HARTZOG'S FANTASIES (Part 2)
Jerry D. McDonaldHartzog continues to quote from my article...I wanted the reader to have this information because Mr. Hartzog used one quotation leaving the reader to wonder what he was talking about. Now you know!Yeah, now the readers know that Jerry McDonald is still being his same old deceitful, dishonest self.
Jerry McDonald wouldn't discuss SN 1987A here on these lists, he banned us from his list, and then he went to Todd's YouTube video about biological evolution and rather than discuss the substance of Todd's video he engaged in some very unseemly behavior.
McDonald...
I am not being deceitful in
the least. As we have already seen this whole thing on SN 1987A got
started in a discussion about the idea of whether or not biological
evolution is a fact of science. I apparently said
something regarding his personal life, though he has never told me what it
was that I said, I told him that I wanted to ask him something about
SN 1987A. That is when this discussion started. Yes, I understand
that he wanted to discuss it while we were in negotiations, but I do not discuss
my arguments with my opponents while debate negotiations are going
on. I am not in the habit of giving my enemy my ammo before the
battle. I have to do my study on the matter and I am not going to let
him know what I am going to say until I get into the debate. I made this
clear to him more than once. Just because he intends to do this is no
reason to think that I would. I am in the habit of doing my own study and
coming to my own conclusions. My opponent is expected to do the
same. However, for Rick to say that I did not discuss
biological evolution on Todd's youtube comments section is one of the
grossest's misrepresentations that has ever been made. All one has to do is
to go to that comment section to see that I did do this. We
spent quite some time and space on exchanges back and forth. Rick
knows this, thus he is the one who is being deceitful and dishonest, not
me.
Hartzog...
He repeatedly referred to the gas rings around SN 1987A as "glowing", even though we told him the gas was never glowing until eight months after the explosion. He refused to accept that it was the explosion that lit up the gas until Danny Faulkner told him the same thing, and now McDonald is trying to make out like nobody but a young-earth creationist could answer his question.
McDonald...
As I have already pointed
out, this was brought up on the Maury_and_Baty list, but it was after I had
already left the group. Since I am no longer a part of that group, I don't
participate on it. I realize that Rick would like for to go back on it,
that way he would have something to do. However, I don't have time to
waste getting on a list where I have to take on three or four at once and
everything I write gets covered up by everything else. I would much rather
come on this website and write articles back and forth. That way only two
people at a time are involved and the truth is able to come out. If Rick
and Todd were honorable about discussing things on list, I wouldn't mind having
them on mine, but I have been on far to many atheistic/liberal lists, and have
seen (all too often how that) issues get covered up on these list. I like
it clean where everything is up front and there is no question as to what is
going on or what is being discussed. Maybe this is what Rick thought was
"out of kilter." He doesn't like the idea of going head-to-head with me
with it just being the two of us. I am amazed that he would think that he
could reply to something I wrote on my debate website and not realize that I was
going to reply to whatever anyone wrote against it.
Hartzog...
The quotation I provided, with the link, was sufficient for those on the Maury_and_Baty list to know what I am talking about, and I never expected my response to Jerry McDonald's "scientific explanation" to show up on McDonald's website, or believe me, I would have been a lot more thorough in exposing this liar.
McDonald...
Well, if he didn't know that I
was going to respond to whatever he wrote in response to my article, he must be
delusional. No, he understood this, he just didn't think it was going to
get this deep or go this long. I think he really thought that he could
just give some flippant reply and I would go away and hide. Sorry, but it
doesn't work like that! I write an article, and you reply, I then have the
right to respond to your reply. If you care to, you may reply again, but I
will always maintain the right to respond to anything and everything
you say. It is no different than being on an email discussion
list, with the exception that you are on your own on this format and you don't
have Robert and Todd backing you up screaming "Rick Wins!", "Rick Wins!", "Rick
Wins!" On this format you actually have to prove your case because
you are by yourself with no backup. This is probably why Mr. Hartzog has
suddenly become so caustic as well as cautious. He realizes that he is on
his own on this format with no backup and he is weary of being caught like
this. My advice: If you don't want to find yourself in this kind of
a situation, don't respond to articles on debate websites.
Hartzog's article continues...
McDonald...
Now lets get into looking at Mr. Hartzog's response to my article.
Mr. Hartzog writes:
One thing to keep in mind is that NOTHING Jerry McDonald has posted in Todd's "Comments" section, and nothing that McDonald has posted in the "Comments" section of his own YouTube video, has been even remotely relevant to showing us why "evolution isn't science". SN 1987A certainly doesn't
have anything to do with it.
Mr. Hartzog, like his colleague Todd Greene (and others as well) doesn't seem to understand that there are seven phases of evolution.Todd Greene's video is very clearly about biological evolution. Todd very plainly references several scientific journals that regularly publish research into *biological evolution*. NONE of what Todd was talking about in his video was about "cosmic evolution" or "stellar evolution" or "planetary evolution" or anything else -- it deals specifically with *biological evolution*.
McDonald
It makes all the difference in the
world about the phases of evolution in reference to Greene's "Creationists
Delusion: Evolution Isn't Science." Some of those "scientific
journals" that Greene made "very plain references" to were journals that had to
do with "geology" (another phase of evolution) because even Greene admitted that
it was a lazy mistake, but he wasn't going to change it. It was a lazy
mistake and he is too lazy to correct it. One of the books he made
reference to was The Age of the Earth by Darlymple which is a book on
geology and evolution. I purchased this book to use in my debate with
Greene, but he refused to allow me to use it. One of the journals he "very
plainly referenced" was the journal Journal of Paleontology. There
were books on fossils, plant evolution. There were books and journals on
several phases of evolution advertised on his video. Then he had a link to
his website which advertised books on SN 1987A as well as other aspects of
astronomy. He invited people to view these things calling them all
"evolution." Not one time did he, in any part of his video specify
"biological evolution ONLY." He used the word "evolution," showed books
and journals of different phases of evolution, but when I went to discuss SN
1987A on his comment section he got upset and so did Hartzog.
Hartzog
It doesn't matter if there are *a hundred* phases of "evolution"; Todd is talking about biology and Jerry McDonald is not. Jerry McDonald, of his own free will and volition, went to a YouTube video about scientific research into biological evolution and started trying to talk about SN 1987A instead, after he avoided discussing SN 1987A in an appropriate forum, and *Jerry McDonald STILL has not offered one single thing* to show that research into biological evolution is not science.
McDonald
Show where Todd was talking JUST about biological
evolution. If that is all he was talking about why did he show pictures of
books and journals which deal with fossils and plant evolution? He was
including all evolution in the same package, that is until he found out that I
was going to introduced "biological evolution" into the debate using the fossil
record and paleontology, and then he balked at it and called the debate
off. All of this is documented on my explanation of why the McDonald-Greene debate
did not materialize.
I did not avoid discussing SN 1987A on any
appropriate website. I told Greene from the very beginning that I
would not discuss it on Baty's list because I was going to use it in the
debate. When Greene called of the debate I left the list because I saw no
reason to stay on it. I responded to Greene's video with my own video and
asked him some very pertinent questions; questions he refused (and continues to
refuse) to answer. My original article entitled "SN 1987A" was solely a
discussion of the supernova 1987A. I wrote it hoping that Todd would take
a crack at it, but he didn't. You did and now I am responding to
you. If you didn't want me to respond to your article you shouldn't have
responded to mine. That is just the way it goes, on a debate site,
Rick. Someone writes an article, you respond, and that person gets to
defend his position. After he responds to you, you can't just say "I
didn't know he was going to respond to me." Duh...I wonder what you
thought I was going to do!
Hartzog
I have pointed this out to Mr. Greene on more than one occasion, but he still doesn't seem to get it.
Oh, we get it all right. Jerry is engaging in typical creationist double-talk, where everything under the sun that he doesn't like is all just part of the "evolutionist conspiracy". And watch how McDonald contradicts himself as we go through this section of his response.
According to Chaisson & McMillian (both of which are evolutionists)...
No, Jerry; they're *astronomers*.
McDonald
Chaisson & McMillan are not
evolutionists? Okay I guess, then, they didn't write the following
statement:
"Life in the Universe With this human-centered view clearly evident, Figure 28:1 identifies seven major evolutionary phases that have contributed to development of life on our planet: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological (bold mine jdm), and cultural evolution. Matter formed from energy in the early universe, then cooled and clumped to form galaxies and stars. Within in galaxies, generation after generation of stars formed and died, seeding the interstellar medium with heavy elements so that, when our Sun formed billions of years after the first star blazed, the rocky planet Earth formed along with it. Eventually on Earth, life appeared and slowly evolved into the diverse environment we see today. Together, these evolutionary phases represent the grand sweep of cosmic evolution--the continuous transformation of matter and energy that has led to the appearance of life on our planet" (Astronomy Today, p. 760)?
And I guess they didn't make this statement either:
"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).
And you expect anyone to take you seriously? Tell me, what did they mean by "all scientists accept the reality of biological evolution" if they aren't evolutionists? Do you have some kind of a far-fetched interpretation (like the one you placed on Exodus 20:9-11 where you claim that God has not finished the creation week even yet) that you can place on these statements? Do Chaisson & McMillan NOT accept biological evolution? I think so! Notice: "What led to these changes? Chance!" (p. 765). Does that not teach evolution? You can't be serious!
Hartzog
And by the way; it's McMillan, not "McMillian".
McDonald
You're right, it isn't McMillian, it
is McMillan! I made a simple error in spelling his name. I do
sincerely apologize for that devastating mistake. Is that the best you've
got? That reminds me of the Holmes-Cobb fight in 82. Holmes was
beating Cobb so bad that it made Holmes look bad. It was so terrible that
this was the last fight that Howard Cozel ever narrated. During the 13th
round (I believe it was) Cobb finally took a swing and Holmes slipped on the mat
and went down. Cobb actually thought he had finally hit Holmes and started
in after him. Holmes got back up and reminded Cobb that he hadn't even
begun to touch him. That is what your effort reminds me of.
Hartzog
You have the book; you've been quoting from a few selected paragraphs now for weeks; and you've never even figured out how to spell the last name of one of the authors. I hope you didn't spend all that money on this astronomy textbook only to not learn anything from it....wrote the following two statements: "Life in the Universe With this human-centered view clearly evident, Figure 28:1 identifies seven major evolutionary phases that have contributed to development of life on our planet: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological (bold mine jdm), and cultural evolution. Matter formed from energy in the early universe, then cooled and clumped to form galaxies and stars. Within in galaxies, generation after generation of stars formed and died, seeding the interstellar medium with heavy elements so that, when our Sun formed billions of years after the first star blazed, the rocky planet Earth formed along with it. Eventually on Earth, life appeared and slowly evolved into the diverse environment we see today. Together, these evolutionary phases represent the grand sweep of cosmic evolution--the continuous transformation of matter and energy that has led to the appearance of life on our planet" (Astronomy Today, p. 760).
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).
It is easily noted that Chaisson & McMillian both say that biological evolution is but one phase of "cosmic" evolution. Stellar evolution, and planetary evolution are two other phases and they are part of the same evolutionary doctrine that biological evolution is. Greene & Company (Hartzog included) don't want to admit this because then they would be forced to deal with all of the pitfalls of evolution beginning with the "Big Bang" theory.
McDonald
Well...I may have written
the name wrong (and I do admit that error), but I didn't waste the money,
because I have come to see just how weak your position really is. You
think that Chaisson & McMillan are astronomers and they are not
evolutionists, but you obviously can't read simple English because they both
UNEQUIVOCALLY state that they believe in evolution. Therefore, that makes
them evolutionists.
Hartzog
OK, Jerry. You want to make "evolution" apply to everything under the sun, when Todd's video is very clearly talking about biological evolution? So let's say all kinds of evolution then.
You still haven't shown that it is not science.You have not shown that cosmic evolution is not science.
You have not shown that particulate evolution is not science.
You have not shown that galactic evolution is not science.
You have not shown that stellar evolution is not science.
You have not shown that planetary evolution is not science.
You have not shown that chemical evolution is not science.
You have not shown that biological evolution is not science.
You have not shown that cultural evolution is not science.So call it all "evolution" if you want to -- you're just making your job a whole lot tougher.
McDonald
My job isn't tougher, it is
easier. You say that all these things are science, but you cannot show
that they are science because they are not testable by scientific means.
You say "you have not shown that cosmic evolution is not science." Cosmic
evolution is what is made up of particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary,
chemical, biological, and cultural evolution. Cosmic evolution is not one
of the seven phases, it encompasses all of the so-called seven phases of
evolution. None of these seven phases can be scientifically tested.
With that being true, then they do not fall into the realm of science.
Science is defined as follows:
“In general, the process of science goes something like this. Some feature of the universe is observed. The observations are used to erect a conceptual scheme—some—hypothesis—that attempts to explain the observations…Because science is a form of human behavior, it is limited by our own capabilities. We can study only those things that we can directly observe with our sense organs or by means that extend our sense organs in space and time” (Life, The Science of Biology, pp. 3,4).
Now, pray
tell me, how you can directly observe with your sense organs or even
by means that extends your sense organs in space and time that allegedly happened three
billion years ago! You do that, and you will be the first man
alive to prove that the study of evolution is actually science! But...I'll let
you in on a little secret; I am not going to hold my breath waiting
for you to do it. Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
"Evolution claims to be biology, yet cannot be observed and has no experiments. It requires belief in the opposite of the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. It is an inverted fantasy, and must be believed like the monolithic state supported religion of public schools which violates Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the prohibition of a state supported religion" (Biology for the 21st Century, p. 15).
Now while this deals, primarily, with biological
evolution the conclusion reached is the same. There is no way to
experiment with evolution, it cannot be observed. Therefore, it isn't
science! Mastropaolo also said that "(a)n old Earth is opposite of what
evolution needs. Evolutionists would like to say the Earth is old to
provide ample time for evolution to work. We know this is a topsy-turvy
desire because time yields devolution, the exact opposite of evolution" (Ibid,
p. 14). Therefore, since evolution (whether it is stellar evolution,
planetary, or biological evolution) cannot be scientifically observed because of
its too distant past, it cannot be considered scientific. There are no
experiments that can be used to recreate it. There was no person now
living on the earth or who ever did live to see evolution taking place and left
historical records of it. Therefore it cannot be a scientifically
observable fact. None of these seven phases can be scientifically proven
or even experimented with.
The only thing that any of these people can
argue is the fact of what is commonly called "micro-evolution." They like
to say that there is no difference between "micro-evolution" and
"macro-evolution," but there is a world of difference. Micro-evolution is
small changes within a population (a kind); while macro-evolution is large
changes between populations (or kinds). There is a vast difference between
the two and even Rick Hartzog, Todd Greene and every other
atheist/skeptic/agnostic and liberal in the world knows, they just don't want to
admit it because admission of such destroys their whole position.
Hartzog
You were supposed to be showing why "evolution isn't science", and then you changed the subject to SN 1987A, so now you are also supposed to be explaining how light travels across 168,000 light years of space in less than 10,000 years.
And now, rather than deal with those two things, you are trying to change the subject again. I think you're biting off a bit more than you can chew. Chaisson and McMillan speak of cosmic evolution, in your quote above, as being the "continuous transformation of matter and energy". Will you deny that matter and energy are undergoing continuous transformation?
Can you scientifically show, Jerry McDonald, now that you have embraced this all-encompassing definition of "evolution" as the "continuous transformation of matter and energy", that these continuous transformations do not take place? Ooops! Creationists love to half-quote the laws of thermodynamics -- thermodynamics says these transformations of matter and energy are continuously taking place -- therefore, creationists must accept "evolution" after all, wouldn't you say?
"Pitfalls of the Big Bang"? Who cares? Whether it was a Big Bang or a Splendid Splurt the Universe is still going to be billions of years old and billions of light-years to the horizon. Just because you hate the Big Bang doesn't give your 6,000 year old Universe any scientific credibility.
McDonald
(1) I started out
rebutting Todd's video "Creationist Delusion: Evolution Isn't
Science." We discussed that (as we have already seen
in an earlier installment) until Greene ran out of things to say. I,
then, asked him about SN 1987A since we weren't going to be debating any more,
and that is how we got off on this issue. I then wrote an article entitled
SN 1987A to which you
responded. You are the one who brought up the video comments on the
subject of biological evolution. I was just responding to what you had
written.
(2) I am not changing the subject on anything. You, Greene
and Baty seem to think that you can simply say that someone is changing the
subject and that will just make is so. It's like "O...I'm God, I can make
anything happen just by thinking it!" Sorry, it don't work that
way!
(3) So where does my showing that cosmic evolution having seven
phases translate into the laws of Thermodynamics. If you will read volume
8 and number 1 of the next issue of Challenge
you will see that I have nothing to fear by an honest discussion of the subject
of Thermodynamics. You may respond to it, and I will even publish your
response in the Spring issue, but I will also respond to it. The first two
laws of thermodynamics specifically refute any allusion you might have to
evolution. The first law says that energy cannot be either created or
destroyed naturally. The second law says that entropy increases.
Evolution says that energy (as well as matter) had to come from somewhere, and
that it started out in a state of chaos and is now headed towards order.
Thermodynamics says that this is false! So how does anything I have said
show that I must accept evolution? It doesn't; this is just another one of
your over imagined fantacies.
(4) I don't believe
in either the big bang or the splendid splurt. I believe that God spoke
the universe into existence, and that does not necessitate any more than 10, 000
years. So where is your argument now? Just another one of your over
active imagined fantacies. Rick, don't you know, by this time, that
fantacies don't work in the real world?
Hartzog
While the comments on Greene's comment section (or on my own) had nothing to do with biological evolution they had everything to do with stellar evolution.
Exactly. And nothing in Todd's video has anything whatsoever to do with stellar evolution. Which is one of the things that has been pointed out to you a number of times.
McDonald
You are just as
wrong as you can be. Todd used pictures of books which dealt with geology,
he used links which dealt with astronomy. He used pictures of journals
which dealt with all of these phases of evolution and then called them all
evolution. You and Greene are the ones who have tried to muddy the
waters. All I have done is to show that neither of you have a case.
If Greene's video had nothing to do with stellar evolution then why did he put a
link on the screen leading to his own website which dealt with SN 1987A as well
as other stellar studies? This is a question that neither you nor Greene
can or will even attempt to answer. Greene's only answser is it was a lazy
oversight, but he was too lazy to change it.
Hartzog
But you decided you wanted to talk about SN 1987A instead, so now it is your job to tell us how we see the light from a supernova that took place 160,000 years before the young-earth creationists claim there was even a Universe.
McDonald
And that is
exactly what I did in my original article entitled SN 1987A.
You responded to it, but you didn't really do a very good job in that
response so now you change the subject in a feeble attempt to get
the spot light off of failures.
Hartzog
Greene advertised several books on his video as proving evolution...
WRONG! Todd Greene gave examples of several SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that report the results of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH dealing with various aspects of the theory of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, proving that the claim that "evolution isn't science" is just creationist delusion! Research into biological evolution is legitimate scientific inquiry, conducted according to the standards of real science.
You, Jerry McDonald, are completely ignorant of science and of the scientific method, and you are incompetent to be making claims about what qualifies as science and what is not science.
You will demonstrate your ignorance and incompetence again and again in this article to which I am now replying. And by the end of this article you will have degenerated into utter lunacy.
McDonald
I
am not completely ignorant of science or scientific method. I am not the
one who is convinced that we can scientifically test something that allegedly
happened three billion years (or so) ago. I understand that in order to
scientifically test something you have to be able to see it, hear it, smell it,
touch it, or taste it. And so, what I am wanting to know is, can Rick test
evolution that allegedly happened three billion years ago? If not, then,
it isn't science! He can call it history, religion and/or philosophy, but
he can't call it science
Hartzog continues quoting me...
...one of which was the book The Age of the Earth, by G. Brent Darlymple which is a book on geology. When Greene and I were planning on debating the issue of the age of the universe and the earth I bought that book upon his recommendation. When he found out he argued that the book didn't prove evolution that it had nothing to do with evolution because evolution has nothing to do with geology. I asked him why he advertised it as proving evolution and his response was that it was a lazy oversight, but he was not going to remove it that he would make another video explaining this lazy oversight (a video that we are still waiting for I might add). So I guess Todd is just too lazy to remove a lazy oversight and thereby perpetuates something that he says is not true, namely that Darlymple's book The Age of the Earth promotes and proves evolution. Biological evolution is not the only kind of evolution that we have.
Hartzog
Whine whine whine.
The TRUTH, dear readers, is that the McDonald-Greene debate was supposed to have been about the age of the Earth, not about biological evolution. You don't have to talk about biological evolution at all to thoroughly prove the antiquity of the Earth and the Universe. Todd told Jerry *from the very beginning* that he would not debate Jerry McDonald about biological evolution, because (1) biological evolution is irrelevant to proving the age of the Earth and the Universe, and (2) Jerry McDonald is not capable of discussing evolutionary theory "strictly from a scientific viewpoint".
McDonald
I
have already shown, beyond any doubt, that the fossil record (which is a part of
geology) does have to do with both biological evolution and the age of the
earth. They are so closely tied together that you cannot separate
them. One of the ways of determining the age of the earth is the fossil
record and where the fossils are found in the geological time table.
Greene didn't want me to get into this because he knows the pitfalls of the
fossil record. The original proposition that Greene wanted me to affirm
was that "the empirical" evidence shows that the earth is only a few thousand
years old. I told him right off that I would not be restricted to
"empirical evidence" and he accepted that refusal and allowed me to word my
proposition as "the evidence shows." However, in November he tried to
change the wording of my proposition from "the evidence shows" to "scientific
evidence" shows. I had already stated that I was not going to get into the
Bible unless he did. I did, however, intend to get into philosophy and
even logic along with the fossil record (as well as other extra-biblical and/or
extra-religious) records to show that the earth was not more than 10,000 years
old. One of the things that I had intended to do was to get into the
earliest records of man to show that there is no history beyond that
point. Again, Greene didn't want to do that. When he realized that I
would not budge on my proposition he called the debate off.
Did he say
that he wouldn't debate biological evolution? Yes he did! And I
accepted that! I had no intentions of getting into an evolution vs.
creation discussion with him. However, I did intend to use the fossil
record (which is so closely attached to biological evolution that if one falls
they both fall), but he refused to allow me to do that. He refused to
allow me to use a large section of the science of "geology" to prove my
proposition. However, geology is one of the main arguments for an old
earth. He wanted to tie my hands behind my back so that I couldn't defend
my proposition and say: "Now, only what you can see, hear, smell, touch,
and/or taste is what you can use." I have had far too many debates to
allow a rookie to pull one over on me like that. When he saw that his
tactic wasn't going to work, he called off the debate. It is a good thing
for him that he did, because he had no ground on which to stand. If Todd
would actually agree to allow me to defend my proposition properly, I would
still debate him. I have already told the men of the congregation here that such
was possible, IF AND ONLY IF TODD WILL ALLOW ME TO WRITE AND DEFEND MY
PROPOSITION THE WAY I SEE FIT. They would still like to see a debate
between us, but they agree with me that I should not allow Todd to tie my hands
behind my back and not be able to use all of the evidence that is available to
me to defend the truth. Rick can say whatever he chooses, but Rick doesn't
know!
Hartzog
Dalrymple's book didn't have anything to do with why the debate was called off. It was because Jerry McDonald insisted he would be discussing biological evolution, which is another example of Jerry McDonald's irrationality -- he thinks, as his proposed proposition stated, that a "refutation of evolution" would prove the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. That, in itself, shows Jerry McDonald's scientific incompetence.There is such an animal as stellar evolution and this is the category or phase under which the discussion of SN 1987A falls. I am sorry that Greene & Company cannot understand this much about it, but such is not my fault.
McDonald
Dalrymple's book played a major part in what was going
on in our negotiations. He advertised Dalrymple's book as proof of
evolution and when he said that I couldn't use evolution I informed him that I
had already purchased Dalrymple's book to prepare for the debate and that was
one of the books that he listed on his video as proof of evolution. He
decided, that I couldn't use geology unless it was the rock strata. He was
trying to limit me to what I could and could not bring into the debate and that
is where the problem started. He is the one who changed the
propositions! He is the one who called the debate! He is the one who
is to blame for that debate not materializing.
If Dalrymple's book had
nothing to do with biological evolution then why did Todd advertise it as so
proving? O, it was just a lazy oversight, an oversight that he is too lazy
to redo. No, he knows that the fossil record (geology) is connected to
biological evolution as well as the age of the earth. The three are
interconnected because without all three you don't get a full picture.
Greene knows the pitfalls of evolution (all evolution) which is why he is
reluctant to discuss it publicly. He won't discuss stellar evolution and
call it evolution; he would rather call it astronomy. He won't discuss
discuss the fossil record because it is so closely connected to biological
evolution, and he doesn't want to call it evolution he wants to call it
geology. Greene says that geology has nothing to do with evolution; and I
agree with him, but without evolution he cannot show that the earth is
old.
I am going to have quit again so I can go to my next installment.
In
Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald