Excerpt from:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ourtown/070727/evolution
/
[link may be line-wrapped]
[go to link for full article]

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Shocking Truth
by Harold Henderson
(Chicago Reader, 7/27/2007)

Evolution via natural selection is the great unifying idea of
biology, so explaining it to students is part of a day's work for
Jerry Coyne, who teaches in the University of Chicago's department of
ecology and evolution. Coyne also spends a good amount of time
speaking to nonstudents—the Alaska Bar Association, North Shore
businesspeople, and the Graham School of General Studies, to name a
few—on the overwhelming evidence that life developed pretty much as
Darwin says, not as the Bible says. Coyne's colleagues in other
disciplines don't have to go around explaining that matter really is
made up of atoms, or that the earth really is round and travels
around the sun. But many Americans haven't even heard the evidence
for evolution. Coyne reports that his students at the U. of C. "have
barely been exposed to Darwin."

This kind of public education doesn't pay well, doesn't advance
Coyne's professional research into the mechanisms of speciation,
doesn't get him tenure (because he's already got it), and exposes him
to abuse from creationists, but he feels it needs to be done:
according to research published in Science last August, only about 40
percent of Americans agree that "human beings, as we know them,
developed from earlier species of animals," a percentage similar to
the ones found in Turkey and Latvia. By contrast, 70 to 80 percent of
Icelanders and Swedes and French people get it. A June Gallup poll
conducted in the U.S. (pollingreport.com/science.htm) reported a 53-
44 proevolution split among its respondents, but those who believed
it was "definitely true" trailed those who believed it
was "definitely false" by 18 to 28 percent.

[...]

Meanwhile, in what seems like an odd move, creationists have chosen
to play on Coyne's home court by claiming to be scientists
themselves, and presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative
scientific hypothesis to Darwinian evolution (though its advocates
put forth no testable predictions). Last year in the case Kitzmiller
v. Dover, Pennsylvania federal judge John E. Jones III ruled against
that claim after a lengthy trial, but the efforts continue. Coyne's
latest New Republic article (June 18) takes on the new book by
intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The
Search for the Limits of Darwinism. "IDers never produce their
own 'scientific' explanation of life," Coyne concludes. "They just
carp about evolution. And as evolutionists explain one thing after
another, IDers simply ignore these successes and move on to the ever-
dwindling set of unsolved problems in which they continue to see the
hand of God." IDer William Dembski's response at his blog
uncommondescent.com followed this pattern precisely, but also offered
his readers specific evidence: that Coyne bears a passing resemblance
to Herman Munster!

When Coyne tried to treat ID as a serious hypothesis in a 2005 New
Republic article, he found himself posing hard questions to its
advocates: What "intelligent designer" would have devised the
nonfunctional and inflammation-prone human appendix? What intelligent
designer would have given human embryos a temporary coat of fur in
the seventh month of pregnancy, just like the ones our primate
relatives get and keep? What intelligent designer would have created
transitional organisms—between fish and amphibians, dinosaurs and
birds, reptiles and mammals, land mammals and whales—that occur in
the fossil record exactly when they would have appeared in the course
of evolution driven by natural selection among random mutations? ID
advocate Behe has a response to uestions like these: "Features that
strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the
designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-
yet-undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or
they might not." But as Coyne points out, this amounts to declaring
intellectual bankruptcy: if no imaginable evidence would contradict
ID theory, it's not a scientific theory at all. (By contrast, it's
easy to imagine evidence that would contradict Darwinism, such as
fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.)

Complaining about "missing links" that are no longer missing won't
fool the knowledgeable, but Coyne sees another agenda
here. "Creationism (and its gussied-up descendant 'Intelligent
Design') is not just a campaign against evolution—it's a campaign
against science itself and the scientific method," he writes at
edge.org. "By pretending that evolution is on shaky ground, and
asserting that religion can contribute to our understanding of
nature, creationists confuse people about the very form and character
of scientific evidence. This confusion can only hurt our ability to
make rational judgments about important social issues, like global
warming, that involve science."

[...]

The article stated, in part:

> "Features that strike us
> as odd in a design might
> have been placed there
> by the designer for...or
> they might not."

>> says Michael Behe

> But as Coyne points out,
> this amounts to declaring
> intellectual bankruptcy:
> if no imaginable evidence
> would contradict..., it's not
> a scientific theory at all.

As I've been saying, that pretty much matches up to David P. Brown's, his boys,
and Dr. Fox's position briefly summarized as follows:

> We, Dr. Fox, David P. Brown
> and the boys, have our
> interpretation of the text
> regarding the real world
> and that trumps any real
> world evidence to the
> contrary.

>> Affirmed: Dr. Fox
>> Affirmed: David P. Brown
>> Affirmed: "The boys"

And that goes a long way in explaining why they refused to "come out" and "let
us reason together" regarding the "Goliath o GRAS" family of arguments as to
young-earth, creation-science and the existence of the young-earth,
creation-science God.

Young-earth, creation-science has simply lost the battles and the war regarding
its scientific legitimacy and cannot rightfully claim to be anything other than
a theological position based on the interpretation of a religious text by
"some".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Considering how David P. Brown and his boys allege that the Apologetics Press
work is so important, you would think they could find at least one
wannabe"David" to take this up formally, in writing, and for the record!

They CAN'T!)

I would like to again post comments from one of the former leading lights
amongst the "young-earth, creation-science" movement amongst the churches of
Christ; comments which no "young- earth, creation-science" promoter has dared to
repudiate, deny or rebut.

I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" for any who may want to
"come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the
merits of the argument as to its validity and/or soundness and the proposed
formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of age.

The recommended propositions for such discussion on the evidence of age will
then follow the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Here to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the
comments from that leading light amongst the "young-earth, creation-science"
movement within the churches of Christ:

----------------

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

THE YOUNG EARTH

(excerpts)

"(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and
the evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

> in other words,
> the age of the Earth.

While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the
death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the
Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves
around the age of the Earth.

A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no
compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the
gulf separating the biblical and
evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large

(W)e must "query if vast time is indeed available."

That is our purpose here.

There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available,
and that the Earth is relatively young, not extremely old.

That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few
thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

(end excerpt)

------------------

It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that the Bible
teaches that "nothing is more than a few thousand
years old".

Keith Sisman even affirmed such a position recently, but he will not "come out"
and "let us reason TOGETHER" regarding this important public issue

The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental "young-earth,
creation-science" position on that point is whether or not the real world
evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is
subject to falsification based on the real world
evidence.

I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS")
proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated
with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement is subject to falsification
with reference to the real world
evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS", undefeated in all outings and
still the one to beat:

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or
simply accept it for what it is...a simple, logically valid statement of the
real world falsification test for the fundamental real world claim commonly
associated with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument, in
the context of the popular "young-earth, creation-science" movement, is the
"evidence of age".

In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
discussion is proposed with the following suggested
propositions:

Proposition #1:

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

> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #2:

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

> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #3:

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

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd S Greene

Proposition #4:

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

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd S. Greene

To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be
worked out between the two agreeing to engage in the
discussion.

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
retreated into the UNscientific position popularized by Dr. Fox and summarized
as follows:

> I've got my interpretation
> of the text regarding the
> real world and that trumps
> any real world evidence
> to the contrary.

Dr. Fox's position effectively concedes that "young-earth, creation-science"
cannot stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies "young-earth, creation-science".

That is a good thing to know, a very good thing to know!

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Following are the logically valid arguments that have been developed to properly
set forth the fundamental issues in dispute regarding the young-earth,
creation-science movement and, as David P. Brown, editor of Contending for the
Faith magazine and owner/operator of the ContendingFTF discussionlist, and his
boys suppose, the existence of the young-earth, creation-science God.

It is proposed that serious (i.e., not anonymous) contenders decide which
argument they wish to take up and then we will proceed to negotiate the details
of the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

Here are those arguments:

- - - - - - - - - -

David P. Brown's Argument #1

Major Premise:

> If some thing really is more
> than a few thousand years
> old, then the God David P.
> Brown and his boys believe
> in, as represented in the
> Bible, does not exist.

Minor Premise:

> Some thing really
> is more than a few
> thousand years old.

Conclusion:

> Therefore, the God David
> P. Brown and his boys
> believe in, as represented
> in the Bible, does not exist.

- - - - - - - - - -

David P. Brown's Argument #2

Major Premise:

> If some thing really is more
> than a few thousand years
> old, then the God we believe
> in, as represented in the
> Bible, does not exist.

Minor Premise:

> The God we believe in,
> as represented in the
> Bible, does exist.

Conclusion:

> Therefore, nothing is
> more than a few
> thousand years old.

- - - - - - - - - -

Robert Baty's Argument #3

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

- - - - - - - - - -


Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> quoted:
>
> Burden of Proof
> by Gil Yoder (July 9, 2007)
> http://www.letusreason.com/arts/?rec=318
>
[excerpt]
>
> The burden of proof when it comes to Bible study comes
> to those who make a positive claim about the Bible. If
> the claim is true, it should be possible to prove it by
> use of reason and truth. If one cannot prove that his
> beliefs are true, it is presumptuous to affirm that
> those beliefs are true just because they haven't been
> proven false.

But, Gil... where does that leave you, with your ideas
that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

That belief HAS been proven false, time and time again.

I would say it is worse than "presumptuous" for people to
continue to affirm that the Genesis Creation must be taken
as literal history.

Remember when Yoder briefly dropped by here for a few
days, and once we got the validity of "Goliath" sorted
out he retreated to the "apparent age" position?

How in the world are you supposed to "prove" a belief
like that is true?

Why is it so difficult for "some" people to accept that the
Creation story is allegorical, and not a literal account
of something that was supposed to have happened over the
course of one week a few thousand years ago?



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

FW: MAAF meeting harassment!
----- Original Message -----
From: Bart Meltzer
To: Directors ; Directors Prospective ; Staff
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:18 AM
Subject: FW: MAAF meeting harassment!


FOR WIDEST POSSIBLE DISEMMINATION.  POST TO ALL LISTS, BLOGS, CHAT ROOMS,
WHATEVER.


The report below is forwarded from the Military Director for American Atheists,
Kathleen Johnson who is currently serving on active duty in Iraq.

This report is about an issue in Iraq.  I don't think there will be any
surprises in this report for most of you because this is the reason American
Atheists exists. Just the same, it still has quite a bit of impact. This is the
battle we are fighting and sometimes it can be tough.  Not all of our battles
are this hard, but they vary by degree only.

I'm including the article in Stars and Stripes that Kathleen mentions in her
report below at the bottom of this email.  As per Kathleen's request, please
send any emails of encouragement to the brave young soldier who is mentioned
below by using Kathleen's email which follows.

Kudos to this brave young soldier for having the courage to stand up for his
beliefs and right to express them freely in the face of such drastic opposition.
Kudos to the other brave soldiers who had the courage to participate.  And Kudos
to Kathleen Johnson for leading our cause in  such a hostile environment.  They
all deserve medals for bravery.  Not just for standing up for their beliefs, but
also for being in Iraq in the first place.  Whether you agree with this war or
not, our troops deserve at least that much.

It's my personal opinion that if all Atheists stood up for their beliefs and
were as vocal as these soldiers we would not be facing the discrimination we are
facing today.  We would be perceived as a much larger majority that should not
be trifled with.  I'm proud to be a part of the national organization that
fights for the civil rights of Atheists in the face of this discrimination.

Kathleen's report follows.


   Bart Meltzer,
Director of State and Regional Operations,
American Atheists, Inc.
bm@...

(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for
nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses
issues of First Amendment public policy.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bart,

Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist
service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.  This meeting was put
together by the same young MAAF member who recently had his second letter
published in the Stars and Stripes.

One of our members, a young Atheist enlisted soldier, thought he would like to
see if he could generate some interest in MAAF meetings at his Forward Operating
Base (FOB) here in Iraq (not the base I'm at, by the way).  He got things
coordinated and started hanging flyers, and after weeks of having to re-hang his
flyers almost daily because some vandal kept tearing them down, he finally
succeeded in having a small MAAF meeting.  I wasn't there because the meeting
wasn't on my FOB, but I knew he was holding it and was expecting to hear from
him after the meeting.  Keep in mind that this young soldier did everything
right - he went through the Chaplain's office and jumped through all the hoops
it takes to legally hold meetings that are religiously or philosophically based.
Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers
with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".

Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a
fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them
of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died
protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ
for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever
it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two
of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the
position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate
them.  This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut
down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would
not tolerate the meetings to continue.

The young MAAF member who hosted the meeting is absolutely freaked out about
what happened, but he said he's going to continue with the meetings and isn't
going to be bullied by the prayer warriors.  I've advised him to immediately
notify the Chaplain sponsor of what happened to get guidance while I try to
figure out what to do next.  I should hear something back from him tonight
sometime and there's even a small possibility I might be able to score a mission
to his FOB and attend one of his meetings in the next few weeks (if I do, I'll
meet with the Chaplain in person).

As for immediate action, he's going to get me the names of his Chaplain sponsor
and the name of the officer who disrupted the meeting.  My intent right now is
to make a formal report to the most senior Chaplain I can find along with
possibly an Equal Opportunity complaint against the officer if we can get him
fully identified.  I may not be eligible to make that complaint because I wasn't
there, but I can at least smooth the way for this young troop to make one if he
elects to.  At the very least, I can make the EO office formally aware of what
happened there.

More info will follow when I get it, but right now, feel free to disseminate
this information since I've intentionally sanitized it for names and locations. 
I will be happy to forward any words of support to him if they get mailed to my
milatheist@... address - he could really use some encouragement right now, I
think.

Kathleen

   Kathleen Johnson,
Military Director,
American Atheists, Inc.
kjohnson@...

(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for
nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses
issues of First Amendment public policy.)


http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=47626

Read the Constitution

It seems to me the author of "Atheist revival bad ." (letter, July 13) needs to
read the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, and study some American
history.

Our nation was not "founded under God, upon Christian principles." The first
settlers of the new world were seeking, among other things, escape from
religious persecution, not to form a faith-based colony. As Americans, we are
granted the freedom of religion, which includes not having one, not the freedom
to choose which form of Christianity we follow.

The author seems to think Camp Quest is somehow dangerous to our country and our
youth, when in fact it's people exercising their right to free assembly. The
number of religious-based summer camps far outweighs the atheist ones, and those
based on a system of beliefs will prove to be more of a "training ground" than
any that encourages free thought.

I highly doubt any of the children at Camp Quest would be chastised if they
thought a higher power might exist. On the other hand, what would happen if a
child at a Christian retreat voiced doubt that Jesus was the son of God?

Atheists come from every walk of life and many are educated about several
faiths. As a child I was fortunate enough to be allowed to attend many churches.
By the third grade I knew there was no God, and still educated myself by
attending a variety of services. This is common with a lot of atheists. Many
people force their children into the family religion and shun other beliefs,
that's the true "brainwashing."

There is no atheist revival, we've always been here as a silent minority, most
just choose to live their own lives and let you live yours.

Staff Sgt. Gene Horrigan
Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar

Camp Quest is legal

After reading "Atheist revival bad for U.S.," I couldn't help but laugh. Does no
one research anything for themselves anymore? Or do they just repeat what they
heard from someone else?

The writer complains how atheist children have their own summer camp (Camp
Quest). And that someone else is actually happy about it. Well, it's 100 percent
legal, because of the U.S. Constitution.

It's just as legal as any other private organization, such as Bible camps and
churches. The next thing that bothered me was the claim that the U.S. was
founded "under God." And that it was based on Christian principles and values.
Well, that just sucks for a lot of people, doesn't it?

Since America is a Christian nation, I guess everyone else is just second-rate!
Sorry (insert religious minority here), you're not good enough. Nowhere in the
Constitution is there a mention of a God. Religion is referenced as
exclusionary. Such as stating that "no religious test shall ever be required as
a qualification to any office or public trust." (Article VI) That sounds secular
to me.

The U.S. is a free nation. The First Amendment applies to every private citizen.
And that includes us atheists. It is the individual freedoms that make our
nation great.

Spc. Jeremy Hall
Camp Speicher, Iraq



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rick, you wrote, in part:

> Remember when Yoder
> briefly dropped by here
> for a few days, and once
> we got the validity of
> "Goliath" sorted out he...

As I recall, it was when Gil finally "came out" to admit his error in making a
big deal for years out of my using the terms "major premise" and "minor premise"
to label the major and minor premises in my "Goliath of GRAS".

It was nice to see him finally admit, explain and correct that error.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Clyde's report stated, in part:

> Four soldiers
> attended this
> meeting - all of
> them very junior
> enlisted soldiers
> with the exception
> of one Major who
> claimed to be
> a "freethinker".

> (T)he Major turned
> out to be a
> fundamentalist
> Christian...

Yep, Daniel Denham needs to be working over that Major!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

From USA Today:

PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) — The controversy surrounding the opening of a northern
Kentucky museum that teaches the biblical story of creation hasn't hurt it at
the box office.

The Creation Museum hosted its 100,000th visitor by late July, less than two
months after it opened, putting the museum on pace to easily exceed the 250,000
visitors organizers were hoping to get in the first year, The Enquirer reported.

Evolution is derided at museum, which is packed with high-tech exhibits designed
by an acclaimed theme-park artist, animatronic dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark.
In this Old Testament version of history, dinosaurs appeared on the same day God
created other land animals.

The museum also contains fossils, hung in large glass cases in a room visitors
spill into after taking a tour of Old Testament history. Museum officials said
most fossils were created by the massive flood detailed in the book of Genesis.

------------------------
------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pretty hard!

See my comments below Robert's message:


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> Here's that link again from the anonymous message
> I got from Daniel Coe's ReligiousDebates list, plus
> the relevant information from the home page of that
> new list:
>
> --------------------------
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GDebates/
>
> GDebates ? GoliathDebatesChurchOfChrist
>
> Home
> Messages
> Post
>
> Members Only
> Files
> Photos
> Links
> Database
> Polls
> Calendar
> Promote
>
> Info
>   Settings
>
> Group Information
>
> Members: 1
>
> Category: Debates
>
> Founded: Jul 24, 2007
>
> Language: English
>
> Group Settings
>
> Membership does not require approval
> Messages do not require approval
> Anyone can post messages
> Email attachments are not permitted
> Members cannot hide email address
> Not listed in directory
>
> Activity within 7 days: (No Activity)
>
> Description
>
> This group allows for participants to engage in written debate.
> Uses of this list:
>
> 1) Present a problem, such as Robert B. is interested in.
>
> 2) See Robert B. post the same messages over and over.
>
> 3) Disagree with Robert B. and risk being hounded for the
> rest of your life.
>
> 4) Go away and listen to Robert B. proclaim Goliath victorious
> again.
>
> This list is for discussion about anything as long as Goliath
> is mentioned at least every other message.
>
> Most Recent Messages
> (Group by Topic)
>
> (No messages for this group)
>
> Group Email Addresses
>
> Post message: GDebates@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subscribe: GDebates-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Unsubscribe: GDebates-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List owner: GDebates-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> ------------------------
> ------------------------
>
> My (Robert's) further comments:
>
> I do think that the setting up of that list, apparently
> by one of David P. Brown's cowardly little girlie-boys,
> provides further direct evidence of just how hard David
> P. Brown and his boys have been hit by something as
> simple and logically valid as my "Goliath of GRAS" and
> those two other arguments constructed from the claims
> of David P. Brown and his boys themselves.
>
> David P. Brown and his boys not only have trouble making
> an argument, they have trouble recognizing one when they
> come face to face with it, and they have trouble dealing
> with it.
>
> In these recent discussions, they simply have been unable
> to handle the truth.
>
> They've run!
> We've seen them run!
> See them running still!
>
> Looks they just might have a few more tricks up their
> sleeves as they die again and again the deaths of the
> cowards that they are!
>
> Rick, this new development is just the sort of thing
> you were talking about earlier, isn't it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty


Well, Robert, looks like there have been some more recent
developments.

The Group Settings have been changed so that now you
have to be a member to post there, and the Description
has been changed to:

> This group allows for participants to engage
> in written debate. Use of this list is primarily
> to discuss the same types of arguments you will
> find on the Maury_and_Baty group found at the
> Related Link below.
>
> The Goliath argument is too big for one list, so
> it must spread across the internet. This is just
> an insignificant little list. If it can serve a
> useful purpose as an outlet for those who want to
> discuss such things, it will be a valuable addition
> to the world.

There is even a link back to the Maury_and_Baty list.

In addition, our anonymous poster has disappeared and taken
his messages with him.

For the time being I think I'll just keep his true identity
to myself, but it is highly debatable whether he can properly
be characterized as one of Brown's "boys".  It may be that
his continued anonymity will serve as an asset to "us", even
if only because it is unquestionably a liability to "them" --
there are things going on "behind-the-scenes" that Brown and
his boys could never guess.

There's something rotten in Denmark!

Ha!  It's pretty fundy -- I mean funny -- Robert, even when
it isn't overtly obvious:

We win!  We still win!


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Rick,

You continue to do some pretty good work regarding these matters and
developments.

Of course my "Goliath" is bigger than any Internet discussion list.  As I've
said many times, it is everywhere young-earth, creation-science is seriously
discussed; either implicitly or explicitly.

Please do keep up the effort and inform us of developments.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here's a review of the AiG Creation Museum written by Norm Fields,
a church of Christ preacher from Danville, VA.  He loves the place!

Except they teach the wrong "plan of salvation".  So he has written
Ken Ham a letter about that, challenging him to a debate at the
museum.  He says he will visit many more times as he has opportunity,
and will in the future come with tracts and Bible so he can properly
instruct the visitors there.

An excerpt:

| In the Culture In Crises exhibit you see a church building
| being demolished by a wrecking ball that has "Millions Of
| Years" written on it. Through the broken window and cracked
| wall you see the congregation sitting inside oblivious to
| what is happening. A family is sitting in the pew ignoring
| the preacher droning on about how the Bible can be harmonized
| with evolution. On the left, you see a house and the same
| family from the church pew through the open windows. The boy
| is his disturbingly scary room doing drugs and playing violent
| video games. The girl is in her room on the phone with a
| friend holding a positive pregnancy test and talking about
| whether to get an abortion or not. The mother is sitting at
| the kitchen table with another woman talking about divorcing
| her husband, who is sitting in the next room in front of the
| TV yelling at his wife. Sadly, it is a powerful portrayal of
| the average American home.

He advises us to bring some extra money for the bookstore when we
visit -- says you could spend a whole day in there looking through
all the creation evidences material.


He got to meet Brad Harrub while he was there, too!

http://preachernorm.com/
(blog posted 7/16/2007)

(By the way: view the comments from Geoffrey Rowe.)



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
  "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>
> From USA Today:
>
> PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) â€" The controversy surrounding the opening of
a northern Kentucky museum that teaches the biblical story of
creation hasn't hurt it at the box office.
>
> The Creation Museum hosted its 100,000th visitor by late July, less
than two months after it opened, putting the museum on pace to easily
exceed the 250,000 visitors organizers were hoping to get in the
first year, The Enquirer reported.
>
> Evolution is derided at museum, which is packed with high-tech
exhibits designed by an acclaimed theme-park artist, animatronic
dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark. In this Old Testament version of
history, dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land
animals.
>
> The museum also contains fossils, hung in large glass cases in a
room visitors spill into after taking a tour of Old Testament
history. Museum officials said most fossils were created by the
massive flood detailed in the book of Genesis.
>
> ------------------------
> ------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Rick,

I wonder if Harrub is working on getting Ham to allow an exhibit of the "rock 'n
reel" at  Ham's museum!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty









-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2007 9:48 PM
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [M & B] Re: Lexington museum marks 100,000th visitor!


Here's a review of the AiG Creation Museum written by Norm Fields,
a church of Christ preacher from Danville, VA.  He loves the place!

Except they teach the wrong "plan of salvation".  So he has written
Ken Ham a letter about that, challenging him to a debate at the
museum.  He says he will visit many more times as he has opportunity,
and will in the future come with tracts and Bible so he can properly
instruct the visitors there.

An excerpt:

| In the Culture In Crises exhibit you see a church building
| being demolished by a wrecking ball that has "Millions Of
| Years" written on it. Through the broken window and cracked
| wall you see the congregation sitting inside oblivious to
| what is happening. A family is sitting in the pew ignoring
| the preacher droning on about how the Bible can be harmonized
| with evolution. On the left, you see a house and the same
| family from the church pew through the open windows. The boy
| is his disturbingly scary room doing drugs and playing violent
| video games. The girl is in her room on the phone with a
| friend holding a positive pregnancy test and talking about
| whether to get an abortion or not. The mother is sitting at
| the kitchen table with another woman talking about divorcing
| her husband, who is sitting in the next room in front of the
| TV yelling at his wife. Sadly, it is a powerful portrayal of
| the average American home.

He advises us to bring some extra money for the bookstore when we
visit -- says you could spend a whole day in there looking through
all the creation evidences material.


He got to meet Brad Harrub while he was there, too!

http://preachernorm.com/
(blog posted 7/16/2007)

(By the way: view the comments from Geoffrey Rowe.)



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
  "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>
> From USA Today:
>
> PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) �" The controversy surrounding the opening of
a northern Kentucky museum that teaches the biblical story of
creation hasn't hurt it at the box office.
>
> The Creation Museum hosted its 100,000th visitor by late July, less
than two months after it opened, putting the museum on pace to easily
exceed the 250,000 visitors organizers were hoping to get in the
first year, The Enquirer reported.
>
> Evolution is derided at museum, which is packed with high-tech
exhibits designed by an acclaimed theme-park artist, animatronic
dinosaurs and a huge wooden ark. In this Old Testament version of
history, dinosaurs appeared on the same day God created other land
animals.
>
> The museum also contains fossils, hung in large glass cases in a
room visitors spill into after taking a tour of Old Testament
history. Museum officials said most fossils were created by the
massive flood detailed in the book of Genesis.
>
> ------------------------
> ------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> I was doing a little web-surfing this evening, and
> I've just learned that there's a huge library of
> video and audio files of live show produced by a
> group in Austin, Texas, called the Atheist Community
> of Austin. You can view the videos of the program
> online...
>
> There are dozens of programs. Here's a sample...
>
> Program #500
> Consciousness. Tracie Harris talks about our current
> understanding of the consciousness and that our selves
> are completely in our brain.


And our brains are in the Universe.

But even my brain isn't completely in my brain, unless
the Universe itself is in my brain, too.

If other parts of the Universe besides my self have
"consciousness", then my consciousness is part of that
larger consciousness -- the Universal Mind.  There is
no other way but that "I" am of "It", within It, connected
to It.

The only part of my "self" that is defined by my brain
is the part of my "self" that is defined by my brain.

But how closely does my personal brain-generated "self"
correspond to what my true self really is?  Other selves
see my self from a different perspective -- some of that
feedback from other selves is incorporated into my own
self and used as an adjustment of my own view of self.
But how can I be sure those other selves even exist in
reality?  Maybe they're just all in my brain, too.

My internet connection is too slow for me to watch videos,
but Tracie Harris is a graphic artist with a degree in
liberal arts.  She is the creator of "Atheist Eve", a
cartoon character who seems to be about as literal-minded
about the Bible as the young-earth creationists -- if there
was no global Flood a few thousand years ago then the Bible
must not be true; if the Bible is not true then there is
no God (although that isn't the way she would state it
her *self*, of course, because then that would be making an
affirmative statement).

Here is a link to some of her comics... no, on second
thought... they're not funny anyway and some of them are
just plain offensive.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that Tracie Harris is not
one to be authoritatively telling us "our 'selves' are
completely in our brain".  The mystery of consciousness is
by no means solved; it may be that it is unsolvable,
particularly by empirical methods.

Here is an article where one researcher suggests that a
unified "Theory of Everything" may have to include
consciousness:

Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness:
http://www.livescience.com/health/050808_human_consciousness.html


Eric Lormand is a philosophy professor with a sense of humor:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/cons/steps.htm
(above link is a basic, scaled-down version of this next one):
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/cons/consciousness.htm

I'll include this link because I like the quote at the end of
the page:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/momma.htm

Here's something pretty interesting;
Global Consciousness Project:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Wikipedia entry for "Quantum Mind":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

How we even choose to define "consciousness" becomes
controversial -- when it gets right down to it we may have to
acknowledge that consciousness belongs to things we would much
prefer to think of as having no consciousness:


| The White people never cared for the land or deer or bear.
| When we Indians kill meat, we eat it all up. When we dig
| roots, we make little holes.  When we build houses, we make
| little holes.  When we burn grass for grasshoppers, we don't
| ruin things.  We shake down  acorns and pinenuts.  We don't
| chop down the trees.  We only use dead wood.  But the White
| people plow up the ground, pull down the trees, kill
| everything.  The tree says, "Don't. I am sore. Don't hurt me."
| But they chop it down and cut it up. The spirit of the land
| hates them.  They blast out trees and stir it up to its depths.
| They saw up the trees.   That hurts them.  The Indians never
| hurt anything, but the White people destroy all.  They blast
| rocks and scatter them on the ground.  The rock says, "Don't!
| You are hurting me."  But the White people pay no attention.
| When the Indians use rocks, they take the little round ones for
| their cooking . . . How can the spirit of the earth like the
| White man? . . . Everywhere the White man has touched it, it is
| sore.

--Wintu holy woman, in McLuhan (ed.), "Touch the Earth".



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I wonder if Harrub is working on getting Ham to allow
> an exhibit of the "rock 'n reel" at  Ham's museum!
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty

Ha!  Probably only be able to show the photographs --
Tennessee Game and Fish may have made them do a
catch-and-release on their trophy!

I'm wondering if Dr. Brad is now a Free-Will Baptist!

Something about some paper you have to sign to work
for them...


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

I had written:

> I'm wondering if Dr. Brad is now a Free-Will Baptist!
>
> Something about some paper you have to sign to work
> for them (AiG)...

No, Dr. Brad attends Woodson Chapel church of Christ
in Nashville, according to the information on his new
website.

Dr. Brad's new publication:

http://www.focuspress.org/about.html


> *Think* deals with difficult topics such as, stem cell
> research, intelligent design, cloning, abortion,
> homosexuality and other social issues that affect us as
> we live in an increasingly perplexed society.

Did you catch that?  It's "intelligent design" rather
than a 6,000 year old Earth.  I don't doubt but what they
still have YEC leanings, what with Dr. Brad's involvement
with Ken Ham's new amusement park, but looking through the
Focus archives I didn't see anything about humans and
dinosaurs co-existing.

Even in their article about Noah's Flood they seem to have
distanced themselves from the concept of a worldwide event
that is responsible for all the sedimentary rock.

Could it be that Dr. Brad woke up and smelled which way the
wind was blowing?

They can't say we didn't see it coming -- we tried to warn
Apologetics Press after that reel-in-rock debacle -- but
they've been slow on the uptake.  (Dr. Brad's biographical
information doesn't mention a word about his former position
as the head of the Apologetics Press Science Department.)

It may turn out that by the time everyone gets through
arguing over Dave Miller's appointment as AP Director, there
won't be anything left to direct!



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Rick,

Brad's "Focus" website, last I checked, was not WebTv friendly.

Also, though I don't recall mentioning it before, I haven't been able to even
access Apologetics Press from my WebTv.  I've had to use other equipement to
check developments there.

It would be nice if some scholarly historican would take up the task of writing
a little history of all the staff folks of Apologetics Press who have come and
gone over the years and the details of their "evolution" regarding "young-earth,
creation-science" and whatever other matters may have affected their appearance
and departure from Apologetics Press.

Come to think of it, wasn't Bert's wife reported to still be a big supporter of
the work of Apologetics Press?  I wonder whatever became of that!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rick,

That other Brad from Apologetics Press is also still quite noticeable on the
Internet.

One of his pages is at:

http://b_bromling.tripod.com/bio.htm

While still apparently into "young-earth creationism", it looks like he's not
promoting his prior association with Apologetics Press.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rick,

I take it back, in part! :o)

Brad Bromling does make reference to Apologetics Press if you look far enough.

He (Brad Bromling provides links to some of his articles and has this most
interesting claim:

> Some of the links will
> take you away from my
> site.

> Also, please note that the
> original publisher
> (Apologetics Press) has
> removed my name from
> the articles because I am
> no longer active in the
> Church of Christ.

> I regret the confusion this
> may cause.

Daniel Denham may want to get on that case and give Apologetics Press one of his
"go to hell" speeches for not properly giving credit where credit is due!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

the more they ain't the same!

Who is this writer talking about?


| After Mr. Campbell became a Baptist, he was for some time
| connected with the Associated Baptists in Western
| Pennsylvania, and was for a time clerk of the Old Redstone
| Association. Their professed aim is to bring Christianity
| back to its primitive simplicity. They reject all symbols
| of faith except the Bible, and object to all technicalities
| in theology. From taking exceptions to the word "Trinity,"
| and perhaps for other reasons, they have been extensively
| regarded as Unitarians. It appears, however, from their
| chief book in theology, and from a tract setting forth their
| principles, that they clearly and unequivocally deny
| Unitarian doctrines. They have a college in Brooke County,
| Virginia. It has a full corps of officers, and is in a
| flourishing condition. The Millennial Harbinger is an octavo
| periodical, conducted by Mr. Campbell. Unlike the Associate
| Baptists, they invite Christians of all denominations to
| commune with them at the table of the Lord, which service
| they celebrate on every Lord's day.


Vincent L. Milner, "Religious Denominations of the World", 1860.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rmeyes/RDW-DOC.HTM

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I take it back, in part! :o)
>
> Brad Bromling does make reference to Apologetics
> Press if you look far enough.
>
> He (Brad Bromling provides links to some of his
> articles and has this most interesting claim:
>
> > Some of the links will
> > take you away from my
> > site.
>
> > Also, please note that the
> > original publisher
> > (Apologetics Press) has
> > removed my name from
> > the articles because I am
> > no longer active in the
> > Church of Christ.
>
> > I regret the confusion this
> > may cause.

I guess he felt like he couldn't get the folks in the
Church of Christ to understand the thesis of his
doctoral dissertation:

Brad Bromling's dissertation:
http://b_bromling.tripod.com/dissertation1.htm

He pretty well spells it out in the first chapter.


> Daniel Denham may want to get on that case and
> give Apologetics Press one of his "go to hell"
> speeches for not properly giving credit where
> credit is due!

Denham's busy over on the Way Forward list just now,
I imagine.  But while he's there he could certainly
be giving just such a speech to Keith Sisman, regarding
Sisman's plagiarized "history".

That Way Forward list sounds pretty progressive to me.

And progressivism is the same thing as liberalism,
isn't it?


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote (in part):
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Brad's "Focus" website, last I checked, was not
> WebTv friendly.
>
> Also, though I don't recall mentioning it before,
> I haven't been able to even access Apologetics Press
> from my WebTv.  I've had to use other equipement to
> check developments there.

My word, fella; break down and buy you one of those
laptops they've been advertising in the banners at
the top of these pages!  You can get candy-apple red,
tangerine, avocado, whatever!

I know you've been saving your quatloos for that trip
to the Tellicoe for the big debate, but it's looking
more and more like that isn't ever going to happen...


Rick

> the more they ain't the same!

Mrs. Trollope's concluding remarks to her description of the
famous Campbell-Owen debate:

| ...It was said, that at the end of the fifteen meetings
| the numerical amount of the Christians and the Infidels
| of Cincinnati remained exactly what it was when they began.
|
| This was a result that might have been perhaps anticipated;
| but what was much less to have been expected, neither of the
| disputants ever appeared to lose their temper. I was told
| they were much in each other's company, constantly dining
| together, and on all occasions expressed most cordially their
| mutual esteem.
|
| All this I think could only have happened in America. I am
| not quite sure that it was very desirable it should have
| happened any where.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rmeyes/debate.html


Was Campbell "fellowshipping" this infidel?

There is a link to the Campbell-Owen debate in the Maury_and_Baty
Links list.

(If you don't know who Mrs. Trollope is, she's the English lady
who went back to England and wrote about American customs,
describing catfish very unfavorably, and about whom Mark Twain
remarked, "Catfish is plenty good enough fish for anybody.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Trollope


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Rick,

Are you "just imagining" what is going on with The Way Forward list, or do you
have some special insider information?

I noticed where Brad said there was a stumbling block of sorts regarding his
dissertation.  Perhaps you are right about what that was all about.  That first
chapter, interestingly enough, also mentions a "creation-evolution" seminar that
Bob asked his friend to attend.

I had earlier noted the link to it, and thought you might find it and think it
interesting, but I didn't actually read any of it myself until you commented on
it.

It sounds so very familiar!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rick,

Had we gotten a little cooperation from the far side, I think we could have put
together as cordial a debate on young-earth, creation-science, using either my
"Goliath" or David P. Brown's arguments for context as Campbell and Owen
apparently had.

Thanks for providing that quote and the link for a more complete report from
Mrs. Trollope.  I don't recall seeing it before.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rick, you wrote, in part:

> My word, fella; break down
> and buy you one of those
> laptops they've been
> advertising in the banners at
> the top of these pages!

It wasn't always like this.  I used to be able to access Apologetics Press
webpages with ease.  I figure that, to spite me, Apologetics Press did something
to hamper my ability to access their pages.

Paranoid?   Who says I'm paranoid?

Any other WebTv subscribers out there noticed this problem?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Are you "just imagining" what is going on with
> The Way Forward list, or do you have some special
> insider information?

I "just imagine" there are "some" who would like to
know the answer to that!  So shhh...

We managed to get one of our operatives in there.
Security's pretty tight, so we're under communication
blackout, radio silence, so we might not hear anything
for a few days.  And who knows -- by then Dub McClish
may have the whole thing up on a website, or we can just
check the supposedly dismantled sons-of-demas site!


> I noticed where Brad said there was a stumbling block
> of sorts regarding his dissertation.  Perhaps you are
> right about what that was all about.  That first chapter,
> interestingly enough, also mentions a "creation-evolution"
> seminar that Bob asked his friend to attend.

Well, of course "Bob's" denominational friend "Larry"
needs to be a young-earther, too, or Bob couldn't go
hang out with him.  But you see what a devastating
effect just a seemingly innocuous thing like a cookout
with the wrong crowd can lead to!


> I had earlier noted the link to it, and thought you might
> find it and think it interesting, but I didn't actually
> read any of it myself until you commented on it.
>
> It sounds so very familiar!

I think someone may have made some similar comments
a while back on the coCBanned list -- about how the
Church of Christ is known more for the format of the
worship service than anything else; i.e. what defines
a member of the Church of Christ basically comes down
to what he/she does for a couple of hours on Sundays.

Bromling did mention a propensity to engage in debate --
I wonder whatever happened to all that?

Maybe that's what they're up to on the Way Forward list!


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

Hi Attn: Robert Baty,

Rick Hartzog stopped by Apologetics Press's Web site
and suggested that you visit the following URL:

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3414

Here is their message to you....
Notice that the author of this article,  with a M.Min. degree, never bothers to 
mention Psalm 90:4 as the source for  Peter's text.

Apologetics Press

http://www.ApologeticsPress.org/

Hi Robert Baty,

Rick Hartzog stopped by Apologetics Press's Web site
and suggested that you visit the following URL:

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3412

Here is their message to you....
Here's the argument:  1. Evolutionists say dinosaurs couldn't  exist with humans
because the dinosaurs  would have killed them.  2. But T. rex wasn't as fast as
evolutionists previously thought.  3. Therefore, humans lived with dinosaurs.

Apologetics Press

http://www.ApologeticsPress.org/

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
w_w_c_l@... wrote:
>
> Hi Robert Baty,
>
> Rick Hartzog stopped by Apologetics Press's Web site
> and suggested that you visit the following URL:
>
>    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3412
>
> Here is their message to you....
> Here's the argument:
> 1. Evolutionists say dinosaurs couldn't exist with
> humans because the dinosaurs  would have killed them.
>
> 2. But T. rex wasn't as fast as evolutionists
> previously thought.
>
> 3. Therefore, humans lived with dinosaurs.
>
> Apologetics Press
>
> http://www.ApologeticsPress.org/

That would have been better stated as:

1. Evolutionists say *humans* couldn't exist with
*dinosaurs*, because the dinosaurs would've killed them.

There are references in the article back to that old
article by Harrub and Thompson, "Walking Amidst the
Dinosaurs",  another article by Lyons and Thompson, and
and article by Harrub.  Plus a couple of jabs at John
Clayton.

AP seems to be wandering around in circles these days.


Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


P.S.  Robert, I was wondering if you could click on the
links and go directly to the articles.