ADMITTING MY ERROR TO ThePhy (this is copied from my post in my Second Offer thread, with the addition in paragraph two of my wish to debate "another physicist" if Phy finally refuses.)
Phy, as I said, I appreciate it when others correct my errors. You correctly identified a contradiction in how I interpreted scientific evidence as supportive of the Bible, and that error hurts my credibility and shows my bias. I presented evidence that Job’s description of Orion and the Pleiades indicated knowledge unobtainable by man until 4,000 years later, which I then interpreted as indicating divine revelation. Later, when I learned that literally half of my evidence was the exact opposite of what I needed for my original argument, I still made the same argument, to that extent discrediting myself and my original argument. Such elasticity of interpretation measures (1) bias, and (2) reciprocal degrees of ignorance and deceitfulness. Your argument, Phy, proves (1) bias on my part (my belief led me to a false judgment); and I claim that it shows (2) ignorance but not deceitfulness.
Phy, just as I have considered your argument here (and validated your criticism), if you will do a One-on-One against me rebutting my position that time is absolute and not relative, I will commit to responding to two more of your threads (none of which I have read). If you refuse this final offer, then I would commit to debating this with another physcist, if we can find one, who would like to defend the position that time is relative, against my Summit Clock argument (which is based directly on Albert Einstein's Twins illustration), that time is absolute.
You said I should have answered your criticism on this two years ago, but every day that passes I have scores of letters, emails, and voice messages (including from good friends and loved ones), let alone posts at TOL and elsewhere, that I have not answered due to lack of time because work deadlines and my wife and kids take precedence. I don’t know when the last time a stranger in tears called you for help, but for me it was about thirty minutes ago (a boy name Lance just arrested). And being a terribly slow writer—this post has taken me aboutfive nine hours (including the time to select the two parallel examples below)—I don’t go looking for criticisms or challenges to respond to, even on TOL and in the BEL forum, and most such pass unnoticed or as noise, until some rise above other priorities. Over the last 20 years, when I’ve wanted other local talk show hosts to respond to my letters, voicemails, emails, or recorded arguments I’ve sent to them, I’ve never had an expectation that they would in fact even notice, let alone actually read or listen to my rebuttal, and forget about them actually responding. When I send rebuttals to other talk show hosts (columnists, authors, etc.), I feel that doing so is mostly a waste of time, but it helps me think through my rebuttal, and perhaps against all odds, so-and-so might someday see my argument. I love coming to TOL to do Battle Royales and take on the occasional debate, and I always hope to do more than I have time for.
So Phy, you may want to stop reading here, because I’ve acknowledged your criticism and admitted my error, but I invite you to continue. There is more to the Orion and Pleiades error that I made, and for those who are interested, I want to provide a more full account of the error, and make whatever argument that can possibly survive my history on this issue.
The Error
In addition to ThePhy, I have to thank old-earth astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, for helping me measure my bias (which then reinforces my desire to handle evidence more carefully, though I admit this thanks to Ross is also a backhanded criticism). Why Hugh? As in the past when I’ve discussed my Orion’s Belt error, I’ve pointed out that a few years ago, I attended his presentation at Southern Gables Church in Littleton, Colo., organized and moderated by Denver newscaster Ward Lucas (an acquaintance); and it was there that I picked up a handout which presented this false argument for Scripture based on the stars of Orion’s Belt being gravitationally bound (and not unbound). I’ve read Ross’s The Fingerprint of God, and took notes at his presentation, and of all that, I only recall accepting this one argument (from Job), and trusting one piece of evidence (bound Belt) as from a trained astrophysicist. That trust was misplaced, but it did give Phy the opportunity to re-assert my bias. Fair enough, and while I’d rather safeguard myself from bias error, when I make one, I’m glad to have it identified.
(Skip this paragraph if you know the relevant Pleiades and Orion particulars.) From the notes I’ve collected on these two constellations: Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory says that astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of the Pleiades, all moving through space in the same direction, and at the same speed. Dr. Robert J. Trumpler of the Lick Observatory reported that, “Over 25,000 individual [measurements] of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction… This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are… a system in which the stars are bound together…” So the Cluster is not just apparent, but a true gravitational cluster, bound, as they are anciently described. “Can you bind the cluster [Heb. mahadannaw, bonds, bands] of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). Contrariwise, the three second-magnitude stars that make up Orion’s Belt, almost a straight line as viewed from Earth, are rapidly moving apart from one another, with each traveling in a different direction at a different speed. Long ago, Astronomer Garrett P. Serviss said that, “In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.”
Attempting to Salvage the Orion Argument
Job’s quote of God is of special interest because of all the dozens of ancient constellations he could have named, as best I can see none of the others indicate a binding together. Thus, while this cluster [bonds, bands] and belt primarily speak of a binding together, the other ancient heavenly images cannot be used to directly portray the concept of gravity (binding), such as the constellations of the scales [of justice], the altar, the ram, the goat, the bull, the serpent, the Virgin, the child, the crown, the mighty one, Leo the Lion, the fish, etc. None of those directly signify the concept of a binding together. Thus Job’s quote is uncanny:
Thus, the corrected Job 38 argument (my bias in full consideration) is that Job’s quote appears prescient because 3,600 years before Christian creationist Isaac Newton identified the concept of gravity, (1) Job singles out the two constellations which speak directly of binding; (2) points to the extraordinary power that such binding implies; and (3) his poetic description fits perfectly with the Pleiades gravitationally bound and Orion’s Belt being loosed.
Just as Genesis One puts such a priority on the creation of light (the nature of which is fundamental to understanding the universe), and states that the Sun is a light (and thus not a god as the ancient world imagined), this Job 38 passage adds to the cosmological insights in Scripture.
Phy referenced my interview with Michael Shermer, an editor of Scientific American. I began by mentioning that much of the ancient world worshipped the sun (moon and stars) as gods, and as I recall, I asked Shermer if at least we could begin with common ground, and agree that the Bible was correct in declaring on its first page, in Genesis One, that the Sun was a light (Gen. 1:16), and thus not a god, and therefore obviously (as later declared explicitly, Deut. 4:19) it should not be worshipped? Shermer’s knee-jerk reaction against anything biblical moved him to argue that the sun is not a light. (Listen to this 73-second excerpt, or go to the entire interview). Both sides fight bias. And I’d like to compare my problem of elasticity of interpretation of evidence with two major examples that ThePhy must wrestle with. When I give evidence for an isolated argument, it’s embarrassing (though important) to learn (and admit) that the evidence is exactly backward from what I had expected. Whereas, I will give two examples of extremely broad scientific observations which yield evidence exactly backward from what ThePhy and all atheists expect, which do not address an isolated argument, but entire foundational claims of their scientific worldview. If these examples are valid, then ThePhy should be able to admit the evidence is the opposite of what atheistic science would predict, and admit the elasticity of their interpretations. (1) Quickly decaying carbon-14 exists in carbon dioxide gas naturally occurring in wells representing the Permian, Mississippian, and Cretaceous (from supposedly 100 to 350 mya) in roughly equal amounts, indicating recent and simultaneous formation (see CO2 Gas Well Effluent Analysis), yet after decades of beating creationists over the head with radiometric dating, such extraordinary evidence (CO2 appearing everywhere in coal, diamonds, etc.) will not even be admitted as fitting, not into the Old-Earth, but the Young-Earth evidence column. (2) Mutation-based Darwinian evolution seems infinitely elastic in its ability to absorb apparently contrary data as though it were corroborative, including the 453,732 mutations now described in the literature which do not provide a single clear case of adding information to the genome (see Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]), yet during this time evolutionists have only increased their defense of mutation-based evolution of species. These extremely broad scientific observations (for the age of the earth and evolution) yield the direct opposite results of what the atheistic model predicts, yet creationists cannot even get evolutionists to even admit that such broad observations fit better in the creationist model than the evolutionary model. Such admission would not equal a concession, but would demonstrate integrity and courage, and a willingness to objectively analyze the evidence, wherever it may lead. Thus, as I confront my bias, so we all should. Instead, we have TOL’s old-earther Johnny being “unsure” if it is even valid theoretically to sort “evidence into Evidence Columns” for Old and Young Earth.
Finally
Genesis One states that God gave the heavenly lights to be “signs“ (Gen. 1:14), and Ps. 147:4 that He has named all the stars. Christian creationist Johann Kepler, father of modern astronomy, discovered the three laws of planetary motion, and this young-earther used those laws to calculate the motions of the planets backward hoping to discover the nature of the Star of Bethlehem. Many of the constellations and names of the stars came down to us from the ancients, and the Apostle Paul (Romans 10:18) interpreted Psalm 19:1-6 to mean that the heavens depict the story of salvation.
Phy, you said that Job would have been correct if he had said that Leo’s legs or the Dipper’s handle would move. But Job’s actual statement not only illustrated a scientific truth [though you believe, just coincidentally], but it did so using the two constellations that could best illustrate the binding nature of gravity. My bias and ignorance will continue to give ammunition to atheists and skeptics who reject the Bible as God’s Word. However, Scripture and science present strong evidence of God’s existence and His Word as Truth.
ThePhy should be able to agree to at least this common ground: to admit that unlike much of the ancient world, the Bible was right in declaring the sun a light and not a god; that it is uncanny that the Bible’s creation story gave such priority to light; and that it is uncanny that Job would select the two constellations that depict the concept of being bound, and then ask a question that so well fits with the gravitational relationship of these constellations: “Can you bind the Cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the Belt of Orion?”
-Bob Enyart
Phy, as I said, I appreciate it when others correct my errors. You correctly identified a contradiction in how I interpreted scientific evidence as supportive of the Bible, and that error hurts my credibility and shows my bias. I presented evidence that Job’s description of Orion and the Pleiades indicated knowledge unobtainable by man until 4,000 years later, which I then interpreted as indicating divine revelation. Later, when I learned that literally half of my evidence was the exact opposite of what I needed for my original argument, I still made the same argument, to that extent discrediting myself and my original argument. Such elasticity of interpretation measures (1) bias, and (2) reciprocal degrees of ignorance and deceitfulness. Your argument, Phy, proves (1) bias on my part (my belief led me to a false judgment); and I claim that it shows (2) ignorance but not deceitfulness.
Phy, just as I have considered your argument here (and validated your criticism), if you will do a One-on-One against me rebutting my position that time is absolute and not relative, I will commit to responding to two more of your threads (none of which I have read). If you refuse this final offer, then I would commit to debating this with another physcist, if we can find one, who would like to defend the position that time is relative, against my Summit Clock argument (which is based directly on Albert Einstein's Twins illustration), that time is absolute.
You said I should have answered your criticism on this two years ago, but every day that passes I have scores of letters, emails, and voice messages (including from good friends and loved ones), let alone posts at TOL and elsewhere, that I have not answered due to lack of time because work deadlines and my wife and kids take precedence. I don’t know when the last time a stranger in tears called you for help, but for me it was about thirty minutes ago (a boy name Lance just arrested). And being a terribly slow writer—this post has taken me about
So Phy, you may want to stop reading here, because I’ve acknowledged your criticism and admitted my error, but I invite you to continue. There is more to the Orion and Pleiades error that I made, and for those who are interested, I want to provide a more full account of the error, and make whatever argument that can possibly survive my history on this issue.
The Error
In addition to ThePhy, I have to thank old-earth astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, for helping me measure my bias (which then reinforces my desire to handle evidence more carefully, though I admit this thanks to Ross is also a backhanded criticism). Why Hugh? As in the past when I’ve discussed my Orion’s Belt error, I’ve pointed out that a few years ago, I attended his presentation at Southern Gables Church in Littleton, Colo., organized and moderated by Denver newscaster Ward Lucas (an acquaintance); and it was there that I picked up a handout which presented this false argument for Scripture based on the stars of Orion’s Belt being gravitationally bound (and not unbound). I’ve read Ross’s The Fingerprint of God, and took notes at his presentation, and of all that, I only recall accepting this one argument (from Job), and trusting one piece of evidence (bound Belt) as from a trained astrophysicist. That trust was misplaced, but it did give Phy the opportunity to re-assert my bias. Fair enough, and while I’d rather safeguard myself from bias error, when I make one, I’m glad to have it identified.
(Skip this paragraph if you know the relevant Pleiades and Orion particulars.) From the notes I’ve collected on these two constellations: Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory says that astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of the Pleiades, all moving through space in the same direction, and at the same speed. Dr. Robert J. Trumpler of the Lick Observatory reported that, “Over 25,000 individual [measurements] of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction… This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are… a system in which the stars are bound together…” So the Cluster is not just apparent, but a true gravitational cluster, bound, as they are anciently described. “Can you bind the cluster [Heb. mahadannaw, bonds, bands] of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). Contrariwise, the three second-magnitude stars that make up Orion’s Belt, almost a straight line as viewed from Earth, are rapidly moving apart from one another, with each traveling in a different direction at a different speed. Long ago, Astronomer Garrett P. Serviss said that, “In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam, will approach each other and form a naked-eye double; but the third, Alnitak, will drift away eastward so that the band will no longer exist.”
Attempting to Salvage the Orion Argument
Job’s quote of God is of special interest because of all the dozens of ancient constellations he could have named, as best I can see none of the others indicate a binding together. Thus, while this cluster [bonds, bands] and belt primarily speak of a binding together, the other ancient heavenly images cannot be used to directly portray the concept of gravity (binding), such as the constellations of the scales [of justice], the altar, the ram, the goat, the bull, the serpent, the Virgin, the child, the crown, the mighty one, Leo the Lion, the fish, etc. None of those directly signify the concept of a binding together. Thus Job’s quote is uncanny:
Whether these constellations were both gravitationally bound or unbound, or one of each, Job’s quote is uncanny in that (1) it calls out the two names of ancient constellations which speak of binding; and (2) it points to extraordinary power required specifically to bind or loose. My bias (belief that has led to a false judgment) led me to accept the argument that this verse is even more compelling because both constellations were gravitationally bound, whereas both observations here (1 & 2) are valid and uncanny, regardless, because they speak generally of the concept and power of binding; and then, (3) a more careful reading of the text (Pleiades bound, Belt loosened) corrects the incorrect interpretation I had accepted and fits exactly with the true relationship of the actual stars.God said:
Thus, the corrected Job 38 argument (my bias in full consideration) is that Job’s quote appears prescient because 3,600 years before Christian creationist Isaac Newton identified the concept of gravity, (1) Job singles out the two constellations which speak directly of binding; (2) points to the extraordinary power that such binding implies; and (3) his poetic description fits perfectly with the Pleiades gravitationally bound and Orion’s Belt being loosed.
Just as Genesis One puts such a priority on the creation of light (the nature of which is fundamental to understanding the universe), and states that the Sun is a light (and thus not a god as the ancient world imagined), this Job 38 passage adds to the cosmological insights in Scripture.
Phy referenced my interview with Michael Shermer, an editor of Scientific American. I began by mentioning that much of the ancient world worshipped the sun (moon and stars) as gods, and as I recall, I asked Shermer if at least we could begin with common ground, and agree that the Bible was correct in declaring on its first page, in Genesis One, that the Sun was a light (Gen. 1:16), and thus not a god, and therefore obviously (as later declared explicitly, Deut. 4:19) it should not be worshipped? Shermer’s knee-jerk reaction against anything biblical moved him to argue that the sun is not a light. (Listen to this 73-second excerpt, or go to the entire interview). Both sides fight bias. And I’d like to compare my problem of elasticity of interpretation of evidence with two major examples that ThePhy must wrestle with. When I give evidence for an isolated argument, it’s embarrassing (though important) to learn (and admit) that the evidence is exactly backward from what I had expected. Whereas, I will give two examples of extremely broad scientific observations which yield evidence exactly backward from what ThePhy and all atheists expect, which do not address an isolated argument, but entire foundational claims of their scientific worldview. If these examples are valid, then ThePhy should be able to admit the evidence is the opposite of what atheistic science would predict, and admit the elasticity of their interpretations. (1) Quickly decaying carbon-14 exists in carbon dioxide gas naturally occurring in wells representing the Permian, Mississippian, and Cretaceous (from supposedly 100 to 350 mya) in roughly equal amounts, indicating recent and simultaneous formation (see CO2 Gas Well Effluent Analysis), yet after decades of beating creationists over the head with radiometric dating, such extraordinary evidence (CO2 appearing everywhere in coal, diamonds, etc.) will not even be admitted as fitting, not into the Old-Earth, but the Young-Earth evidence column. (2) Mutation-based Darwinian evolution seems infinitely elastic in its ability to absorb apparently contrary data as though it were corroborative, including the 453,732 mutations now described in the literature which do not provide a single clear case of adding information to the genome (see Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]), yet during this time evolutionists have only increased their defense of mutation-based evolution of species. These extremely broad scientific observations (for the age of the earth and evolution) yield the direct opposite results of what the atheistic model predicts, yet creationists cannot even get evolutionists to even admit that such broad observations fit better in the creationist model than the evolutionary model. Such admission would not equal a concession, but would demonstrate integrity and courage, and a willingness to objectively analyze the evidence, wherever it may lead. Thus, as I confront my bias, so we all should. Instead, we have TOL’s old-earther Johnny being “unsure” if it is even valid theoretically to sort “evidence into Evidence Columns” for Old and Young Earth.
Finally
Genesis One states that God gave the heavenly lights to be “signs“ (Gen. 1:14), and Ps. 147:4 that He has named all the stars. Christian creationist Johann Kepler, father of modern astronomy, discovered the three laws of planetary motion, and this young-earther used those laws to calculate the motions of the planets backward hoping to discover the nature of the Star of Bethlehem. Many of the constellations and names of the stars came down to us from the ancients, and the Apostle Paul (Romans 10:18) interpreted Psalm 19:1-6 to mean that the heavens depict the story of salvation.
Phy, you said that Job would have been correct if he had said that Leo’s legs or the Dipper’s handle would move. But Job’s actual statement not only illustrated a scientific truth [though you believe, just coincidentally], but it did so using the two constellations that could best illustrate the binding nature of gravity. My bias and ignorance will continue to give ammunition to atheists and skeptics who reject the Bible as God’s Word. However, Scripture and science present strong evidence of God’s existence and His Word as Truth.
ThePhy should be able to agree to at least this common ground: to admit that unlike much of the ancient world, the Bible was right in declaring the sun a light and not a god; that it is uncanny that the Bible’s creation story gave such priority to light; and that it is uncanny that Job would select the two constellations that depict the concept of being bound, and then ask a question that so well fits with the gravitational relationship of these constellations: “Can you bind the Cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the Belt of Orion?”
-Bob Enyart
Last edited:
