HARTZOG'S FANTASIES (Part 1)
Jerry D. McDonald

This article is written in the manner that it is written because after writing his response to my second article on SN 1987A, Rick Hartzog decided that he didn't want me to publish it on the Challenge website until I first responded to it on the Maury-Baty email discussion list.  I took myself off of that list around the first of November (2007) because the negotiations between Todd Greene and me, failed to come to fruition.  I saw no reason to remain on the list since I had other things that took priority.

I wrote the original article entitled SN 1987A which is published on the Challenge website in hopes that Todd Greene would respond to it.  I sent an email to Greene when I published the article, but I never heard back from him.  I was browsing through the Maury-Baty list and found where Rick Hartzog had responded to my article.  I wrote Mr. Hartzog and obtained his permission to publish his article as long as I put a link on it to the Maury-Baty list where the article was originally written.  This I agreed to do and so I did.  Mr. Hartzog then responded with another article, and in the article he complained that he had no knowledge that I was going to publish it on the Challenge website.  I wrote Mr. Hartzog and asked for permission to publish his second article he wrote back with the following response (my words are in red and black):

You gave me permission to publish your first one on Challenge, so why did you say you had no idea that it was going to be published there?
 
When I was WRITING the article that I LATER told you you could put on your website, I had no idea WHILE I WAS WRITING IT that you would LATER ask  to put it on your website.  Why would I have thought that? I was surprised when you asked.  That you would ask to put this next one on there actually shocks me. 
Well maybe he should have known that by virtue of his responding to an article that I wrote and publised on the Challenge website, that I would reserve the right to publish his response on the same website.  That is the logical thing, I would think.

Frankly, McDonald, I don't trust you.  Something here is just a little off kilter, and I don't want to speculate too much about what it might be, even with you.  I'll tell you what -- you write your reply to it and post it to Maury_and_Baty, and in the meantime I'll be thinking about your request.

I wonder what he doesn't trust!  What is "just a little off kilter" here?  I mean, when you respond to something that someone has written on a debate website, one where both sides get equal space, one ought to know that his/her article will get published with a response.  My advice is, if you don't want your article published on my website don't respond to any article on that site.  It makes no difference if you are a Christian or an atheist.  If you respond to an article that is written on my website your response will be published and the other author will have the opportunity to respond.  That's just the way it is.

You say:
You obviously knew that if you responded to my article that I was going to want to publish it, you would have had to have been stupid not to have known that! 
 
I don't understand where you come up with stuff like this.  How was I to "obviously" know you would want to put what I wrote on your site?
 
Something just ain't right, McDonald.  Let me see what you can come up with for a response and I'll let you know.  As I told you in my previous response, if you can't start talking sense I am done with you.
Again, there is no reason why Mr. Hartzog would not understand that if he responds to an article on my website his response will be published on my website.  If I didn't publish it and just responded to it, he would have something to complain about.

I have no interest in rejoining the Maury-Baty list.  I made that clear when I left it around the 7th of November.  I do check up on it every now and again (which how I found Rick's response to my original article in the first place), but I have no desire to rejoin the list.  As I informed Mr. Hartzog, I will simply place a link to the Maury-Baty email discussion list and the readers can for themselves and read the article that Rick wrote.  I would have preferred to use my html program so as to make it match the other articles, but since he has forbidden me to do so, the reader will simply have to follow the link and read it off the Maury-Baty list.  I have written Mr. Hartzog and informed him of my decision.  I will, however, reproduce his article in whole as I respond to him point-by-point.  Now to get to his article:

SN 1987A: McDonald's "scientific explanation" not scientific at all
Rick Hartzog

NOT SCIENTIFIC?
Jerry D. McDonald

No, Jerry D. McDonald, your "scientific explanation" for how we can see the light from the supernova SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years away, if the Universe is only a few thousand years old, is NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL. Writers of unabashed science FICTION produce tales with more scientific credibility than what you have come up with this time.

When People like Rick Hartzog speak of "science" they are only speaking of those things which evolutionists call science.  Now they don't want to admit that, they will all deny that only those things that evolutionists call science is really science, but when asked if some young earth creationist is a professional scientist, they ask what professional science journals he has written articles to.  If you tell them he has written articles to something like Creation Research Quarterly, they call that religion and not science.  The only reason for this is because they only consider evolution as science.  You have to understand where they are coming from.  They like to pretend that they are just dealing with science and that it has nothing to do with evolution.  They say that evolution is "biological" evolution and that what they are talking about has nothing to do with that.  However, their own writers admit that biological evolution is but one phase of the evolutionary theory.  Chaisson and McMillan wrote:

With this human-centered view clearly evident, Figure 28.1 identifies seven major evolutionary (bold mine, jdm) phases that have contributed to development of life on our planet:  particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological, and cultural evolution" (Astronomy Today, p. 760).

They can argue all they want that they are not saying that science is evolution but they know that they are.  Anything that has to do with creation is not called science.  Notice what Aurthor Strahler wrote:  "Any one of the points we have reviewed can by itself serve to identify creation science as pseudoscience" (Science and Earth's History, The Evolution/Creation Controversey, p. 527)." They are, all, so predjudiced against creation that anything that any scientist comes up with in favor of creation is not called science, but pseudoscience (or false science).  Yet when faced with this they make up all kinds of excuses and play all kinds of word games in a feeble attempt to get out of the bind that creationists put them in.  Rick continues...

What McDonald offers here is a mix of fantasy, delusion and outright ignorance, with a heaping spoonful of typical McDonald dishonesty thrown in. The bulk of McDonald's answer doesn't have anything at all to do with explaining distant starlight, rambling all over the place instead. I started not to even respond to it, and if it wasn't such an exemplary specimen of the kind of irrational argumentation we have to deal with out young-earth creationists, I would not have.

I disagree with Rick, so I am delusional, ignorant, filled with fantasy, and even dishonest.  There is no such idea that I am simply looking at the same evidence that Rick and his kind are looking at and coming to a different conclusion.  No, I am delusional, I am ignorant, I am filled with fantasy, and I am dishonest. 

He says that the bulk of my answer doesn't have anything to do with explanining distant starlight.  Well, that is because the bulk of his response to my original article didn't have anything to do with distant starlight.  I simply responded to him point-by-point; which is far more than he did when he responded to my article.  My first article dealt, wholly, with distant starlight (168,000 light years away), and how it could reach earth in a matter of 10,000 years or less.  Rick barely touched the surface of my article, except to say that I was incompetent and Dr. Humphreys didn't know what he was talking about.  He didn't take Dr. Humphreys model and show how it was erroneous, and what made it erroneous (the closest he came to that there has to be a reason for time dilation).  He just made a blanket statement that it was erroneous.  When he decides to respond to the things that Dr. Humphreys said and the things that I said, in the origianl article, I will gladly publish it here on this website and respond to it.  But I can't do that until he, first, responds to what has been written.

Nevertheless...McDonald begins:

In looking at Rick Hartzog's response to my article entitled SN 1987A he begins with this quotation [from Jerry]:  I didn't admit to being wrong about the date that SN 1987A exploded. Read what I said: "He assured me that I am in error on why the gas rings were not detected." I am still convinced of a young earth and universe. The only thing I have admitted error about was why the gas rings had not been detected. I am in the process of writing an article on SN 1987A and will put it on my website when I am finished. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4

Which he took from a Youtube comment I had made on Todd Greene's video "Creationists Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science," and I felt it essential to let the reader know what this quotation was about. (1) I am not a scientist and especially one trained in astronomy, but I do know how to read.

McDonald's claim that he knows how to read is offset by his apparent lack of comprehension of what he does read, e.g., the quotes from Copi I have requested on logical validity (which he has never yet provided), the quotes from Freeman and Herron about macro-evolution I requested (which he has never yet provided), and McDonald's utterly idiotic interpretation of Exodus 12:29.  (see:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChallengeII/message/221  or if not available, I comment on that here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13094 ).
It doesn't take much to understand that Rick is hedging argument here by bringing up things that have nothing to do with this article.  The quotation that he asked for on Copi has been given to him time and again.  He, like Robert Baty, pretended that it was never produced, but it was.  The validity of the Goliath of GRAS argument was being discussed and I provided sufficient evidence from Copi that in order for an argument to be logically valid the conclusion had to "irrefutably follow from the premise" (Introduction to Logic, p. 47).  They tried, feebly, to argue that if the argument was in a "if p, then q" format that it was logically valid.  They quoted Copi as so stating, but what Copi was talking about was where the "q" logically followed from the "p."  In Robert's argument the "q" did not logically follow from the "p."  As far as the message 13094 and challenge 221 a lot of things were dealt with.  Challenge 221 was dealing with an article that I wrote on a possible 20 year co-reign between Ahaziah and his father Jehoram (Kings of Judah).  Neither of them have any thing to do with the article on SN 1987A.  And as far as my "idiotic interpretation of Exodus 12:29" is concerned, there is nothing idiotic about it.

For Mr. Hartzog's information there would have been no reason to have said "from the firstborn of Pharoah that sat on his throne" if the writer was simply talking about the Pharoah.  The Pharoah was the only one that sat on his throne unless a co-regent.  No one else would be allowed to set there.  Even Joseph was not allowed to sit on the Pharoah's throne when he was made prince of Egypt.  The only reason for using the words "that sat on his throne" was if the son was a co-regent.  Some one made the ridiculous argument that the very next sentence "unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon" in an attempt to show that the first born would not have been in the dungeon, just the captive.  No, we are not talking about prisoners here in the sense that someone has committed a crime, we are talking about captives; people who had been taken captives where whole families were thrown into dungeons.  I am still trying to figure out what any of this has to do with SN 1987A!

Most recently McDonald has shown, by misrepresenting to Russell Humphreys what I have said, that his lack of reading comprehension is further complicated by his own eagerness to bear false witness against those with whom he disagrees. (I will be posting the documentation of that after this message.)
I didn't misrepresent anything at all.  Those who read my response to Rick's article all know that I wrote

"I will gladly respond to anything that Mr. Hartzog has to say in response to this article, but I challenge him to contact Dr. Humphreys, since he thinks that Dr. Humphreys is ignorant of science, and discuss this issue with him.  That is a discussion that I would love to see.  I'll gladly publish it on the Challenge website.  How about it Rick, are you up to it?" (http://www.challenge2.org/notscientific.html).
If you will carefully notice I wrote:  "since he thinks that Dr. Humphreys is ignorant of science."  Rick jumped all over that invitation.  I sent the invitation to Dr. Humphreys and he declined it based on the fact that there was no challenge in it and no gain in it.  I don't know if this made Rick mad or not, but he then accused me of lying about his saying that Dr. Humphreys was ignorant of science.  After a couple of exchanges Rick said that he didn't say Dr. Humphreys was ignorant of science, but he says that Dr. Humphreys is a deliberate liar.  When I sent this to Dr. Humphreys, Rick lost it and that is when he decided that he didn't know if he wanted me to publish his article or not.  Well, what can I say?  If you don't want something you say about someone to get to him; don't say it!  One of dad's favorite sayings was "it is better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you are a fool, than it is to open it up and let everyone know you are one."  Maybe Rick ought to put that into practice!  I have no reading comprehension problem, the problem is with Rick, not me.  He says things, then he gets upset if he gets caught in them, but the best is yet to come because he is really going to get caught as we get further down in his article.

McDonald also knows how NOT to read, or at least how to *pretend* he hasn't read, the relevant material that has been repeatedly recommended to him on a number of subjects (such as Copi's and
others' explanation of logical validity), just as he did again here with the explanation of why the gas rings around SN 1987A weren't seen until months after the supernova was observed.

You'll see...

In the book Astronomy Today by Chaisson & McMillian, in their discussion of SN 1987A, "Theory predicts that the expanding remnant of SN 1987A is now on the verge of being resolvable by optical telescopes. The accompanying photographs show the barely resolvable remnant (at the right) surrounded by a much larger shell of glowing gas (in yellow). Scientists reason that the progenitor of the supernova expelled this shell during its red-giant phase, some 40,000 before the explosion" (p. 563).
If you will notice that Chaisson & McMillan (sorry for the misspelling of McMillan's name, it was an oversight I assure you), did not say anything about the gas ring not being able to be seen for several months after the supernova was observed.  What they said was "Theory predicts that the expanding remnant of SN 1987A is now on the verge of being resolvable by optical telescopes.  The accompanying photographs show the barely resolvable remnant (at the right surrounded by a much larger shell of glowing gas (in yellow).  Scientists reason that the progenitor of the supernova expelled this shell during its red-giant phase, some 40,000 years before the explosion."  If you follow the link on the word "photographs" you will see the shell that I am talking about.  There was nothing in the quotation that said that this shell was not visible for several months after we observed the supernova.  My question was "why if the shell was there for 40,000 years before we observed the supernova, didn't we observe the shell?"  Danny Faulkner informed me that we didn't observe it because it had not yet been ignighted.  That made sense to me so I changed the original article to reflect that information.  Now I don't know what Rick is so upset about here.  I really don't!

I asked Todd Greene, on the comments section of his youtube video, why astronomers didn't pick up the glowing red/yellow ring before the explosion if it had been there for 40,000 years. All I could get out of Greene was that the star wasn't studied that much, but I pointed out that the star had been catalogued as sk 69o 202 decades before the explosion. Greene could not give me a satisfactory response, so I included this information in my original article. I then sent the article to Dr. Russell Humphreys and astronomer Danny Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner explained to me that the reason that it had not been detected is because it had not yet been ignited until the star went supernova.

WRONG, McDonald! Todd told you to read the Wikipedia and the McCray articles. *I* told you the gas rings were ionized by the explosion! *Todd* told you the gas rings were ionized by the explosion! Todd asked you *again and again* if you had read the articles he pointed you to yet!

YOU *IGNORED* ALL THAT!

Now you come here pretending that nobody could answer your question, which is blatantly false; you KNOW it is false, and you DELIBERATELY LIE about it.

Well, this made sense, so I changed the article and left that part out. However, on Todd Greene's youtube comments list I made the statement that Mr. Faulkner had corrected me about why astronomers didn't pick up the gas ring and Mr. Greene thanked me for my correction. He then replied with the following statement:

Jerry, I appreciate you acknowledging that what I have been correct in what I've been telling you all along about your comments being wrong and irrelevant. Therefore, just as I've been telling you, you have yet to deal with the fact that SN1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago - which falsifies young earth creationism. And none of this is relevant to the video of this comments page. http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=iM4wO-I-Sz4

The response you read at the beginning of Rick's article (and this one as well) is in response to the above statement. I encourage you to go to the Youtube comment section provided by the link and see how Todd Greene evaded the questions that I asked for at least 2 days.

Yeah, be sure to read these messages, which will plainly show that McDonald is not telling the truth. For example:

Since Mr. Hartzog left out my messages, I will take the liberty of inserting them so that you will get the full picture of what was said.  This discussion is taken from the "comments" section of Todd Greene's youtube video "Creationist Delusion, Evolution Isn't Science.

jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)
Todd,
You and I could go back and forth all day on this question and solve nothing, so we can leave that for later discussion. I have a question for you.
Before Sk 69 - 202 went supernova on us (which came to be known as SN 1987A) was there anything different about the star than what we had been seeing all along?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald
What was being discussed up to this point was why Todd backed out of a debate with me on the age of the universe and the age of the earth.  I wanted to bring in the fossil record (which would get into biological evolution) to discuss the age of the earth and Greene balked.  He would not budge.  Somewhere along the line I apparently said something about his personal life because he got all upset about it.  I tried to get him to tell me what it was, but he refused.  I also asked him, since his video says that anyone who doesn't think that evolution is science is either ignorant of since, incompetent or liars.  I asked him which catagory his dad (a retired preacher in the church of Christ) fit into.  I couldn't get an answer out of him except that he said his dad had been misled.  At this point I told Todd we could go back and forth all day, but it would solve nothing.  I then asked him about SN 1987A and that is where the discussion went from there. 

jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)
Todd, I'll ask this question again since you ignored it earlier:

Before Sk 69 - 202 went supernova on us (which came to be known as SN 1987A) was there anything different about the star than what we had been seeing all along?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
Todd wrote: 

Not ignored, Jerry - there you go making insinuations again. (1) YOU are the one who deliberately ignored discussing this in a proper discussion forum ("Maury_and_Baty" Yahoo discussion group). (2) You need to be more specific about what you're referring to. (3) You need to read the "SN 1987A" entry at Wikipedia, which is pretty good. ALSO, at the bottom of that page is a link to a detailed discussion about SN1987A by Richard McCray. Read that too.


---

jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

I am not Robert's forum. I am asking you, here and now: Was there anything extraordinary about the star sk 59-202 before it exploded in 1987?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

Note*  This post should read "I am not on Robert's forum.  I am asking you, here and now:  Was there anything extraordinary about the star sk 69-202 before it exploded in 1987?"  I should have made the necessary corrections before I sent it out, and would have if I had known it was going to be part of this article, but since I didn't I just didn't check for small mistakes like those.  I do apologize for that, however.
greeneto (1 month ago)
Jerry, your question is far too vague for me to know what you're asking about. Different kinds of stars have different kinds of characteristics, and these change over time. Supernovae have different causes, and also come about in differing local environments. You need to be more specific.
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

So you don't know if anything was different about that star before the explosion was detected in 1987?

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

greeneto (1 month ago)
Jerry, it is obvious to me that (1) you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to astronomy, and (2) you are incapable of explaining what in the world you are asking me about. When you can write in plain English and ask me a specific question, then do so. Until then, stop wasting my time. Did you read the references about SN1987A that I gave you?
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

No, I didn't read the references you gave. I read the references that Chaisson and McMillian gave in their book "Astronomy Today." So you don't know if anything about SK 69-202 was different before we detected the explosion?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

greeneto (1 month ago)
Jerry, I like how you play games here just like you played games there. THERE, which is a proper discussion group where a person isn't limited to merely 500 characters, people can have a proper discussion and get into details. But THERE you deliberately ignored me asking you about SN1987A - and I pointed out this question to you AT LEAST FOUR TIMES, so don't try to play games here about this.
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

It's a simple question Todd, and all it requires is a simple answer. But I guess you don't have an answer, or maybe you do, but you don't want to give it.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald


Todd wrote:

No, the problem is that in your ignorance of the subject you don't even know what to ask. Try again. Did you read the references on SN1987A that I gave you?

jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

"The accompanying photographs show the barely resolvable remant (at the right) surrounded by a much larger shell of glowing gas (in yellow). Scientists reason that the progenitor of the supernova expelled this shell during its giant-red phase, some 40,000 years before the explosion" (Astronomy Today, p. 563).

jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

Do you know what I am talking about now? Question, if this large shell of glowing gas was expelled 40,000 years before the explosion, why didn't we see it before the explosion? From all indications the star looked normal until we detected the explosion.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

greeneto (1 month ago)
Jerry, now I know what you're talking about, because you've actually stated what you're talking about. FINALLY! We didn't see it before the explosion because of the distance. Also, that particular star, while recorded in observation, was never studied in detail until it exploded. Did you read the references on SN1987A that I gave you?
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

Now I have another question. Since we see the large shell of glowing gas that was supposedly expelled 40,000 years before star went supernova, shouldn't we see that shell for 40,000 before we see the supernova?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald


---

Todd wrote:

Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science, and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop acting like a little bratty child and read the references I already pointed you to.

---
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago) 

Stop playing games Todd and answer the question: "Since we see the large shell of glowing gas that was supposedly expelled 40,000 years before the star went supernova, shouldn't we see that shell for 40,000 years before we see the supernova"?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald


Todd wrote:

Jerry, have you read the references on SN1987A that I gave you? No, of course you haven't, because you're a young earth creationist, and YECs deliberately ignore looking at science, and then play all sorts of deceitful word games. Jerry, stop acting like a little bratty child and read the references I already pointed you to. (If you'd read the McCray discussion, you'd already know.)

---
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

According to Chaisson and McMillian the red and yellow shell around the star was expelled 40,000 years before the star went supernova. We should have seen that ring, but we didn't even know that anything was wrong until about 20 hours before we saw the supernova.
jdm


Todd wrote:

Why do you think we should have seen the ring? Why do you assume that anyone even studied the star in enough detail to see the ring in the first place (before the explosion)? Out of the billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, how many have astronomers studied in any kind of detail? What does ANY of this have to do with the fact that SN1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago?

Thanks again for demonstrating for everyone the illogical nature of YEC "argumentation."

---
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

Because Chaisson and McMillian said that the ring was expelled 40,000 years before it went supernova. I assume that someone catalogued it, at least the information I have says that someone did.
Ok, let me try to explain this to you: If we didn't see the ring for the last 40,000 years before the star went supernova then what makes you think that we should trust the time that you people say the star went supernova?

greeneto (1 month ago)
Wow, Jerry, please keep showing how clueless you are about this science. Because we didn't observe some particular detail about a star before such and such a time, therefore we also didn't observe some other particular detail about that star even though we did observe that detail.

Again, Jerry, your argument is completely illogical.
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

What do you mean that we didn't notice it because of distance? The star looked normal before it went supernova. It was cataloged, but the gas ring went unnoticed? I find that hard to believe!
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald



Todd wrote:

So, you, a young earth creationist, didn't realize that we can't see as much detail of stars that are relatively more distant than stars that are relatively close?

Jerry, we noticed the ring when the explosion energy lit upthe ring.

---

Jerry wouldn't accept that, writing:

We can see the ring now, not because of the explosion, but because as Chaisson and McMillian said that it was expelled 40,000 years before the explosion. What we should be looking at is the expelled ring and the explosion shouldn't happen for some 40,000 years yet, or we should have been able to see it all along. We didn't, so there is a problem.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

---



Todd wrote:

Jerry, you are a seriously confused man ("incompetent" <- your word). Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever. The ring is irrelevant to the explosion. The star blew up. The fact that the star *happened* to have this gas ring around it before it blew up allowed us to determine the distance to the star *geometrically* (trigonometry). Thank you for again showing everyone how clueless about science young earth creationists really are. I'm serious about this. Thank you.

---
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago) 

No kidding, the star blew up. WOW, you really are smart aren't you? The problem is that no one saw the ring until it blew up. Yet scientists reason (or theorize) that the ring was expelled from the star 40,000 years before it blew up. If they can't get that right, how can they be trusted to ssy WHEN THE STAR BLEW UP?
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald

greeneto (1 month ago) 
By the way, thank you for showing everyone how previously you were merely pretending I was being unresponsive, even though the real problem was that you were so vague it was impossible to tell what you were asking about.
jerrydmcdonald2001 (1 month ago)

I wasn't (editorial correction jdm) pretending anything. You wanted me to study up on SN 1987A and when I asked you a question about it, you accused me of being vague. I figured that since you had studied it far longer than I had you would have known what I was talking about. I guess I was wrong in that assumption.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald



Todd wrote:

Jerry, here's the direct question YOU deliberately ignored: SN1987A, having exploded about 168,000 years ago, is an example of an astronomical event we've learned about through astronomical science, that shows that the universe has been around at least about 158,000 years longer than you young earth creationists say is possible. Is this astronomy about SN1987A just part of an evolutionist conspiracy to prop up the idea of biological evolution, or is it science?

[Jerry McDonald refused to address this "direct question" when he was taking part in the discussion on the Maury_and_Baty list and before he banned us from his own list -- and then went to the YouTube site and began making his comments that are *completely irrelevant* to the subject of Todd Greene's video.]

---

Jerry McDonald wrote:
 
I don't recall the question ever being asked: I am working on this, and from what I have seen you evolutionists have taken the evidence and put your evolutionary twists on it to make it appear as if it exploded 168,000 years ago. When I complete my study of it, I'll be able to respond to your question with  a scientific answer.

[Jerry is lying here in saying that he doesn't remember thequestion being asked. That is one of his typical tactics -- he pretends as long as he doesn't respond to a question he has "plausible deniability" of ever having read the message. I have *several* messages written to McDonald that he "pretends" he has
never read.

And the discussion went on from there.  Now as you can see the only time that Todd even came close to answering that whas when he said "Jerry, we noticed the ring when the explosion energy lit upthe ring."  But this was not my understanding of what Chaisson & McMillan said, as I pointed out.  Rather than take the time to explain to me that the ring was made up of neutrino emissions (as Faulkner did) Todd simply made a wave at it which made no sense to me at all in light of the book I was studying from.  As far as the Wididpedia article he wanted me to go and read, I was asking him this question, not Wikipedia, or McCray.

But if Jerry McDonald "doesn't recall" being asked how it is, if the Universe is only about 6,000 years old, that we can see the light from a supernova that occurred 168,000 light-years away, then why did Jerry McDonald run away from that discussion on the Maury_and_Baty list, and then go to Todd's YouTube page and try to change the subject away from biological evolution to astronomy? (for a single *prime example* of how Jerry McDonald has *studiously avoided* the subject of SN 1987A, see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13200 )]

At this point Todd and I were still working on debate negotiations and I had already told Todd that I refused to respond to any arguments that I was going to have to make or rebut in the debate during the negotitations.  That is why I refused to deal with it at this point.

---
And on November 13 I wrote:

In Todd's YouTube comments, Jerry McDonald asks:

Stop playing games Todd and answer the question: "Since we see the large shell of glowing gas that was supposedly expelled 40,000 years before the star went supernova, shouldn't we see that shell for 40,000 years before we see the supernova"?

1) No. The "glowing gas" wasn't glowing until it was ionized by the explosion...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13395

---

And November 14:

What you have ignored is the fact that I have pointed out that the red/yellow ring supposedly was expelled from sk 69-202 40,000 years before it went supernova. Why didn't we see the red/yellow ring before 1987?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9_ZiVbMIO0

Jerry seems determined to ignore the answer to this question, which is given in the references (Wikipedia and McCray) that Todd has already suggested he read, and that Jerry apparently is refusing to read. There are a lot more references out there that give the answer to this question as well.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13401

In spite of the above record, Jerry now claims:

I could not get a proper response from an atheist, and it took a young earth creationist who is an astronomer to give me a satisfactory answer to my questions.

You liar! The Wikipedia article you wouldn't read answers your question! The McCray article you wouldn't read answers your question! Todd answered your question! I answered your question!

YOU IGNORED IT!

By November 13th, I had unsubscribed from Robert's Maury-Baty list and was no longer a member of it. Rick knows this, or at least he should.  When negotiations between Todd and me dropped off (on or around November 7), I unsubscribed from Robert's list and banned the three of them from mine.  I banned them because I knew (from experience) that they would continue to try to get me to debate Todd and I had already informed the men of the church, here in Belle (where the debate was to take place), that there would be no debate and I don't intend to go back on that.

I am not lying when I said that I couldn't get a proper response from an atheist.  I wasn't on Robert's list so I didn't know what was being said on it.  Todd only gave one short little response (that I felt was unrealistic) on his youtube comments.  I didn't see the importance of going to Wikipedia or McCray because I was asking Todd this question.  However, when Danny Faulkner explained it to me I apologized to Todd on the youtube comments section about this and admitted that I was in error on this part.  That wasn't enough, now I am a liar who has been told time and again, though we can all now see that I wasn't, but I just wouldn't accept it until a young earth creationist told me.  No, the problem was that the young earth creationist was the only one who took the time to explain things to me so that I could understand.  That's the thing with atheists, they won't explain all they do is complain.

And what did the young-earth creationist astronomer tell you? EXACTLY THE SAME THING we all told you!

The only thing that I can figure out is that Todd did not know the answer to my questions, not that this proves when the star exploded, but it is interesting to note that someone who claims that it exploded 168,000 years ago, and who took astronomy in college (which he claims led him into atheism) could not give a satisfactory answer to a simple question and it took a YEC (as we are affectionately called) to give me the answer.

Or maybe it's because the YouTube comments feature isn't set up for explaining things like this, AND YOU BANNED US from your discussion group and you won't post to Maury_and_Baty.

Todd and I have both commented on your unwillingness to discuss SN 1987A in a proper discussion group, and how after refusing to answer any questions about it here or on your Challenge II list you went to YouTube and tried to change the subject from biological evolution to SN 1987A.

My reason for being on the Maury-Baty list ended when my negotiations with Todd broke down.  I saw no reason for staying on the list.  I banned them from Challenge2 because I didn't want them doing what I knew they would do (that is to try and carry on negotiations after they broke down).  It had nothing to do with having a meaningful discussion over SN 1987A.  I wrote my article and put it on the Challenge website and sent Todd an email letting him know about it.  Todd never responded, so I was browsing through the Maury-Baty list and found Rick's response and obtained permission to publish it.  I now know (from surfing the Maury-Baty list) that Todd didn't answer because of computer problems he was having; which is something I can surely understand.  So the challenge is still there for him.  He can respond to my article SN 1987A if he pleases, and I will gladly publish his response on the Challenge website. 

Jerry, you just aren't a very honest person. I shudder to think of you actually having been a cop. Cops like you are part of what's wrong with America. You can't tell me that you wouldn't get up on a stand and lie under oath. Ever since you have been involved with us you have been demonstrating a complete lack of integrity, just as you are here, starting with your claim that you had to shut down your first Challenge list because of Robert Baty and continuing right on to the present day. One lie after the other, all the while signing your posts with "In Christ Jesus".

Rick Harzog knows nothing about what kind of police officer I was.  The only reprimand that I ever had in my file was when I was accused of not taking a person's warrant out of the system when he was released from the St. Louis PD (I was 100 miles away in Crawford County).  The officer who made the complaint said that I had been notified by teletype and that I just didn't do my job.  However, when the matter was investigated (as per my request) the conclusion was reached that the teletype never came that the person was released.  Therefore the letter of reprimand was removed and my record was expunged of the matter.  After that my record was spotless through the rest of my 11 years as a police officer.  I, later, received a certificate of appreciation (from the same Sheriff who wrote the letter of reprimand and then removed it) and also I received a letter of commendation from the mayor (of the last department where I worked) for my part in a large meth ring bust (I was the one who made the first bust which led to taking down one of the largest meth rings in the tri-county area).  Not one time did I ever perjur myself (the punishment for such in Missouri is 25 years max).  Not one time did I ever arrest someone who did not deserve to be arrested.  One time I forgot to read a suspect of her rights before I questioned her, and I realized this after I had sent the copy of the report to the prosecutor and I let the prosecutor know of my failure to read the suspect her rights and so the charges were dropped on my recommendation; which made the prosecutor mad at me, but I thought it was the right thing to do. 

Mr. Hartzog knows nothing about my years as a police officer, or my years in the Navy, or my years as a preacher.  He knows nothing about me personally, but because I won't adhere to his absurd doctrines he thinks that he has the right to smear my reputation as a police officer.  I'll make him an offer if he wishes to take it.  I'll give him the names and phone numbers of the Sheriff, and the two police chiefs and the city marshal that I worked for during those 11 years and he can call them and ask what kind of police officer I was.  The only reason I am not in law enforcement today is because of my disability (Pulmonary Fibrosis).  What about it Rick, you up to it.  I'll even call these people and let them know that I want them to cooperate.  And the city marshal and I are not even friends.  I left after some very harsh words were spoken by both sides, but I'll even ask him to cooperate.  How is that for my dishonesty?

As far as my claim that Robert Baty was responsible for my having to shut down the old Challenge list, I am not wrong.  I was there, and while I don't know if Rick was or not, I was.  Todd was there and Farrell Till was there.  I had about 70 subscribers to that list and Robert, Todd and Farrell tried to take over the list.  One by one my subscribers unsubscribed because I couldn't get them under control.  After several weeks of discussing an issue I would say that we could have one more day then I would shut that thread down (as any list owner/moderator is allowed to do), but Robert, Todd and Till refused to obey it.  They did their best to keep those threads going.  I finally removed Till for cursing on the list, but Robert and Todd did not break that rule.  I finally got enough of it and banned Todd for not allowing threads to cease when I ordered them to cease.  I eventually ended up banning Robert for the very same reason, but not before most of my subcribers quit the list leaving me with, virtually, no one to send the messages to, so I closed it down.  I don't know if Rick was there or not, but I do know why that list was closed.

Rick can say that I lie, all day, but I want him to prove that I have lied.  Don't just say I have, prove that I have.  Furthermore I will close with the phrase "In Christ Jesus" whenever I please.  He may not think that I am living for Christ, but I really don't care what he thinks.  My world does not revolve around his ideas and beliefs.

I have had to break this article down because of it's length, so I will conclude at this point and go to the next part.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald