not allow you to write my proposition for me. What is so wrong with my using logic in the debate? What is so wrong with my using philosophy in the debate? What is so wrong with my arguing against evolution in the debate. I promise that I won't even bring up special creation. I will just show where evolution is false, therefore your take on astrononmy (which is based upon evolution) is false. That is what you don't want me to do and you know it. I have not changed one thing, and you know it. You are the one who has changed. I have promised to deal with science and I will deal with it, but I am going to refute evolution and when I do, I will destroy your take on astronomy because your interpretation on astronomy is based upon cosmic evolution. And when I get into the affirmative I have every right to refute biological evolution in affirming my position. That is something that you don't want to happen and you know it.

jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13239

Jerry, you can play games all you want, and I know you will, and I know you're going to use all manner of deceitful rhetoric and red herring about the matter, because that's what you young earth creationists do.

Here are the facts:

You challenged me to debate a subject that I had zero interest in (and it had nothing to do with young earth creationism). I told you this.

I then told you that I would engage you in a formal oral debate with you (and this offer STILL STANDS) about WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS about whether or not the universe and the earth. *I* did that. And I stated that AT THE VERY BEGINNING. I immediately gave you initially stated propositions for you consideration, and it was clear to you both by my discussion in the post and by the intial wording of the proposition that the debate is to be ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

Then in the course of discussion YOU REMOVED THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SCIENCE. I IMMEDIATELY ASKED YOU ABOUT IT, AND YOU ASSURED ME THAT YOU WOULD DEBATE THE SUBJECT "STRICTLY FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT," and that is the ONLY reason that I moved forward on debate negotiations with you. Now we are seeing that YOU MISLED ME, because now when I fully expect this debate to be strictly from a scientific standpoint, AS I HAVE EXPECTED AND EXPLICITLY STATED ALL ALONG FROM THE BEGINNING, and you start waffling on the matter, even waffling about WHAT YOU WROTE, playing games and now telling me that you didn't really mean what you wrote when you agree with me that this debate would be strictly from a scientific standpoint.

Jerry, the fact of the matter is that *I* am the one who has not changed my position in the slightest. I have been totally consistent about the subject of the debate from the very beginning. It is YOU who has apparently been playing word games all this time, attempting to deceive even about this most fundamental aspect of the subject of the debate.

The fact is that it is YOU, Jerry, who ran for the hills when you were asked to deal with the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WROTE that you would deal with the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (agreeing with what I had explained to you), and now when I actually try to depend on what you told me, you're "backwatering," backpeddling, waffling, playing word games with me, and refusing to be straight with me, etc., etc.

The offer to debate, and our arrangements that we've made so far, STAND, as far as I'm concerned. But if YOU cannot abide by what YOU wrote previously in agreement with me, that the debate is strictly from a scientific standpoint, then there will be no debate. The only debate I ever signed onto was a debate strictly from a scientific standpoint.

AND I KNOW YOU THIS JERRY, SO YOU CAN STOP LYING ABOUT IT NOW.

If you are able to stick by what you ALREADY TOLD ME, that the debate will be strictly from a scientific standpoint, then I'm still in. If you cannot stick by what you wrote, then there won't be any debate between you and me, and this is because YOU COULDN'T STICK BY YOUR OWN WORDS.

- Todd Greene

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13282

You are a liar. The inital propositions didn't have the word "science" in them. They had the word "empirical." I asked you if you were sure you wanted "empirical" in your proposition and you said you did. I told you that I did not want it in mine. You said that was fine. Today when you said that you wanted to change yours from "empirical" to scientific" I said that was fine. Then you tried to make me change mine to "scientific" and I won't do that, because I won't be restricted to just science in my proposition. I will discuss philosophy and logic as well as science. Philosophy is where evolution falls, not under science. When I get into the affirmative, I will have the freedom to discuss both of these, not just science.
jdm

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13234

(Moderator's Note: It just seems kinda strange and silly that Jerry McDonald wants to continue to post here and yet thinks it is something for him to leave the group in a huff, falsely trying to represent that the problem with the debate on "young-earth, creation-science" going forward has something to do with Todd Greene when it is actually Jerry McDonald who is backing down. Following is another undedited post from Jerry McDonald in his current status as a non-member.-RLBaty)

This is precisely what atheists do. They say that they will debate you, then they run for the hills on a technicality. When you first agreed to the propositions, you wanted "empirical evidence" in both propositions. I told you that I would not have "empirical evidence" and that if you were sure that that's what you wanted in your's you could have it. We agreed on that. Today, however, you came back wanting to change your proposition to "scientific evidence" and i told you that this was agreeable with me. However, my proposition would stay the same. I promised not to bring the Bible into the debate and that the only time I would mention it is if you introduced it. However, I told you that I was going to get into cosmic evolution in your proposition and biological evolution in mine (which is necessary), but then you have changed your mind and want me to put scientific evidence in my position. I am not giving in, my proposition stays the same, or we don't debate. You are the one who is making changes here, not me. Yes, I intend to do this from a scientific viewpoint, but I also intend to disucss evolution. Don't you believe that evolution is science? That's what you said in your Youtube video! I don't believe that evolution or creation are in the realm of science, they are in the realm of philosophy. Scientific arguments can be made on both sides, but they are not in the realm of science. I hadn't even planned on going into special creation or a creator because I know that you can't handle such a topic. I was going to do what you wanted to do, but I will not change my proposition.
jdm

Note* In the above email and in another one I used the word "cosmic" evolution when I should have used the word "stellar" evolution. I knew the difference, but things were going so fast that day that I did not take the time to proof everything I sent out. I apologize for that.

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13226

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13203):

As I remember Todd railed on me because I didn't want the word "empirical" in my proposition and he did want it in his. I can produce the email in which this took place if he demands, but now he wants to place scientific. I fully intend to use scientific evidence, but I don't even want it limited to scientific evidence. I intend to use all evidence that is available. I don't mind having "to include scientific evidence" in the proposition, but my proposition will not be limited to only scientific evidence.

Jerry, in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12010

you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint."

I replied in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12025

Jerry, you stated, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint." BUT WHEN I STATED RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION AS I STATED THAT I WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT STRICTLY FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, you seemed to have a problem with that. Also, I know for a fact from all kinds of statements made by you on this general subject that you dismiss science out of hand based solely on religious belief, so, yes, this contradiction is of interest to me precisely because it doesn't make any sense.

Jerry, I can assure you very much that this debate, if it is going to happen, WILL BE LIMITED TO THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. If it is not limited to the science, there won't be any debate with me in it. I want this to be absolutely clear to you.

I'm an easy-going guy. But I'm not that easy.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: McDonald/Greene Debate status? Post # 13227

My statement was meant to be understood that I would not be using the Bible. However, I will be allowed to use whatever evidence I deem necessary to use. That is my choice. The only reason I will even mention the Bible is if you bring it up. However, I will not be limited to using what you call science. I am going to use any and all evidence to defend my proposition. That is the reason that I won't have "empirical" or "scientific" evidence in my proposition. If you want it in your's go right ahead. I intend to show that you are arguing from the standpoint of "evolution," and I intend to show that evolution is not science. I will not be dealing with biological evolution when discussing your proposition, but I will discuss cosmic evolution. However, when I get to my proposition I might decide to get into biological evolution. Since neither cosmic, evolution, or biological (macro) evolution are in the field of science, I will deal with them in the field in which they properly belong. If that isn't acceptable to you, that's too bad.
jdm

McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13230

Jerry, I don't care what you *meant*. I care what you *wrote*, and you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint."

If you want to debate me on this subject (about the universe and earth having been around longer than 100,000 years), then it WILL be "strictly from a scientific standpoint" JUST AS YOU WROTE.

I'm not asking you about what you want to bring up in regard to science, but whatever it is it must be strictly from a scientific standpoint. If you want to spin your wheels wasting time on all kinds of irrelevant stuff, go right ahead, but this debate, discussing whether or not the universe has been around for more than 100,000 years and whether or not the earth has been aroun for more than 100,000 years, will be strictly from a scientific standpoint.

If you refuse to have the debate be strictly from a scientific standpoint, then debate negotiations between us are over. I was clear from the beginning about this. I'm not going to be jerked around about this. This is the most very basis aspect of the debate, the subject of the debate itself.

- Todd Greene

The readers needs to back up and read Post # 13305 which should follow the one above, but didn't because of the way that the posts fell in line. That part is not my fault. I am not in control how the posts fall in line on Baty's list.

Re: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint Post # 13235

(Moderator's Note: And yet again another undedited post from Jerry McDonald as a
non-member.-RLBaty)

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:

Jerry, I don't care what you *meant*. I care what you *wrote*, and you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint."

If you want to debate me on this subject (about the universe and earth having been around longer than 100,000 years), then it WILL be "strictly from a scientific standpoint" JUST AS YOU WROTE.

I'm not asking you about what you want to bring up in regard to science, but whatever it is it must be strictly from a scientific standpoint. If you want to spin your wheels wasting time on all kinds of irrelevant stuff, go right ahead, but this debate, discussing whether or not the universe has been around for more than 100,000 years and whether or not the earth has been aroun for more than 100,000 years, will be strictly from a scientific standpoint.

McDonald
Then why the demand that I put "scientific" in my proposition. You know why! You want it in there so if I get off into philosophy in discussing evolution or logic in discussing these things, you can complain about my straying from the proposition. That's not going to happen. Either you allow me to write and defend my proposition as we had already agreed, or forget it. I was debating when you were still a kid in college trying to figure out what you wanted to to with your life and it's going to take more than a punk like you to change my mind on my proposition. It stands as written. Either you accept it and hold to your word, or you reject it and lie.
jdm

Re: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint Post # 13280

What I said was that I would debate it strictly from a scientific viewpoint and that I would not use the Bible or any other religious text. However, Todd agreed that I could have my proposition as follows: "Resolve, the evidence shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old." Yesterday, for some unknown reason, he changed that and said that I had to use the word "scientific" in my proposition. I fully intend to discuss this from a scientific viewpoint, but I also intend to discuss evolution (which I don't believe is science. I believe it to be in the realm of philosophy) and I intend to use logic in defense of my proposition. Todd does not want me to discuss evolution, and even though he says that evolution is science, he does not want to discuss evolution. I say it is imperative in discussing my proposition. I sent him an alternative proposition which said "Resolved: Scientific evidence (which includes geology, palentology, biology) and a refutation of evolution shows that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old." He has yet to respond to this change of my proposition. Personally, I don't think Todd wants to debate me, and I think he decided to use the propositions as a reason for deciding not to have the debate.

All I am asking for is to be able to write my own proposition. He already knows that I am not going to be using the Bible. He didn't have any problem with me until I started discussing astronomy with him and showing that his interpretation of astronomy is from an evolution standpoint. He said that evolution has nothing to do with astronomy and I quoted from Chaisson and McMillian's book Astononmy Today (both of these men are evolutionists) which taught that both cosmic evolution and biological evolution were involved in this subject. He first tried to say that they weren't talking about biological evolution, but then I pointed out that they named it specifically. This is when he started his diatribe about the propositions and decided that I had to have "scientific" in my proposition or we wouldn't debate. All right, the word scientific is there, and he has had that change for several hours now, and he has yet to respond. Will he go ahead and agree to debate me with the changed proposition? I don't think so. He wants to leave evolution completely out of the discussion and I say that it is an intergral part of both propositions.

Jerry McDonald

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene"
<genewright143@...> wrote:

Question: Did Jerry specifically say in a message to this list that he would debate the age of things strictly from a scientific viewpoint?

If so, can someone post a link and a quote?

If not, then what is all the fuss about?

Now, assume for the moment that there is such a link and quote.

Jerry, you can of course feel free to bow out of the discussion/debate. However, why did you ever say you would debate the age of things from strictly a scientific viewpoint?

Also, "strictly a scientific" viewpoint would certainly, ISTM, mean that you would not be debating the age of things using statements from any religious text.

Debate it from the Bible if you wish, but then that is no longer "strictly from a scientific viewpoint".

Gene

Re: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint Post # 13309

This is the illogical mind of a young earth creationist talking Ooooo, "if you're an atheist, and biological evolution is wrong, then astronomy and geology are all wrong too." No wonder he can't understand what Copi and Warren have told him. Logic has never been the forte of the young earth creationist mind. Indeed, it's the deeper problem.

Anyway, I'm noticing that should this debate occur, Jerry is apparently going to rely heavily on young earth creationist red herring about the Big Bang, which I'm RELISHING. People who are familiar with my discussion about the errors and fallacies of young earth creationist already know EXACTLY how I'll deal with the young earth creationist rhetoric about the big bang. They'll know about my story of two men driving to the beginning of a road, and one guy claiming the road's only a couple of miles long while the other guy tells him that's wrong because he know's it's substantially longer than that, even though he has no idea how long the road is.

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13303):
Gene Wright wrote: --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote:
Nor would completely disproving biological evolution change anything about the age of the Universe or the Earth. That isn't even logical to start with.

Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Gene: Agreed. Imagine that the biological evolution of life on earth is disproved because Aliens colonized the earth and stocked it with animals 100,000 years ago when they moved here from Star Z.

There goes evolution.

Age still remains.

(And, no I don't believe that, but it points out that even IF biological evolution is false, that does not negate the arguments for the age of things).

McDonald
Ha,ha,ha! Now can we get back to reality here? I don't think Todd is going to be foolish enough to argue that aliens might have colonized this planet with anything from planet Z. If evolution is false, it certainly does negate the arguments for the age of things as far as Todd is concerned because he is an atheist and does not believe in God. He isn't like Rick and Robert. To him there is either evolution or creation. If evolution is false then creation has to be true. That's the atheistic position.

Gene
I also imagine the response of scientists to a proof that evolution is false going along these lines: "Hey, you're right...evolution is false. You know, we really don't have a good explanation for how life got here on the 4.5 billion year old earth. But, wait till you see the latest evidence for the big bang..."

Gene

McDonald
Scientists might say many things, but the fact is that the big bang is part of the evolutionary theory.

No, it's part of cosmology. It has nothing to do with biological evolution, and biological evolution has nothing to do with it.

If there is evidence for the "big bang" then there is evidence for evolution.

Nope. Biological evolution and the big bang are different and independent areas of science. One is a field of biology, the other is a field of astrophysics.

Again, we're observing the sheer zaniness of the young earth creationist mindset, where any and all aspects of science that young earth creationists don't like because these contradict their religious dogma are just part of a worldwide evolutionist conspiracy.

Of course, Jerry knows that this crazy rhetoric is wrong, which is precisely why he has DELIBERATELY IGNORED the dictionary quote about the different meanings of the word "evolution" that I provided to him, and has DELIBERATELY IGNORED my direct question to him about SN1987A. Remember this is a man who told us (and I've provided the quote) that people have the responsibility to deal with relevant
questions asked them about their claims, even while he himself refuses to do so.

- Todd Greene

[Editor's note* I have a scientific article on SN 1987A at http://www.challenge2.org/sn1987a.html]

Re: [M & B] Re: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint Post # 13310

Well, Todd, this debate isn't going any where unless you let me know if you agree with my new proposition. Do you agree to it or not?
jdm

[M & B] Re: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint Post # 13314

Jerry, I am capable of pointing out logical errors in your discussion of various topics while also discussing issues about the proposed debate in particular. Of course, I know you know this.

Futher note: As far as I'm currently aware of, you have FAILED to produce the Copi quotes requested of you (by Rick), that are DIRECTLY RELEVANT to your false statements about Copi, and you have FAILED to
address my direct question to you about SN1987A. ("Is this astronomy about SN1987A just part of an evolutionist conspiracy to prop up the idea of biological evolution, or is it science?")

What all of us observe about you Jerry is that when it comes to dealing with the facts you DELIBERATELY and arbitrarily ignore anything that you know contradicts your false claims.

- Todd Greene

Re: [M & B] Re: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint Post # 13307

<snip>
McDonald
Todd, show me where I went back on my word. I demand that you show me! I never went back on my word. I have not bought any religious books. The only books I have purchased have been books on astronomy, and geology (one of which you recommended in your Youtube video "The Age of The Earth"--I haven't received it yet, but it is coming), biology and university physics, microbiology and others. What ever gave you the idea that I was going to use religion in this debate. I just don't happen to put evolution in the realm of science, but I don't put it in the realm of religion either. Both creation and evolution (and I don't even intend to deal with creation) are philosophical issues, and that is the reason that I wanted the word "empirical" left out of my proposition. However, you don't want to deal with evolution, and you even tried to deny what Chaisson and McMillian said about evolution being part of astrononmy in their book "Astrononmy Today." You are lying when you say that I went back on my word. I did no such thing. I promised, specifically, then and still do that there will be no hint of religion in any of my speeches unless you bring it up first. You will have to be the one to introduce it. You just don't want to debate, and so now you are looking for any
way out that you can find.

I DEMAND THAT YOU FIND ONE PLACE WHERE I EVER SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO USE RELIGION OR THE BIBLE IN ANY PART OF MY PART OF THE DEBATE UNLESS YOU BRING THEM IN FIRST.
jdm

Re: Todd, Jerry - about Jerry's new proposition? --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:

There is still a problem with this, the reason being that Jerry is still trying to change the subject. This debate is not about biological evolution. It never was, and it never will be. This debate is about whether or not the universe and/or the earth have been around longer than young earth creationists claim, in regard to the relevant science. Jerry knows this. This is what I told him FROM THE BEGINNING. That is the subject matter for the debate AS I PROPOSED IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND HAVE DISCUSSED EVER SINCE. The proposed subject has NEVER been anything else. Jerry, I already told you, I'm not going to be jerked around by someone trying to play word games to change the subject.

You knew what the subject was to begin with, and now you're trying to change the subject. This is not going to work. I will NOT - I repeat - I will NOT allow this debate to be siphoned off into irrelevant red herring about biological evolution. That is EXACTLY why the initial propositions were stated the way I stated them to begin with. Jerry, if it is your intention to change this debate into a debate about biological evolution, there will be no debate. Is this clear to you? Try again. You may alter the wording, but you can't change the subject. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this.

- Todd Greene

It was at this point that I realized that this debate was not going to happen. I gave Todd until 7:00 p.m. on November 5, 2007 to agree to the proposition I had resubmitted, and if he didn't I would let the men at Belle know that there would be no debate. He failed to agree to it by that time, so there is no debate. These are the posts between myself and Todd Greene, and do not include posts between me and anyone else or Todd and anyone else. Now to continue on with Todd's email:

Greene:
A few days ago Jerry "let the cat out of the bag" that he wanted to change the subject to biological evolution, but he had been trying to hide this from me and sneak it in without me knowing about it. It was when trying to nail down the specific wording of the debate propositions that Jerry's subterfuge was revealed. Again, this is all documented here: http://creationism.outersystem.us/debateinfo.html You should note here the initial wording of (two of) the propositions that I first offered to Jerry for debate:

The empirical evidence shows that the Universe has been in existence longer than one hundred thousand (100,000) years.

Affirm: Todd S. Greene

Deny: Jerry McDonald?

and The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years old.

Affirm: Jerry McDonald?

Deny: Todd S Greene

Jerry removed "The empirical evidence shows," thus removing reference to the science, but when I questioned him about that at the time he did it he assured me that he still intended to debate the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (his words). That was several weeks ago, but then a few days ago, Jerry changed his position, stating, "I fully intend to use scientific evidence, but I don't even want it limited to scientific evidence." I told him that it was not acceptable for him to change the subject, that the subject was about the science relevant to the antiquity of the universe and the antiquity of the earth (as stated explicitly in the original propositions). In the ensuing discussion is when Jerry revealed that the real reason he wanted to change the wording was because he wanted to change the subject to debating biological evolution. It was at that point that debate negotiations broke down completely. I told Jerry that the subject of the debate was either going to remain what it was all along, or there would be no debate. So Jerry backed out of the debate, because, as it turned, out he never really wanted to debate me on the subject of the debate propositions that I had offered to him in the first place, but he'd merely been trying to trick me into a debate where he was going to try to change the subject without me knowing about it. (I'm not the one who backed out of the debate, because I told Jerry numerous times that I'm still here ready to debate him on the subject of the original propositions.) Again, all of this is documented here: http://creationism.outersystem.us/debateinfo.html

- Todd Greene

P.S. to Jerry McDonald: Should you care to restart negotiations on the subject of debate that I challenged you on FROM THE BEGINNING, I'm still here ready to debate the subject with you. The reason you backed out is precisely because you knew you were trying to change the subject, and when you realized I was on to your scheme and would not allow you to change the subject, you knew you were either going to have to really debate the antiquity of the universe (astronomy) and the antiquity of the earth (geology), on the basis of the actual astronomical science and geological science, and knowing that you could not defend young earth creationism on the basis of astronomical and geological science you abandoned the debate. Of course, all of us know that was actually the wisest thing you could have done, because trying to defend young earth creationism on the basis of astronomy and geology would have been very embarrassing. I'm going to miss the fun, though, and the opportunity to give some people at the Belle Church of Christ a little bit of education about astronomy and geology that they probably won't get otherwise, and that's a shame."

The only part of the remainder of his email that I feel any need to comment on as the above emails explain everything he has said in this email, so I will comment only on the end of the email.

I was not the least bit deceitful. I told Todd all along that I didn't want the word "empirical" in my proposition because I didn't want to be limited to what I could experience empirically. I didn't let the "cat out of the bag" about evolution. I never hid the fact that I was going to be discussing evolution. I just assumed that he would know that in dealing with "geology" I would be dealing with the fossil record (which involves biological evolution). However, when I re-worded my proposition to include geology, palentology and biology and a refutation of biological evolution, and he refused to allow even that proposition. It was then that I realized that negotiations were going no where. Even though he says that "evolution IS science" he won't take that position in debate with me at Belle, Missouri. He says that he is going to miss the fun, and the opportunity of teaching some people at the Belle church of Christ a little bit about astronomy and geology, but apparently he won't miss it enough to be honest and allow evolution to be discssed. As Chaisson and McMillian said in Astronomy Today, biological evolution is just one of the seven phases of evolution that makes up for the life on our planet. The other six are "particulate, galactic, stellar, chemical...,and cultural" (p. 760). They both say that biological evolution has everything to do with astronomy and geology. Why won't Todd debate it? Well, after reading through all the emails I think we all know why!

Todd says in his email that he is still willing to debate me, but if he isn't going to allow me to debate my proposition as I want, then there will be no debate. I have never allowed any opponent (in 27 years) to dictate my proposition to me, and I am not going to start with Todd. Though I will not have a public debate with Todd, because he did not get with me during the time alotted and we have scheduled a youth lectureship for that time period, I will agree to debate him in a written debate, but I must be allowed to write my own proposition and defend it my way. If he isn't up to that, then there is no way he and I can debate.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald