(Al's reflections on his debate with Broking has many applications to my own
disputes with his adversaries and their like-minded fellows, and provides
further insights into just what I have been up against in my efforts-RLBaty)


REFLECTIONS
by Al Maxey

Issue #372 ------- November 1, 2008

**************************

Men become susceptible to ideas, not by discussion
and argument, but by seeing them personified and
by loving the person who so embodies them.
Lewis Mumford {1895-1990}

**************************

A Post-Debate Evaluation

Reflecting on My Recent Exchange with
a Proponent of Legalistic Patternism in
The Maxey-Broking Debate

In my estimation, the quotation listed at the top of this issue of my weekly
Reflections is one of the most insightful I have ever seen with respect to that
which truly tends to legitimize one's ideas. It was made by Lewis Mumford
(1895-1990), an American historian and writer specializing in science and
technology, and who was especially well-known for his study of cities and urban
architecture. Mumford was also a very close personal friend of Frank Lloyd
Wright, the renowned architect.

The substance of this astute statement is that one is much more likely to win
another over to their way of thinking by their manner of living than by their
manner of argumentation. Someone once wisely observed,

> "People don't care how much
>  you know, until they know
> how much you care!"

Jesus demonstrated this great truth by His actions time and again. Loving the
lost is a far more effective evangelistic methodology than lecturing the lost.

I fear too many of us (myself included) tend to forget this fact far too often
in our dealings with those with whom we differ.

The tragic result is that we frequently end up trying to destroy the very ones
we set out to deliver. Oh, how this could be avoided if people could just see
our love shining over, under, around and through our logic. Embody your ideas;
lovingly live them before others! It will win souls.

I knew when I made the decision to undertake this debate with those who promote
the theology of legalistic patternism that my greatest personal challenge was
not going to be refuting this doctrine (that is actually quite easily done).

My greatest challenge was going to be refraining from descending to the
strategies and tactics that characterize the more hardened adherents of this
dogma.

The challenge would be to try and stay focused on the propositions themselves,
rather than chase after the countless rabbits that would be unleashed when the
opposing side was cornered.

I attempted to stay focused in this debate with Darrell Broking, but must admit
that I was not always successful.

I did chase some rabbits.

I also tried to refrain from turning this exchange into a mud-slinging contest,
as I knew, from almost four decades of experience with those of this mindset,
that this was one of their favorite tactics.

I was determined not to engage in that.

But, I didn't always succeed, and I offer my apologies to both the readers and
to Darrell for those times I descended to that level.

One does not have to wallow in the muck in order to defend Truth, no matter how
appealing such might be to our lower natures. Truth deserves better from us.

Within the fascinating disciplines of philosophy and logic (both of which I
studied rather extensively at the undergraduate and graduate levels) there is an
area known as "Fallacies of Relevance," a prime example of which is the
Argumentum ad Hominem -- "the fallacy of attacking the character or
circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument
instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the
argument."

Such harsh personal attacks are also known as Argumentum ad Personem -- "the
statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and
the locutor's character and circumstances are used to influence opinion."

Whenever such tactics begin to dominate the "argument" of one side or the other
in a debate, it becomes obvious to all that the side in question has either lost
sight of the objective or realizes their position is untenable and indefensible.

Unfortunately, this is an extremely common tactic with those who promote
legalism, and many readers of this debate have lamented the fact that it was
employed much too frequently by Darrell.

However, when one can no longer refute another's teaching, the temptation is
very strong to go after the teacher.

A good example of this from the NT writings is Stephen. Some of the Jewish
legalists of his day "rose up and argued with Stephen, and yet they were unable
to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Thus, they
secretly induced men to say, 'We have heard him speak blasphemous words against
Moses and against God.' And they stirred up the people, the elders and the
scribes, and they came upon him, and they dragged him away" [Acts 6:9-12]. At
this point, I would refer the reader to Reflections #61 -- Why Was Stephen
Stoned? Sadly, things haven't changed much in almost 2000 years!

At the same time, I felt it was absolutely imperative in such a debate as this,
where Truth was at stake, that I stand firmly and unflinchingly for the cause of
freedom in Christ Jesus. Souls are in bondage to the false teaching of
legalistic patternism.

Many are blinded to their condition, others long for liberty but don't know how
to find it. The perishing must be rescued, and this effort is not for the faint
of heart.

When you stand on the front lines and do battle with the evil forces arrayed
against Truth, you will not come away unscarred.

The battle will be brutal; it will not be pretty; but it must be waged.

I have devoted my life to fighting this good fight, just as the apostle Paul
did.

I will not back down, regardless of the cost to me personally (and there are
indeed those, even now, who are attempting with all their might to destroy me,
my ministry and my reputation).

Yes, such is not very pleasant, but it is the price of faithfulness to the cause
of Christ.

Therefore, while I will seek to refrain from slinging mud at the enemy, I will
NOT refrain from slashing as forcefully as possible at this foe with the Sword
of the Spirit.

Satan and his godless forces are a cunning, crafty enemy; they will try every
trick in the book to undermine Truth.

We must be bold in turning back this darkness.

Therefore, I do NOT apologize for the strong, unyielding stand I have taken
against Darrell and his teaching.

Both, in my view, are a significant danger to the church of our Lord Jesus
Christ.

I wish Darrell no personal ill, and I pray for his spiritual enlightenment and
repentance.

However, I will not turn a blind eye to his attempts to subvert the Truth

The apostle Paul spoke of "false brethren" who sought to slither into the midst
of God's saints so as to "spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in
order to bring us into bondage" [Gal. 2:4].

Paul did not put up with them for a second.

Neither will I.

Paul was also brutally blunt in his dealings with them, and he sought to expose
both their teachings and tactics to the light of day so that the saints might be
warned.

I seek to do the same.

There is an old saying, attributed to the English poet Thomas Gray (1716-1771):
"Ignorance is bliss."

If this be true, then I fear many of my beloved brethren are the most blissful
people alive, as they are seemingly oblivious to the nature of the darkness that
surrounds them.

They truly cannot seem to comprehend that men and women professing to be devoted
Christians could, in reality, be servants of the devil. And yet, the apostle
Paul warns us that Satan's "servants disguise themselves as servants of
righteousness" [2 Cor. 11:15].

Brethren, as much as it pains one to acknowledge the fact, there are those among
us who are not of us!!

And it is by their fruit (their actions and attitudes) that their true nature is
revealed.

I'll be honest with you, brethren -- I chose to engage in this debate, in part,
because I knew for a fact that before it was over "character" would become a
factor!!

No matter how well one attempts to cover one's true nature, at some point it
always reveals itself for all to see.

I knew that if given sufficient time and opportunity, the true nature of the
legalistic, patternistic mindset would reveal itself.

And it did.

One of the interesting things about a public debate is that there are a number
of "behind the scenes tactics" that most people never see.

When one's position is weak, for example, one will often engage in a form of
"PsyOps" (various psychological operations developed by the military and
designed to throw one's enemy off, enrage them, and thus try to force them into
a mistake that could prove deadly on the field of battle).

In the latter part of this debate this tactic's been employed by Darrell and
several of the Contending for the Faith leaders.

A flurry of emails have been sent back and forth between them (with a CC to Al
Maxey for his "edification") in which I've been likened to Adolph Hitler, hiding
in a bunker in the desert southwest, surrounded by an army of "jack-booted
thugs" (my Reflections readers).

My fate in hell has been graphically depicted, even to the point of their
colorful description of me "hopping from brick to brick" as my soul blazed away
in the flames.

In an email dated October 29, Darrell Broking wrote the following to his CFTF
buddies,

> "Maxey is dug in behind his New
> Mexican hole in the rock hideaway.

> I guess that his cyber cheerleaders,
> real and imagined, are enough to
> feed his ego and to fuel his error
> for the major burning to come.

> What a wake-up call that will be
>  -- to die and actually be in torments.

> Then he will be a true believer like
> the rest of the demons in torments."

That same morning, Daniel Denham wrote to me,

> "Al, how's it going in the bunker.
> How's your gang of jack-booted
> thugs?

> Keep your head low.

> Remember the John Kerry motto --

>> It's best to get the purple
>> heart heading the other way!"

On October 27, Michael Hatcher wrote,

> "I understand at one time Al was
> in the military. I surely hope our
> military men have more of a
> backbone than the spineless
> cowardly Al, or this nation's
> military is in more trouble than
> I thought."

Darrell Broking laughingly suggested that Al's time in Vietnam was spent hiding
and smoking dope!! And on and on it went.

Brethren, I must give my dear wife Shelly a lot of credit here!! I was very
tempted to give these guys a "piece of my mind," but Shelly was my voice of
godly reason. She urged me repeatedly NOT to lower myself to that level of
ugliness, but to ignore their insults. "They're only trying to bait you into
saying something they can use against you."

I followed her advice, and never responded to those emails. The apostle Peter
cautioned the disciples of Christ Jesus never to return evil for evil, or to
return insult for insult [1 Peter 3:9]. He further wrote, "Do not fear their
intimidation, and do not be troubled ... keep a good conscience, so that in the
thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ
may be put to shame" [vs. 14, 16]. Our Lord said, "Blessed are you when men cast
insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you
falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is
great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" [Matt. 5:11-12].

So, why would one even bother to mention these nefarious, malicious tactics of
these hardened, legalistic patternists?

Why not just turn a blind eye and leave them to continue doing what they do?

Because, my brethren, those who are being misled by their false teaching rarely
ever see this side of those who are teaching them.

And, frankly, that rock needs to be overturned so that the writhing, slithering
mass of corruption beneath is exposed to the light.

As Paul clearly explains, these are "false, deceitful workers disguising
themselves as servants of righteousness" [2 Cor. 11:13-15].

They must be exposed for who and what they truly are, rather than allowed to
continue to promote themselves as the representatives of our Lord.

Jesus described the legalists of His day as "hypocrites" (i.e., pretenders;
actors on a stage). "For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside
appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly
you're full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" [Matt. 23:27-28].. "For out of the
heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false
witness, slanders" [Matt. 15:19]. "You brood of vipers ... the mouth speaks out
of that which fills the heart" [Matt. 12:34]. John urges us to "test the
spirits" of those who profess to be from God to determine if their claim is
genuine [1 John 4:1]. Part of that test, according to verse 5, is whether or not
the speech of these men is worldly in nature. A wolf disguised as a sheep may
fool the flock for a time, but eventually its true nature will exhibit itself. A
good shepherd will never turn a blind eye to that which threatens the flock.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" [Matt. 7:15-16].

One of the more subtle "fruits" of those Paul terms "false brethren" is
deceitful scheming.

Paul was constantly on guard spiritually, "in order that no advantage be taken
of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes" [2 Cor. 2:11].

A "scheme," by definition, is "a plot; underhanded intrigue; a carefully devised
plan of action for attainment of some goal or object."

I can assure you, from many decades of experience in dealing with the leaders of
legalistic patternism, that if one ever underestimates the force of their
scheming, one will find himself very quickly the victim of "the trickery of men,
by craftiness in deceitful scheming" [Eph. 4:14].

By putting on the full armor of God, we are made "able to stand firm against the
schemes of the devil" [Eph. 6:11], as well as the schemes of his servants. "With
this in mind, be alert and persevere" [vs. 18].

As a result of the flurry of emails these bold "contenders for the faith" were
sending back and forth to one another (and which they CC'd to me), they
inadvertently revealed a scheme that was being hatched to employ Darrell's final
post in our debate to further a separate agenda, one that, according to Darrell,
had been plotted since this past June.

I never responded to those emails ... but I did keep them as evidence!!

Let me give a little background -- eight years ago (April 7 to December 27,
2000) Darrell Broking and I engaged in a fairly lengthy discussion of my book
Down, But Not Out.

That lengthy dialogue can still be read in its entirety online -- Maxey-Broking
Discussion.

Just a few days later, Ron Thomas, a preacher in Illinois, who felt Darrell had
not made a good showing in his critical review of my book, asked if I would
consider a dialogue with him on several of the points he felt needed to be
addressed.

I agreed, and the result was the Maxey-Thomas Debate (held from January 4 to
March 28, 2001).

Darrell has never been satisfied over the years that my book has been adequately
exposed for the "pack of lies" he perceives it to be.

Apparently he believes he has found a "champion" to expose the "fallacies" of my
book -- a preacher in Newport News, Virginia by the name of Daniel Denham..

In an email dated October 29, Darrell wrote Daniel saying, "last June we
discussed the need to expose Maxey for what he is and how that our plans were
for me to debate him then for you to follow up with a debate on MDR with the mad
hatter of maximum error, the micro-patternist Al Maxey."

Needless to say, I was totally unaware at that time of this scheme/plan of
theirs.

As my debate with Darrell drew to a close, however, I was repeatedly challenged
by both Darrell and Daniel to engage the latter in debate regarding my book.

I informed them that I had already conducted two debates on the book, and that I
felt this was more than sufficient.

Therefore, I declined the offer.

Naturally, this did not make them very happy, which has led to the repeated
charges that I am "hiding out in a bunker" here in New Mexico, and that I am
"terrified" of facing the challenges of Daniel Denham.

Michael Hatcher wrote Daniel Denham and Darrell on October 29, "We can hear his
knees knocking all the way here in Florida because of the yellow streak down his
back (he does not have a backbone) resulting in his refusal to sign a
proposition for an oral debate on the subject."

Denham replied on that same date, "All in all, Al's book is a work of fiction
and has no real redeeming value. It adds nothing to the serious study of MDR,
and exhorts people in the sin of adultery to stay in sin."

Since it has become increasingly obvious to these men that I'm not about to
engage Mr. Denham in debate on this matter, Daniel has declared that he will
devote an entire chapter of his upcoming book on MDR to exposing the lies and
deceptions of my own book.

That is fine; he is free to do so.

In an email dated October 26, Darrell wrote Daniel, "If you would like to send
me a small example of how Al lied like this in his Down in the Mouth book, I
will be happy to quote it."

In other words, Darrell is offering to include this information within his final
post in the debate. A few hours later Daniel replied to Darrell, "I'll send you
a couple of examples tomorrow. Since Al steadfastly refuses to debate me on MDR,
then a little dose of what we have gathered on his 'research' needs to be made
available to folks through other means."

Did you notice that phrase that I highlighted?!!

Here is the plot to employ Darrell's final post in the debate to attack my book.

This attack is totally unrelated to the two propositions of the debate, but they
have seen an opportunity, they believe, to get their attack out to the maximum
number of people -- slip it into the final post of the debate when Al Maxey will
have no opportunity to defend himself.

Two days later, on October 28, Darrell wrote Daniel thanking him for the
material, saying, "I added about 3.5 pages of what you sent me in an appendix to
wet the thirst for your material." The next day, October 29, he wrote, "The
appendix just grew by about 3 pages. You may have more material in my 4th
negative than I will."

Did you notice that statement?

Once again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our debate on the
two propositions dealing with the nature of the NT pattern.

This is nothing less than a blatant attempt to impose numerous pages of
unrelated material for the purpose of whetting the appetites of the readers for
Denham's new book in which he will attack mine.

This is unethical, ungodly and unconscionable. It speaks volumes about the lack
of integrity and character of these men. And these men profess to be ministers
and elders in the church of Jesus Christ?! Frightening!!

As if the above appendix was not violation enough, Darrell came to the
conclusion shortly before posting his final rebuttal in this debate that an even
more extensive appendix needed to be added as well.

This was equally unrelated to the two propositions of this debate, and, in fact,
was written primarily by Daniel Denham, who is not even a participant within
this debate.

Not only is Darrell introducing new material unrelated to the debate, he is
actually introducing a new participant.

The purpose of this second appendix was to attack another preacher in the state
of Virginia. This preacher, some time back, sent me an email in which he exposed
some of the practices of both Darrell and Daniel.

I did not share that email with my readers (and still haven't), but instead
informed Darrell and Daniel of these accusations (with this other preacher's
prior permission) and asked them about them.

They went ballistic, and Darrell then included 10 pages of emails attacking this
poor guy at the end of his third rebuttal (which also was inappropriate, as many
readers pointed out). Daniel Denham declared he would prepare a written response
to this other preacher, and in an email to Daniel dated the morning of October
31, Darrell wrote, "Daniel, if your reply to Tim is ready, and you would like,
we can attach it to this post as an appendix."

Once again, an effort was being made to use the final post of this debate as a
vehicle for attacking another minister who has nothing to do with the debate
itself.

Darrell Broking did indeed carry through with his scheme.

His final rebuttal post, which appeared the evening of October 31, was 25 pages
long (in a Word document). The first six pages pertained to the debate ... the
other 19 did not. Appendix A was the attack by Daniel Denham on my book. It was
about 6 pages long. Appendix B was the attack upon the other preacher within the
state of Virginia. It was about 13 pages long, and was again primarily written
by Daniel Denham.

Neither appendix had any bearing whatsoever upon the two propositions of the
debate, and were for the most part not even the work of my debate opponent, but
rather the rantings of someone outside the debate with whom Darrell Broking
plotted and schemed.

The goal?

To use the final post of the debate as a tool for this other man's attack
against (1) my book on MDR and (2) another preacher in Virginia against whom
they both had some personal vendetta.

This action taken by Darrell was so egregious that it boggles the mind!! Darrell
then sent me an email the morning of October 31 (to which I didn't respond, by
the way), following his invitation to Daniel to include his attack against the
other preacher.

Darrell wrote,

> "Daniel says 'Boo,' so run and hide, Al.

> I have a sermon that is called 'What
> Kind of Chicken are You Anyway?"

> I will have to add a category to include
> the 'yellow speckled enchanted clucker' > of the New Mexican variety.

> By the way, Al, feel free to kill us with
> your kindness.

> You are such the example of love."

Perhaps a bit of familiarization with the basic standards governing debate might
be in order.

According to every source I was able to locate, the introduction of new material
into the final presentation of a debate is strictly forbidden. "Judges should be
especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the
affirmative team has no chance to respond, thus a new argument is especially
unfair.
The judge should ignore any new arguments that are introduced."

This is from the set of standards produced by the International Debate Education
Association. The same rule exists within the standards of the National
Parliamentary Debate Association.

Therefore, Darrell has violated the basic standards of public debate by
providing the new information he did.

That violation is compounded by the fact that the material introduced had
absolutely nothing to do with the propositions being debated.

This was then further exacerbated by the fact that this was willfully and
maliciously done for the purpose of whetting the appetites of the readers for
another man's work on another topic in which his debate opponent's work on a
separate topic than that of the debate would be attacked.

It was further done, in the case of the second appendix, in an attempt to try
and use this debate as a means of seeking to destroy the ministry of another
gospel preacher.

This is wrong on so many levels it is mind-boggling.

So, what is to be done?!

I can't appeal to the "moderator" of the debate, because the moderator of the
debate, David Brown, is part of the very bunch exchanging these vicious emails,
and is thus clearly in the camp of my debate opponent (which itself is a
violation of every standard of debate).

The solution therefore, as stated in George McCoy Musgrave's work "Competitive
Debate: Rules and Techniques" (which has been the standard for many debaters for
over half a century), is two-fold: (1) "call the attention of the audience to
the situation," and (2) "throw out the arguments in question."

I have, therefore, done both. I've informed you, the many readers of this
debate, of this violation, and I have removed both appendices in question from
Darrell's final rebuttal.

I clearly can't prevent him from including it in his final post to the
ContendingFTF Internet group, nor can I prevent David Brown from including it on
his congregation's web site (though, if he has any integrity left at all, I
would certainly hope he would refrain from doing so).

Nevertheless, it will not appear at the site (my own web page) where 99% of
readers are going to be reading this exchange.

This will undoubtedly infuriate Darrell, Daniel and their few radical supporters
immensely, but ... So Be It.

These people should have known better than to have tried such a godless tactic!
This is NOT an example of how genuine Christians behave ... a fact that I
sincerely pray is not lost on the readers of this debate!!

Additional Reflections

The six pages of Darrell's final rebuttal (those pages which actually HAD any
relevance to the debate itself) are little more than a compilation of 19 points
in which Darrell misrepresents my beliefs and teachings so horribly that people
who know me will either laugh hysterically in disbelief, or they will wonder if
this poor fellow even bothered to read anything I wrote in this debate.

My wife and I both read it with our jaws on the floor!!

It is pure nonsense!

Enough said!

> So, Al ... was it worth it?! Or, was
> this whole exchange a colossal
> waste of time? ... just an exercise
> in futility and frustration?

Brethren, let me state emphatically: It was worth every painful minute!!

Why?

Because I've received a great number of personal emails, letters and phone calls
from all over the world thanking me for exposing this false doctrine, and
informing me that, as a result of carefully and prayerfully considering what was
said on both sides of this exchange, they were taking immediate steps to break
the chains of their bondage and were going to seek out far more grace-centered
congregations with which to work and worship Precious souls are at last
perceiving the worth of liberty and are discovering freedom in Christ Jesus.
They are abandoning their enslavement to LAW, and are now immersing themselves
in a GRACE they never knew existed If even one soul had experienced such a
transformation ... it would be worth it.. But, there are many writing to tell me
they have experienced it.

Thus, I do not regret a single moment of this debate and thank God He considered
me worthy to represent His Truth on this occasion. Eyes have been opened!
Prayers have been answered!

Will anything I have said ever touch the hearts of the hardened leaders of this
faction within our movement?

Only God knows the answer to that.

I tend to doubt it, but I am not willing to write any man off, and therefore I
will continue to try to reach them.

We know for a fact that some are so hardened that "God will send upon them a
deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" [2 Thess 2:11].

I pray that these men have not reached that point, and I ask that each of you
pray for them too. How wonderful it would be to welcome them into the embrace of
grace!!

Some readers delight in basic statistical data, so for those of this mindset let
me give the following information. Response times for the two participants in
this debate were: Al -- 31 days. Darrell -- 103 days. Total number of words in
Al Maxey's eight posts: 66,140. Total number of words in Darrell Broking's eight
posts: 61,848 (or, a total of 73,077 if the two deleted appendices are counted).
Darrell Broking had the distinction of having both the longest as well as the
shortest posts: his fourth affirmative was 20,306 words. His second rebuttal was
only 1196 words. Nothing earth-shattering here, but these stats might be of
interest to some!

Also, just by way of general interest: near the very end of the debate Darrell
and his family moved from Tennessee to Florida (the Pensacola area, I believe
... I asked him where, but he refused to tell me).

The gavel has fallen on The Maxey-Broking Debate.

The readers must now weigh in the balance the information presented by each
participant, as well as the character and credibility of each, and make a
determination which one of us, if either, most clearly presented the Truth of
God's Word, as well as which one of us, if either, best embodied that Truth in
their actions and attitudes. There will undoubtedly be strong points and weak
points within the presentation of both sides. After all, we are both fallible
human beings. Nevertheless, the major differences between the two positions on
the nature and scope of God's expectations with regard to both salvation and
fellowship should be rather clear to most readers.

The choice is yours to make.

May you choose wisely, as much is at stake. God bless you all, and thank you for
taking the time to consider this extensive body of information. May it touch
your hearts and transform your lives!


***************************

Down, But Not Out
A Study of Divorce and Remarriage
in Light of God's Healing Grace
A 200 page book by Al Maxey
Publisher: (301) 695-1707
www.zianet.com/maxey/mdrbook.htm

***************************

Readers' Reflections

From a Minister/Elder in Wales, Great Britain:


Brother Maxey, I am a church elder and preacher (70 years old) in North Wales,
Great Britain. In the course of preparing a Bible study on the book of Obadiah I
came across your web site. Your Study of Obadiah, in your series on the Minor
Prophets, proved very helpful -- excellent, even -- and has motivated me today
to investigate your web site further. I am absolutely fascinated, and can see
that there is going to be hours of reading in the next months!! A quick glance
especially at the Maxey-Thrasher Debate on the subject of the eternal destiny of
the wicked has been enough to excite me unto further reading! I've already (very
secretly) come to hold a non-orthodox position on this subject of "eternal
torment in a living death" for the wicked, a doctrine that just doesn't seem to
make sense logically or morally, nor does it accord with the God of grace and
love. So, I will be fascinated to see what you and Thomas Thrasher have to say
on the subject, though I think I know the one with whom I will be agreeing!
Thank you for providing this excellent web site, and for keeping to a true
Christian spirit of love.

From a Minister in Tennessee:


Brother Al, Although I am a Tennessean, I didn't know the story of Silena Moore
Holman. Thanks for sharing this moving story about a true leader in the Body of
Christ. I wish I'd had the opportunity to meet her and thank her in person for
her courage, determination and biblical soundness. Oliver Howard delivered a
series of lectures on women and their involvement in church leadership at the
Pepperdine Lectureship several years ago. It's worth hearing. As always, my
brother, you feed and challenge your readers with insightful writing:
well-documented, researched and biblically accurate! Thank you especially for
exposing the legalism which has thwarted our movement for decades, and for
helping the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, to see the light of
freedom!! Godspeed, my brother!

From an Elder in Texas:


Brother Al, At my 83-year-old mother's funeral, the preacher (Charlie
Middlebrook of the Impact Church of Christ in Houston) quoted Proverbs 31:31,
"Let her works bring her praise at the city gate." He said that we should let
this occasion (her funeral) be our version of the city gate, therefore we should
give her the praise she deserved. He then led the entire audience in a hearty
round of applause for that godly woman (widowed at the age of 36) who raised
three children to love the Lord. I had never seen that done at a funeral before,
but it was most moving, and I thought it was quite appropriate. It is so
unfortunate that one's legalistic mindset keeps one from being blessed in
different ways!

From a Minister in Texas:


Brother Al, Thank you for your comment on John Waddey's article about
"clapping." My mother died of cancer about 30 years ago, and her six children
(of which I am one) were glad to clap and rejoice at her wonderful victory. But,
of course that was back in the 70's, and this wasn't "an issue" yet. If people
like Waddey are going to speak and write, then I would hope that they/we would
try to use some general logic and make cogent remarks! That piece by John Waddey
on clapping was nothing to applaud, from my perspective. But resurrection ... I
can wear out my hands on that. Carry on, brother Al. I hurt with you on some of
the empty remarks from some brethren who just cannot seem to remember that we're
to be known for LOVING one another!!

From a Reader in Texas:


Brother Al, In your last issue of Reflections you have written about one of my
personal heroes of faith -- Silena Moore Holman -- and I just wanted to write
and tell you how much I appreciated what you had to say. If she had only lived a
hundred years later, I believe she would be doing just what you are doing in
engaging the patternistic, legalistic side of our fellowship. She was truly well
ahead of her time in fighting for gender equality within the church. Those of us
who are carrying on that fight are also trying to do it with the grace that she
showed. I appreciate you so much, Al. Your wonderful article on Silena Moore
Holman will be linked in a day or two to my own web site on Gender Equality in
the Churches of Christ. I pray God will continue to bless your ministry.

From a Minister in California:


Brother Al, I have not written in quite a while, but the article on Sister
Holman was excellent (I've come to expect no less from you). I forwarded it to a
close friend of mine who is the great-granddaughter of T. B. Larimore. I think I
told you that I had done the funeral service for T. B.'s granddaughter a few
years ago out here in California. She had previously stated that she
specifically wanted me to preach her funeral service because she knew that I
would use proper English (she had been reading my articles for many years), and
also because I was a graduate of Mars Hill Bible School in Florence, Alabama
(which was originally founded as a college for preachers by Brother Larimore).
I'm still a faithful reader, Al, and appreciate so much what you publish, even
though I don't comment much these days.

From a Reader in Texas:


Brother Al, Excellent study (as usual). Keep up the good work. I couldn't help
noting, however, that Lipscomb's comment about the end result of Sister Holman's
work --- "If women enter the public sphere, loose marriage, easy divorce,
indisposition to bear children, and attendant social impurity will ensue" ---
does indeed pretty much tell what has actually come about in our great nation. I
doubt that it was because of women getting the vote or speaking out, but what
Lipscomb said did happen. Just a thought -- not a criticism of your work or
hers!!

From an Elder in Florida:


Brother Al, Legalists have to be the most miserable people on the planet -- I
know, as I used to be one! Their issue about there being no place for
"entertainment" within a "worship service" just goes to show how little they
know the Lord Jesus or the holy Word of God. I'm sure glad that heaven is not
going to be like the so-called "worship" found in the legalistic congregations
of the Churches of Christ. When will these brethren ever figure out that the NT
has never outlined a "worship service"? If brethren do not find our times of
worship entertaining, then they are in a coma! How can one not be entertained
when one is with a group of believers who are singing, praying, communing and
listening to God's Word being expounded? Only a legalist would find nothing
entertaining in our times of worship. Such is ridiculous and it is foolishness.
If they only understood that worship is not like a light switch (you can't turn
it on at 10 a.m. and then off at 12 noon), but is rather 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 52 weeks a year, then they would not get so hung up on all these little
tidbits of legalism. But, what are ya gonna do except love 'em and pray for
'em?!! By the way, at our congregation we applaud whenever someone comes back
from the dead!! I can't help but be filled with joy and excitement when a lost
person becomes a saved person. I just can't control myself. As a matter of fact,
after I bring them up out of the water I usually hug them right then and there,
and then I join in with my other brethren in applauding. There's just something
about the dead being reborn that, to me anyway, warrants such. By the way, great
article on Silena Moore Holman. She is truly a model for all.

********************
If you would like to be removed from or added to this
mailing list, contact me and I will immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, then feel
free to send them on to others and encourage them
to write for a free subscription. These articles may all
be purchased on CD. Check the ARCHIVES for
details and past issues of these weekly Reflections:
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm

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



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

Some time ago I mentioned that the "action" was going on over on the coCBanned
list.

Indeed, there have been many new and exciting developments in the discussions
since I mostly quit posting here.  The best are the latest messages; the older
messages not so much so.

To bring this list up to date, and try to insure a preservation of the record, I
will be forwarding to this list many of the messages of the coCBanned list.

Not all, but those I felt were worthy of putting into the archives here.

I hope you will bear with me in the process of forwarding these messages.  The
subject headers should reflect that the messages are forwards by the use of the
"FW" prefix.
I intend to leave the subject headers themselves otherwise unchanged from how
they appear on the coCBanned list.

Here's a coupld of hints as to the conclusion that may be drawn from the
coCBanned experience of recent weeks:

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

> Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:53 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: atheism and evolution...was: Sn1987a

Pi, regarding Psalm 14:1 you wrote:

> Psalm 14:1 says:

>> The fool hath said in his heart,
>>There is no God.

> Nowhere in the verse does it say
> ALL fools. I've certainly met many
> fools who do not deny God.

I propose, with no sustained rebuttal to date, that the "meaning" is that "all"
the fools addressed by the passage "say in their hearts there is no God".

There are, as you suggest, other kinds of fools who are not atheists, but that
is different issue.

I don't think you, or anyone else, is going to be able to find any fool
addressed in Psalm 14:1 that does not say in his heart "there is no God".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: PIASAN@...
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 4:40 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coCBanned] Re: atheism and evolution...was: Sn1987a




Pi writes:

> To put it in terms of set theory...

>> while all atheists may be
>> evolutionists,

> it does not follow that

>> all evolutionists are atheists.

> Thinking the two are equivalent
> is a clear logic fallacy.

That kinda sounds like,

>> while all Psalm 14:1 fools may
>> be atheists,

> it does not follow that Psalm
> 14:1 means that

>> all atheists are Psalm 14:1
>> fools.
************
Pi:
Psalm 14:1 says:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
x
Nowhere in the verse does it say ALL fools.  I've certainly
met many fools who do not deny God.



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




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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:18 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

Veto writes:

> I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his
boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his
>> heart there is no God"

> means, is properly
> interterpreted to mean

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly
touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any
authorities in support thereof.

The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he
does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

> for all Veto Roley knows

>> there are some things
>> more than a few thousand
>> years old,

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> valid, and

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> sound.

By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his
own advice and just "shutting up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Batty continues his irrationality by writing, "Am I become your enemy because I
have told you the truth?  I provide some good empirical evidence that such can
be the case."

Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a
level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth. I took the patently, prima
facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the Christian God if that God
exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that you don't comprehend the
obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for you, demonstrated the Truth
of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you how those 17 pieces led to
the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the atheist is a fool for
rejecting Him. It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be
perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is
nothing that prevents an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world
or from solving very complex math problems), but very foolish in another area.
It was shown to you that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME
TIME, foolish in another.
  Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim
to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the
"fool" category in regards to God.

Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what? That I
have� a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for
rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for
rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you). I
haven't seen evidence of either. I stand by my promise that once you start
behaving rationally and intelligently, then I will stop calling you a fool. You
can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an
athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic.
The first admission admits the Truth. The second admission provides a rational
context for your denial that the athiest is a fool for rejecting God. It is your
inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen
anything. All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven
false. To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my
doubts that you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be
like you arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the
validity of Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been
carefully explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds. The more
your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets -- even
though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could get
any lower. Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as
outright error does not make your errors correct, Batty. Batty, you haven't made
a valid argument since I've been on this board, with Truth being the arbiter of
what is valid.

Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth. This is why you have ZERO credibility
with me. This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.

Veto





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





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 3:58 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

There are solid, good reasons that you got your nickname of "Batty," since you
prove yourself of being irrational.

You write, for instance that I "appear to simply post commentaries agreeing with
me that Psalm 14:1," suggesting that the commentaries do not say that an atheist
is a fool. Yet, it appears, you have not read the commentaries.

Let's take the one, Adam Clarke's, that appears, on the surface to agree with
you. Adam Clark writes about the Hebrew word "nabal", "The word is not to be
taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been
some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who,
without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is,
they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and
no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while
they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they
were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward."

What Clarke says here is that the term "nabal" -- which is translated "fool" --
is not limited to the professed atheist. And, I agree with him on his point.
Instead of being limited to the professed atheist, he says nabal refers to the
following groups of people:

1) professed atheists and agnostics
2) Deists -- and you need to understand the religious philosophies of Clarke's
time when deism was held by many people, including Thomas Jefferson Basically,
Deism states that God created the universe, set the laws of nature in motion and
then retreated to heaven, having little concern or oversight about matters in
the universe.
3) those who live life as if God did not exist, even if they verbally
acknowledge His existence AND His real presence on the earth.

I also agree that these three classes are included in the term "nabal" and have
stated so in the past. But, Batty, our discussion is not about classes other
than professed atheists. Just as all practical atheists -- people who live as if
there is no God regardless of their profession of His existence -- are fools,
particularly are all professed atheists. Clarke is not saying that the professed
atheist is not a fool, but that the term fool covers more than just the
professed atheist.

Or, we can go to John Calvin, "I am content to follow the more generally
received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off
all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness."
This is the same argument being made by Clarke. And Calvin's description of the
fool -- someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity" -- certainly applies to the professed atheist. Who can argue that the
atheist is someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity."? The atheist is so unafraid of God that he does what few people would
do -- publically testifying that God does not exist. Further, since there is no
iniquity, no sin, greater than denying the existence of his Creator, the atheist
also abandons himself to inquity, chosing to do what seems right in his eyes
rather than submitting to the Lordship of his Creator. Calvin, then, describes
the atheist as
  being a fool.

Or, do you suppose Charles Spurgeon agrees with you? "The Atheist is the fool
preeminently, and a fool universally." Maybe, I misquoted Matthew Henry and he
agrees with you, "The sinner here described is an atheist." Or, did I miscopy
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, "The practical atheism and total
and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set
forth."

Batty, the atheist is a fool for saying in his heart that there is no God

Veto

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

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Wed Oct�15,�2008 4:49�pm        (PDT)


             Veto Roley again misrepresents the issue in dispute.



Veto Roley's attempt to reason was incorrect, as previously noted,
because, for all his effort he failed to measure up to his boast
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Even now, for all his effort, he appears to simply post commentaries
agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1 tells us something about the "fools"
referenced therein.



The statement in Psalm 14:1 that



> the fool sayeth in his heart

> there is no God



does not logically convert, mean, or interpret to



> all atheists are fools.



Veto can go anywhere else he wishes to try and make an argument that
all atheists are fools, but for all his effort it won't make Psalm 14:1
say so!



That's my unrebutted position, after many failed efforts by Veto Roley and
others.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 AM

To: coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri



Batty,



You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid
argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian
God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the
non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I
believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to
punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a
fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst,
banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does
not lessen.



As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...



That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use
the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns
Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since
covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried
to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)



That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and
who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a
fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found
out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of
ice at Charles Barkley)



That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you
could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse --
both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)



That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you
could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from
tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)



Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1
does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some
different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of
interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or
John Calvin?



"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a
fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not
have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am
content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is,
that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and
abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does
not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but
rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom
the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those
who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel
in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and
exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It
is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that
however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,

who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the
Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity
more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on
Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel. org/ccel/ calvin/calcom08. xx.i.html)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?



"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool
universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and
having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice.
Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very
existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable
folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which
is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner
could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some
sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the
existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so
doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth
from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a
crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible
vengeance on

the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his
own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever:
would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes
hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as
lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylig ht.org/com/ tod/view. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 014&verse= 001)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?



"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn
nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible
person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and,
in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And
none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken
in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have
been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are
others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his
providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power,
&c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There
are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to
acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were
persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's

  Commentary -- http://www.godrules .net/library/ clarke/clarkepsa 14.htm)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here
described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor
of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says
this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but
wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there
may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a
fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked
and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible. christiansunite. com/mhcc.
cgi?b=Ps& c=14)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset &
David Brown?



"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked,
with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's
judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His
delivering power.



1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to
right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)."
(Commentary Critical and Explanatory

on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestu dytools.net/ Commentaries/
JamiesonFaussetB rown/jfb. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 14)



If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone
who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...



Veto

"The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years
of his life." --Muhammad Ali

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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:28 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid argument
that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian God exists, a God
who will either, as some believe, destroy the non-believing soul at judgment or,
as the orthodox position holds and I believe, banish the unbelieving soul for
eternity to a hell prepared to punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that
the atheist is NOT a fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or,
at worst, banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire
does not lessen.

As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...

That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use the cases
of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns Coe's song catalog
despite the fact that royalties have long since covered his tax and penalty debt
-- or any other taxpayer who has tried to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS
doesn't play...)

That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and who has
better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a fight (here you can
use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found out he COULD go through a
plate glass window after throwing a bucket of ice at Charles Barkley)

That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you could
mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse -- both legal and
illegal drugs -- in 2003)

That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you could
mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from tobacco-related
illnesses and cancers)

Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1 does not
refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some different manner.
But, who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or John Calvin?

"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a fool, but
also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not have been
unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am content to follow
the more generally received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons,
who have cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are
convicted of madness. David does not bring against his enemies the charge of
common foolishness, but rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood
of those whom the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that
those who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel in
sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and exercise the
ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It is therefore important
for us, in the first place, to know, that however much the world applaud these
crafty and scoffing characters,
  who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the Holy
Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity more brutish than
forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on Psalms - Volume 1 --
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xx.i.html)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?

"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool universally. He
would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and having denied God it is
no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice. Sin is always folly, and as it is
the height of sin to attack the very existence of the Most High, so it is also
the greatest imaginable folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest
evidence, which is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner could by his
atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some sense, although much
wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the existence of fire does not
prevent its burning a man who is in it, so doubting the existence of God will
not stop the Judge of all the earth from destroying the rebel who breaks his
laws; nay, this atheism is a crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring
down terrible vengeance on
  the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his own
throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever: would to God
the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes hundreds, and a noisy
blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as lepers spread the plague." (C.H.
Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylight.org/com/tod/view.cgi?book=ps&chapter=014&verse=001)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?

"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn nabal, which
we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible person, a villain. One
who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and, in his darkness and folly, says
in his heart, "There is no God."And none," says one, "but a fool would say so."
The word is not to be taken in the strict sense in which we use the term
atheist, that is, one who denies the being of a God, or confounds him with
matter. 1. There have been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God.
2. There are others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny
his providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but
give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they
are very numerous, who, while they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in
their heart, and live as if they were persuaded there was no God either to
punish or reward." (Clarke's
  Commentary -- http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkepsa14.htm)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here described is
an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor of the world, no
Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says this in his heart. He cannot
satisfy himself that there is none, but wishes there were none, and pleases
himself that it is possible there may be none; he is willing to think there is
none. This sinner is a fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of
it: he is wicked and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible --
http://bible.christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ps&c=14)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown?

"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked, with
their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's judgments when
He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His delivering power.

1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to right
reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)." (Commentary Critical
and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible --
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ps\
&chapter=14)

If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone who
claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...

Veto

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

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Tue Oct�14,�2008 7:26�am        (PDT)


That's Veto Roley failing to demonstrate he understands the issue as he
continues to run from his failed boast as to what he could prove
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Search as one might, I propose that one will not find where Veto Roley came
close to

meeting his responsibilities to even try and prove his boastful claim that the
Psalm 14:1

statement that



> "the fool sayeth in his heart



> there is no God"



means, is properly interpreted to mean,



> "all atheists are fools":



You will find Veto's failed "two-column thingy" that didn't even come close to
addressing the above claim, much less prove it.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty









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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:00 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Veto Roley's "fool" problem analyzed!

Let's first remember to always consider the specific context in which Veto Roley
is playing out his little diversion.

That is, Veto Roley boasted that he could prove that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley hasn't come close to proving up that claim.

Veto Roley most recently wrote:

> You (Robert) write, for instance
> that I (Veto)

>> "appear to simply post
>> commentaries agreeing
>> with me (Robert) that
>> Psalm 14:1..."

> suggesting that the commentaries
> do not say that an atheist is a fool.

I did not suggest that the commentaries

> "do not say that an atheist
> is a fool".

Veto has offered his own commentary claiming that, and he is welcome to post a
thousand commentaries that say

> "an atheist is a fool".

That, however, is simply not evidence in support of Veto's boast that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley can even try to quote a hundred other passages of scripture which he
thinks proves that atheists are some kind of fool.  Such evidence, however, will
not prove Veto Roley's boast that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Surely, a man of Veto Roley's stature knows and understands that just because
somewhere else there is proof that an atheist is some kind of fool does not
prove that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

That's just Hermeneutics 101, or so I have been told.

Veto writes, wanting to discuss a religious commentary:

> Let's take the one, Adam
> Clarke's, that appears, on
> the surface to agree with
> you.

Sounds familiar!

Any agreement with me by anyone Veto Roley touts, according to Veto Roley, is
going to be considered only "apparent".

Two can play that game!

Veto Roley didn't give any evidence that Adam Clarke even considered what is in
dispute here.

What Veto Roley did reference as to Adam Clarke indicates the agreement with me
is not only "apparent on the surface" but "real" in substance.

Adam Clarke is referenced as discussing something about the "fool" of Psalm
14:1.

That's what I have been contending for; that Psalm 14:1 has as its subject "the
fool" and is telling us something about "the fool".

Psalm 14:1 is not telling us that "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley writes, indicating he's determined to miss the issue:

> (O)ur discussion is not about
> classes other than professed
> atheists.

The discussion I am involved in is about the principles of sound reasoning such
as have been discussed and documented, in part, using Psalm 14:1 as its text.

Perhaps Veto Roley should consider working on his understanding of the
principles of sound reasoning independent of Psalm 14:1 which appears to
sensitive for him to objectively, reasonably consider.

Perhaps if Veto Roley can find some legitimate authorities, alive for possible
direct testimony, that understand the principles of sound reasoning and the
issue I have been discussing using Psalm 14:1 as the text, then we will see if
Veto has anything to rebut my simple, fundamental analysis which reaches the
conclusion that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> DOES NOT MEAN, IS NOT
> PROPERLY INTERPRETED
> TO MEAN that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:58 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

There are solid, good reasons that you got your nickname of "Batty," since you
prove yourself of being irrational.

You write, for instance that I "appear to simply post commentaries agreeing with
me that Psalm 14:1," suggesting that the commentaries do not say that an atheist
is a fool. Yet, it appears, you have not read the commentaries.

Let's take the one, Adam Clarke's, that appears, on the surface to agree with
you. Adam Clark writes about the Hebrew word "nabal", "The word is not to be
taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been
some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who,
without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is,
they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and
no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while
they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they
were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward."

What Clarke says here is that the term "nabal" -- which is translated "fool" --
is not limited to the professed atheist. And, I agree with him on his point.
Instead of being limited to the professed atheist, he says nabal refers to the
following groups of people:

1) professed atheists and agnostics
2) Deists -- and you need to understand the religious philosophies of Clarke's
time when deism was held by many people, including Thomas Jefferson Basically,
Deism states that God created the universe, set the laws of nature in motion and
then retreated to heaven, having little concern or oversight about matters in
the universe.
3) those who live life as if God did not exist, even if they verbally
acknowledge His existence AND His real presence on the earth.

I also agree that these three classes are included in the term "nabal" and have
stated so in the past. But, Batty, our discussion is not about classes other
than professed atheists. Just as all practical atheists -- people who live as if
there is no God regardless of their profession of His existence -- are fools,
particularly are all professed atheists. Clarke is not saying that the professed
atheist is not a fool, but that the term fool covers more than just the
professed atheist.

Or, we can go to John Calvin, "I am content to follow the more generally
received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off
all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness."
This is the same argument being made by Clarke. And Calvin's description of the
fool -- someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity" -- certainly applies to the professed atheist. Who can argue that the
atheist is someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity."? The atheist is so unafraid of God that he does what few people would
do -- publically testifying that God does not exist. Further, since there is no
iniquity, no sin, greater than denying the existence of his Creator, the atheist
also abandons himself to inquity, chosing to do what seems right in his eyes
rather than submitting to the Lordship of his Creator. Calvin, then, describes
the atheist as
  being a fool.

Or, do you suppose Charles Spurgeon agrees with you? "The Atheist is the fool
preeminently, and a fool universally." Maybe, I misquoted Matthew Henry and he
agrees with you, "The sinner here described is an atheist." Or, did I miscopy
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, "The practical atheism and total
and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set
forth."

Batty, the atheist is a fool for saying in his heart that there is no God

Veto

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

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Wed Oct�15,�2008 4:49�pm        (PDT)


             Veto Roley again misrepresents the issue in dispute.



Veto Roley's attempt to reason was incorrect, as previously noted,
because, for all his effort he failed to measure up to his boast
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Even now, for all his effort, he appears to simply post commentaries
agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1 tells us something about the "fools"
referenced therein.



The statement in Psalm 14:1 that



> the fool sayeth in his heart

> there is no God



does not logically convert, mean, or interpret to



> all atheists are fools.



Veto can go anywhere else he wishes to try and make an argument that
all atheists are fools, but for all his effort it won't make Psalm 14:1
say so!



That's my unrebutted position, after many failed efforts by Veto Roley and
others.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 AM

To: coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri



Batty,



You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid
argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian
God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the
non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I
believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to
punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a
fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst,
banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does
not lessen.



As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...



That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use
the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns
Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since
covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried
to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)



That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and
who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a
fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found
out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of
ice at Charles Barkley)



That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you
could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse --
both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)



That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you
could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from
tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)



Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1
does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some
different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of
interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or
John Calvin?



"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a
fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not
have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am
content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is,
that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and
abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does
not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but
rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom
the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those
who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel
in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and
exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It
is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that
however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,

who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the
Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity
more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on
Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel. org/ccel/ calvin/calcom08. xx.i.html)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?



"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool
universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and
having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice.
Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very
existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable
folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which
is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner
could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some
sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the
existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so
doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth
from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a
crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible
vengeance on

the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his
own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever:
would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes
hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as
lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylig ht.org/com/ tod/view. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 014&verse= 001)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?



"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn
nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible
person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and,
in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And
none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken
in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have
been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are
others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his
providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power,
&c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There
are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to
acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were
persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's

  Commentary -- http://www.godrules .net/library/ clarke/clarkepsa 14.htm)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here
described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor
of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says
this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but
wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there
may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a
fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked
and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible. christiansunite. com/mhcc.
cgi?b=Ps& c=14)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset &
David Brown?



"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked,
with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's
judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His
delivering power.



1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to
right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)."
(Commentary Critical and Explanatory

on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestu dytools.net/ Commentaries/
JamiesonFaussetB rown/jfb. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 14)



If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone
who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...



Veto

"The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years
of his life." --Muhammad Ali

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




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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:09 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Veto Roley's empty boasts again; for the record!

Since Veto Roley appears determined to continue to falsely represent the history
of the matter, I present the following for ready reference to show what the
issue was that I was dealing with and to propose that, search as one might, he
will not find where Veto Roley came close to meeting his responsibilities to
even try and prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

> "the fool sayeth in his heart
> there is no God"

means, is properly interpreted to mean,

> "all atheists are fools":

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8579

From: Veto Roley
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:11 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Authorities on Psalms 14:1

(excerpts)

The statement before us is,

> "The fool has said in his
> heart that there is no God."

(T)he correct rendering of this statement is

> "All atheists are fools"...

Veto Roley

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8934

From: Veto Roley
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Rolie Polie Olie's "fool" and the IRS; another test!

(excerpt)

I'm going to try...to demonstrate the proof...that the interpretation of Pslams
14:1 that

> "all atheists are fools"

is a valid interpretation of

> "the fool has said in his
> heart that there is no God."

What is shown below is a two-column
Euclidean proof...

Statement 1:

> The Christian God exists and
> is revealed in the Bible.

Statement 2:

> Belief in God does not make
> Him real if He does not exist.
> Disbelief in God does not make
> Him false if He exists.

Statement 3:

> God, if He exists, is more powerful
> than the combined strength of
> humanity.

Statement 4:

> A man can possess, at the same
> time and even in related fields,
> great foolishness and great genius.

Statement 5:

> While great foolishness does not
> cancel great genius, the
> consequences of great foolishness
> can be greater than the memory of
> great genius.

Statement 6:

> The Bible declares someone who
> denies God, but who is wise in
> other areas, to be a fool.

Statement 7:

> Only positive faith in Him can
> please God.

Statement 8:

> Those without positive faith
> are hostile to God.

Statement 9:

> God's wrath is directed to those
> who do not have a positive belief
> in Him.

Statement 10:

> Neither agnostics nor atheists
> have a positive belief in the
> Christian God.

Statement 11:

> An atheist will face God's wrath
> because he does not a positive
> belief in Him.

Statement 12:

> Xxxx Xxxxxx is an atheist.

Statement 13:

> Xxxx Xxxxxx will, because of his
> negative belief in God, face God's
> wrath.

Statement 14:

> It is foolishness to oppose that
> which you can not beat when
> you gain nothing from that
> opposition.

Statement 15:

> Opposing God only brings His wrath.

Statement 16:

> It is foolish to oppose God since
> it only brings His wrath.

Statement 17:

> Atheists are foolish to oppose
> God since it only brings His wrath.

Statement 18:

> The atheist is a fool for saying
> in his heart that there is no God.

Statement 19:

> Xxxx is foolish to oppose God
> since it only brings His wrath.

Statement 20:

> Regardless of wisdom he may
> have in other fields, Xxxx is a
> fool for saying in his heart there
> is no God.

Veto Roley

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

My further comments:

Most will readily note that Veto's highly touted "two-column thingy" doesn't
come close to even dealing with his boast about what he can prove regarding
Psalm 14:1.

Search as you might in the archives, I propose that you won't find anything else
that comes any closer than his above, failed "two-column thingy"!

Similarly, I propose that you won't find anything in the archives where Veto
Roley has provided anything of substance related to his allegations about my
"Goliath of GRAS" being INvalid and UNsound.

Veto Roley simply, for apparently personal reasons, can't face the "Goliath of
GRAS" and so keeps promoting his ipse dixits against it.

Certainly, as Veto Roley admits in his latest messages, he's got "trust" issues,
but that involves his personal problems which I am unable to help him with; not
for lack of trying, but because Veto rejects my help.

Veto improperly tries to impute his problems with that onto me; a tactic that
has been used by other adversaries of mine on this list.

Perhaps now Veto Roley will take his own advice, if he cannot reform his
behavior and work on cleaning up some of the problems he has created in these
discussions, and just "shut up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

------------Previous Messages-------------

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:23 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

What Veto Roley can't handle, and what is really bugging him:

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

I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the
churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement. To date, no
bonafide young- earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or
rebut the comments.

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

The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age
follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Here now 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".

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 (i.e., "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the
real world
evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

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 scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #2:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has not been in
> existence for more than ten
> thousand (10,000) years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd Greene

Proposition #3:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #4:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has not been in existence
> for more than ten thousand (10,000)
> years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd 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.

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
retreated into the UNscientific position
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.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:18 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

Veto writes:

> I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his
boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his
>> heart there is no God"

> means, is properly
> interterpreted to mean

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly
touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any
authorities in support thereof.

The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he
does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

> for all Veto Roley knows

>> there are some things
>> more than a few thousand
>> years old,

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> valid, and

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> sound.

By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his
own advice and just "shutting up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Batty continues his irrationality by writing,

> "Am I become your enemy
> because I have told you the
> truth? I provide some good
> empirical evidence that such
> can be the case."

Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a
level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth.

I took the patently, prima facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the
Christian God if that God exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that
you don't comprehend the obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for
you, demonstrated the Truth of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you
how those 17 pieces led to the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the
atheist is a fool for rejecting Him.

It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be perceived, rightly
or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is nothing that prevents
an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world or from solving very
complex math problems), but very foolish in another area. It was shown to you
that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME TIME, foolish in
another.

Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim
to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the
"fool" category in regards to God.

Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what?

That I have a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for
rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for
rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you).

I haven't seen evidence of either.

I stand by my promise that once you start behaving rationally and intelligently,
then I will stop calling you a fool.

You can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an
athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic.

The first admission admits the Truth.

The second admission provides a rational context for your denial that the
athiest is a fool for rejecting God.

It is your inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen
anything.

All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven false.

To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my doubts that
you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be like you
arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the validity of
Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been carefully
explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds.

The more your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets --
even though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could
get any lower.

Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as outright error
does not make your errors correct, Batty.

Batty, you haven't made a valid argument since I've been on this board, with
Truth being the arbiter of what is valid.

Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth.

This is why you have ZERO credibility with me.

This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.

Veto Roley

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







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

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Schellekens
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:49 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> Rudy's message follows my name below.
>
> Alas, Rudy gets off to a bad start!
>
> Indeed, he didn't learn all he could have from Thomas B. Warren!
>
> Rudy starts off with:
>
> > You may have a VALID argument,
> > Robert, but your conclusion will
> > ALWAYS be wrong if either of
> > your premises is wrong...
>
> Well, Rudy, before getting any further into the matter, you need to
resolve the issue as to whether or not the "Goliath of GRAS" is a
VALID argument; and let us know your position on that in no uncertain
terms.
>
> Otherwise, your claim is simply false!

Rudy writes;
No there is logic in action!  "Unless you say I am right, you are
wrong..."

Baty wrote:
That one or both of the premises may not be true does NOT mean the
conclusion is wrong!

Rudy writes:
Once again, a shining example of one who claims to be logical.  How
about reading a book, "Symbolic Logic" by Susan K. Langer?


It merely means the premises do not "lead to" the conclusion.  An
INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND (i.e., one or both premises being false)
argument can have a true conclusion.

Rudy writes:
If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the true conclusion...


> The truth of the conclusion is not the thing, but whether the truth
of the premises, if they are true, actually "leads to" the conclusion.
>
> If one or both of the premises are not true, then even a true
conclusion does not follow from the premises!
>
> Rudy, please now show DBWillis how it is done and admit, explain and
correct your error on this simple matter without delay!
>
> DBWillis is needing a good example!
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty
>
> ------------Rudy's Message--------------
>
> From: Rudy Schellekens
> To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:41 PM
>
> Subject: [coCBanned] Re: DBWillis as a false witness against my
"Goliath of GRAS"!
>
>  --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@> wrote:
> >
> > Here's another one before I leave for a while:
> >
> > DBWillis falsely claims:
> >
> > > (I)f either your major or minor
> > > premises are wrong, then your
> > > conclusion is wrong.
> >
> > That is just false!
> >
> > DBWillis knows, or should know that that is false!
> >
> > The conclusion may well be true even though one or both of the
> premises are false.
> >
> >
> Rudy writes:
>
> You may have a VALID argument, Robert, but your conclusion will
> ALWAYS be wrong if either of your premises is wrong...
>
> I may not have learned all I could from Dr. Thomas Warren, but I
learned that when, "...The argument is valid. All of the premises are
true... It is therefore a sound argument... It therefore demands
> the truth of the conclusion..."
>
> So, Robert, if ONE of the premises is NOT true, the truth of the
conclusion is??? RIGHT! NON-existent!
>
> I am not a friend of Willis - but that does not make what you quoted
> automatically wrong...
>
> -----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:15 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
<rudyschellekens@...> wrote:
>

> Baty wrote:
> > That one or both of the premises may not be true
> > does NOT mean the conclusion is wrong!
> >
> > It merely means the premises do not "lead to"
> > the conclusion.  An INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND
> > (i.e., one or both premises being false)
> > argument can have a true conclusion.
>
> Rudy writes:
> Once again, a shining example of one who claims
> to be logical.  How about reading a book, "Symbolic
> Logic" by Susan K. Langer?
>
> Rudy writes:
> If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the
> true conclusion...


I doubt you'll find anywhere in Langer's book where
she says that "a + b = c" is an argument, valid or
otherwise.

"a + b = c" is a proposition.

If Rudy lives in a world where a = NOT a, then all
bets are off.

Nevertheless, valid arguments can have false premises
and a true conclusion:

P1: If cows give chocolate milk, then chickens lay eggs.
P2: Cows give chocolate milk.

C: Therefore, chickens lay eggs.


OR, in the case of Robert's argument:

>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.


It could be the case that the minor premise is false --
that there is no evidence that anything is more than
a few thousand years old, but if the truth is that
everything came into being just last week, then the
interpretation of the text would still be wrong.



Rick









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

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Burgin
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:45 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Logic?

Rick, save yourself the effort and trouble of dealing with     Baty's batty do
called "logic[?]".

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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:38 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

David Willis here,

Baty:>>> While I propose that it is possible
> to  hypothesize a world in which
> some thing really is more than
> a  few thousand years old and
> we can so determine from
> evidence  independent of any
> interpretation of a religious
> text, DBWillis  has yet to come
> to that knowledge!

> I await DBWillis'  correction of his
> error. He can hypothesize such
> a world, we  know he can do so,
> and he knows we know that he
> can do  so.

> DBWillis just needs to correct
> his answer on step four  and
> then proceed to step five.>>

I don't need to correct  it.  It is untrue that (using your standard for
"evidence") we could  determine the age of an instantly created mature world. 
If
indeed God  chose to instantly create, then your standard and method for aging
would give a  wrong answer.  Sorry but dems da berries.  That is INDEPENDENT
of  anything I am told by the text.  I know that by common sense.  It is
exactly like the same problem I'd have in determining how long a tree was in my
yard.  Depends on if it were planted as a seed or moved there.  In a  real
world it may be possible to look closely at the roots etc...however, I use  it
only as an illustration.  If God wants to make a fully formed mountain  or soil
or atmosphere INSTANTLY, there is no reason He would or could not.

Stop wasting our time with your silly syllogism.  It is based on a  slanted
definition of terms...and no YE with any sense would agree to such a
definition.  If such a definition will give us a false answer about the 
Resurrection
then it is a bad one to use.

And PLEASE try to cut out all the repetitive reposting of old
stuff...pasting it in at the end of your posts.  It will cause me to  overlook
anything new
you may say...I promise you.  I am sick of wading  through it to see if
something new is in there.

DW





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:56 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] If God HAD wanted....

David Willis here,

Rick>>Around these parts, most of us assume that "God's word"
> > > cannot be wrong, and I'll be the first to say that if
> > > God really does say something and conventional science
> > > wants to argue about it, conventional science is badly
> > > mistaken.>>

Some may think this to be a silly  question, but if God HAD wanted to
describe a year-long global flood which  killed all land life and all humans
except
those in the ark....how much plainer  would He have had to put it for us to be
convinced that IS what He meant to  describe?  Look at the DETAILS given.
There is NO difference between  the style and literary formulation of the
history
described in Gen. 6-9 than  there is for the rest of Genesis, including all
the history of the family of  Abraham and the events of the people of Israel.
It is plain ol' vanilla  HISTORY in its textual form in Gen. 6-9 like all the
REST of the history of the  OT.  We may as well doubt ANY detail of history in
the Bible because  some atheist tells us he thinks it conflicts with what is
possible using a  naturalistic approach.  OUT go all miracles...ALL of them.
What more  besides reading Gen. 6-9, would it TAKE to convict God's word of
lying about an  event that didn't happen?  How much plainer would the text have
to be in  describing an event...which did NOT happen (supposedly)...in order
to be proof  that God lied?  Talk about non-falsifiability!  It apparently is a
  non-falsifiable question as to whether the Bible lies.  If it LOOKS like it
lies, you just need to twist the text into a pretzel to fit a view which
will make the atheist scientists happy.  It is dishonesty in handling the  text.
It is not exegesis.



**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:39 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: DBWillis not a false witness

David Willis here,

Todd>>David, it is a fact that there are millions of Christians  around the
world who disagree with young earth creationism because they are  aware
that it is a scientifically false idea, and thus a false  religious
doctrine. >>

I don't disagree that many AEs are  theists and christians.

Stop misrepresenting me.  If you think anything I said indicates  otherwise,
then I will gladly clarify again for you so you can get off that  little
soapbox.  I don't believe that all AEs are atheists.  I believe  that some
theists
believe that naturalistic "science" is what should be used to  determine what
took place in the past and that will IMO give false  answers.  Atheists can
believe that, but I can't see how a theist possibly  could believe that by using
a naturalistic-only view of evidence...that they  will get a true conclusion.
  Some events that theists believe took place  are contradictory to
naturalism.







**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:46 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

David Willis here,

RB>>Considering our indicated agreement through step three, at such  time as
DBWillis is able to provide the right answer to the step four question,  we
will proceed to consider his reply to the step five question, including any
further consideration he may want to receive regarding his "resurrection"
premise.>>

That's great news!  Since I won't give you the  "right" answer you want, then
we can stop horsing around with your useless  silliness.  I'll let you know
when I've changed my mind on my  answer...ok?

>>I'm not obligated to answer your questions, DBWillis, as you  continue to
evade your responsibilities in these discussions and seek to cloud  the
fundamental issues and change the subjects.>>>

Then go soak  your head if you expect me to answer yours.





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Schellekens
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:38 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
> <rudyschellekens@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Baty wrote:
> > > That one or both of the premises may not be true
> > > does NOT mean the conclusion is wrong!
> > >
> > > It merely means the premises do not "lead to"
> > > the conclusion.  An INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND
> > > (i.e., one or both premises being false)
> > > argument can have a true conclusion.
> >
> > Rudy writes:
> > Once again, a shining example of one who claims
> > to be logical.  How about reading a book, "Symbolic
> > Logic" by Susan K. Langer?
> >
> > Rudy writes:
> > If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the
> > true conclusion...
>
>
> I doubt you'll find anywhere in Langer's book where
> she says that "a + b = c" is an argument, valid or
> otherwise.
>
> "a + b = c" is a proposition.
>
> If Rudy lives in a world where a = NOT a, then all
> bets are off.
>
> Nevertheless, valid arguments can have false premises
> and a true conclusion:
>
> P1: If cows give chocolate milk, then chickens lay eggs.
> P2: Cows give chocolate milk.
>
> C: Therefore, chickens lay eggs.
>
Rudy writes:
A valid argument is not concerned about the truth factor of its
premises.  The above example is NOT what Baty contends! The idea that
a conclusion can be true if one or more of the premisess are untrue,
as Baty contends, is nonsense.


But then, it seems Rick and RObert make up their own rules of logic.






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

-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:50 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
<rudyschellekens@...> wrote:
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
> > <rudyschellekens@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Baty wrote:
> > > > That one or both of the premises may not be true
> > > > does NOT mean the conclusion is wrong!
> > > >
> > > > It merely means the premises do not "lead to"
> > > > the conclusion.  An INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND
> > > > (i.e., one or both premises being false)
> > > > argument can have a true conclusion.
> > >
> > > Rudy writes:
> > > Once again, a shining example of one who claims
> > > to be logical.  How about reading a book, "Symbolic
> > > Logic" by Susan K. Langer?
> > >
> > > Rudy writes:
> > > If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the
> > > true conclusion...
> >
> >
> > I doubt you'll find anywhere in Langer's book where
> > she says that "a + b = c" is an argument, valid or
> > otherwise.
> >
> > "a + b = c" is a proposition.
> >
> > If Rudy lives in a world where a = NOT a, then all
> > bets are off.
> >
> > Nevertheless, valid arguments can have false premises
> > and a true conclusion:
> >
> > P1: If cows give chocolate milk, then chickens lay eggs.
> > P2: Cows give chocolate milk.
> >
> > C: Therefore, chickens lay eggs.
>
> Rudy writes:
> A valid argument is not concerned about the truth factor
> of its premises.  The above example is NOT what Baty
> contends!
>
> The idea that a conclusion can be true
> if one or more of the premisess are untrue,
> as Baty contends, is nonsense.
>
>
> But then, it seems Rick and RObert make up
> their own rules of logic.


Self-test on logic concepts:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/logic_selftest.html


See question 12.










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

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:31 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Logic?

--- In coCBanned, Max Burgin wrote (post #10323):
> Rick, save yourself the effort and trouble of dealing
> with Baty's batty do called "logic[?]".

Max, save yourself the effort and trouble of making utterly irrelevant
posts like the one above, in which you say nothing of any relevance at
all but you make PURELY to denigrate what you clearly don't even have
the capability to comprehend in the first place.

Rick's response was very clear and very concise and dealt directly
with Rudy's comments. Whereas on the other hand, Max, all you do is
make silly comments that have nothing to do with anything, but you
make solely to denigrate what you do not understand.

- Todd Greene




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:59 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: DBWillis not a false witness

Hi David,

Here is the post in which your post was quoted in its entirety:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/10170

I have NOT misrepresented your particular statements that I was
addressing. Indeed, I QUOTED them (and I see that in all of your
responses you have conveniently removed my quotes of what you wrote).

One sentence you wrote was, "If you really look closely at it [GRAS],
all it is is a statement that what atheist scientists believe will
'trump' what a fair reading of the text of the Bible says." Another
was, "The major premise is wrong if you define 'empirical evidence' to
mean 'what atheist scientists tells us the evidence says'...which
appears to be your meaning of the term."

Thus, I have been completely correct in calling you on the carpet for
making false statements about "atheist scientists" in your attempt to
use deceitful rhetorical tricks to falsely portray everyone who
disagrees with young earth creationism as an atheist. It is not a
"soapbox" to call you on the carpet for making erroneous statements,
and holding you to the basic standard of correcting error. I do fully
understand that the young earth creationists in general absolutely
HATE to acknowledge and correct the errors they make, and will bend
over backwards playing word games with thousands and thousands of
words to try to bury their errors and never acknowledge any problem
and never correct the error and then later keep on using the same old
error over and over again. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

But here I see that, at least on this particular occasion, perhaps
you've broken the mold, so I do appreciate you now acknowledging the
fact that these particular remarks you made were wrong.

- Todd Greene


--- In coCBanned, David Willis wrote (post #10328):
> David Willis here,
>
> --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote:
>> David, it is a fact that there are millions of
>> Christians around the world who disagree with young
>> earth creationism because they are aware that it is
>> a scientifically false idea, and thus a false
>> religious doctrine.
>
> I don't disagree that many AEs are theists and
> christians.
>
> Stop misrepresenting me. If you think anything I said
> indicates  otherwise, then I will gladly clarify again
> for you so you can get off that little soapbox. I
> don't believe that all AEs are atheists. I believe
> that some theists believe that naturalistic "science"
> is what should be used to determine what took place in
> the past and that will IMO give false  answers.
> Atheists can believe that, but I can't see how a
> theist possibly could believe that by using a
> naturalistic-only view of evidence...that they will
> get a true conclusion. Some events that theists
> believe took place are contradictory to naturalism.




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

-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:16 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: the rest of the quote...was: More Tinroad6g Lies

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote (in part):
>
>
> Since Rick seems to know what the "missing" context is,
> maybe he has the material and will be so kind as to
> present it here.

Yes, I already have it, and will certainly present it.

I'm busy today in the outside world.

The first thing to keep in mind -- and you can verify
this from Terry's rhetoric in these posts -- is that
he is still pretending the FACT of evolution and the
THEORIES used to explain it are one and the same.

He is pretending that a quote saying that Darwinian
"gradualism" is not well-supported in the fossil record
EQUALS saying that the FACT that the life forms on
Earth have changed over the course of hundreds of millions
of years is not supported by the fossil record.  I have
pointed this out several times.

Notice the care he takes to always talk about the
"general theory of evolution" as if showing some
vague and unspecified part of one of the theoretical
aspects is not supported by fossils, that means the
whole thing is false.

I have explained this to Terry numerous times -- he is
doing this deliberately.  You can get rid of all the
theories about evolution completely and we will still
be left with layers of sedimentary rock several thousand
feet thick that conclusively prove that the life forms
on Earth have changed dramatically over the course of
several hundred millions of years.

If Terry doesn't like the "theories" that explain that
*fact*,  which falsifies his young-earth creationism,
no big deal -- "gradualism", "punctuated equilibria",
whatever... HOWEVER evolution happens, his young-earth
creationism is still false and is indisputably shown
to be false by the fossil record.  That is why he has
to pretend that these quotes talking about theories
are in some way evidence against the FACTS.




Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism








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

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:35 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: the rest of the quote...was: More Tinroad6g Lies

What Terry Benton is demonstrating is that he is quoting scientists
out of context and misrepresenting them deliberately, because he knows
he's misrepresenting them, which is precisely why he has deliberately
refused to answer the very specific questions that you took the time
to post to him about the quotes he gave, Rick. All the word games he's
been playing since then have been for the very purpose of pretending
it's okay for him to ignore the actual context of their statements.

This also is another example of how egregiously hypocritical these
fundamentalist preachers are. In their rhetoric they'll cry up and
down how it's wrong for religious people to take Bible verses out of
context and misrepresent them, but when it comes to taking statements
by scientists out of context and misrepresenting what they're talking
about, young earth creationists have turned quote mining into a business.

- Todd Greene


--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote (in part):
> >
> >
> > Since Rick seems to know what the "missing" context is,
> > maybe he has the material and will be so kind as to
> > present it here.
>
> Yes, I already have it, and will certainly present it.
>
> I'm busy today in the outside world.
>
> The first thing to keep in mind -- and you can verify
> this from Terry's rhetoric in these posts -- is that
> he is still pretending the FACT of evolution and the
> THEORIES used to explain it are one and the same.
>
> He is pretending that a quote saying that Darwinian
> "gradualism" is not well-supported in the fossil record
> EQUALS saying that the FACT that the life forms on
> Earth have changed over the course of hundreds of millions
> of years is not supported by the fossil record.  I have
> pointed this out several times.
>
> Notice the care he takes to always talk about the
> "general theory of evolution" as if showing some
> vague and unspecified part of one of the theoretical
> aspects is not supported by fossils, that means the
> whole thing is false.
>
> I have explained this to Terry numerous times -- he is
> doing this deliberately.  You can get rid of all the
> theories about evolution completely and we will still
> be left with layers of sedimentary rock several thousand
> feet thick that conclusively prove that the life forms
> on Earth have changed dramatically over the course of
> several hundred millions of years.
>
> If Terry doesn't like the "theories" that explain that
> *fact*,  which falsifies his young-earth creationism,
> no big deal -- "gradualism", "punctuated equilibria",
> whatever... HOWEVER evolution happens, his young-earth
> creationism is still false and is indisputably shown
> to be false by the fossil record.  That is why he has
> to pretend that these quotes talking about theories
> are in some way evidence against the FACTS.
>
>
>
>
> Rick Hartzog
> Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
>





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd S. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:45 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Creationist quote mining tactics

From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

The Quote Mine Project, Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
Introduction
by John Pieret

One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced
a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous
evolutionists". It was not hard to discover that the list was taken,
almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net",
where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like
this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that
they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists.
Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published.

For a number of reasons, the posting of this list was illustrative of
a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in
by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the
etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It
is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an
authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's
position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary
evidence is conveniently ignored".

In response, numerous people took the trouble to look up the source
material to learn the context of the passages. The result of this
considerable effort demonstrated that these "quotes" were, in very
large part, so out-of-context as to qualify as complete distortions of
the authors' intent. As noted by Dana Tweedy, one of the responders:

| Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to
| change the meaning. The "evolutionist(s)" in those
| quotations [were] not admitting that "a portion of
| evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a
| "lie of omission", to omit the part of the person's words
| that explains and clarifies the person's position. Those
| quotes you stole are classic lies of omission. They are
| false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood...

Another responder, John Wilkins, continued in the same vein:

| [I]t is worth observing too that not only were these
| quotes taken carefully out of context, but that they must
| have been deliberately done so. After [unearthing the
| context] I could not find there is [any] way these could
| have been taken accidentally or in ignorance out of the
| context.

Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than
a few turn out to be making the exact opposite point [than the bare
words seem to indicate] and at least one was reporting secondarily on
the ideas of others in order to rebut them. Once is a mistake, twice
is carelessness, three times could be stupidity, but the sheer volume
of these is a deliberately planned campaign of disinformation.

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely
passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither
bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that
they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as
can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can
and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then
propagated by other creationists when they are copied without
attribution. (Ironically, this is the same type of "copying error",
i.e. mutation, that can be used to trace phylogenetic histories of
populations.) More importantly, such thoughtless iterations
demonstrate an unwillingness to understand the underlying issues and
an indifference to the ideas and reputations of the people whose names
they are appropriating.

In addition, some of the "quotes" were outright fabrications; others
were actually taken from creationist authors or other people who
doubted, rather than supported, evolution (making their designation as
"evolutionists" itself disingenuous); several were expressions of
opinion by people with no expertise in fields related to evolution and
many were so old as to be of no use at all in understanding present
day evolutionary theory. The few quotes that can be said to be both in
context and from knowledgeable proponents of evolution invariably
discuss limited technical subjects which may appear, to those
unfamiliar with the details of modern biology, to contradict
evolutionary theory but, in fact, do not.

Of course, even if each and every one of these quotes was accurate and
truly reflected the opinions of the authors, it would not matter a
bit. If all eighty-six were from different scientists and all
eighty-six thought evolution wrong, that would not begin to tip the
consensus formed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of
scientists from a broad range of fields that firmly hold evolution to
be the only current scientific theory that explains all the myriad
facts surrounding the nature of life on Earth.

Naturally enough, the question arises: 'If the quotes don't mean
anything, why should we care enough to go to such great lengths to
show these quotes for what they are?' The best answer came from John
Wilkins:

| The first issue is whether or not they have been
| correctly quoted. You know as well as I do that the only
| reason these quotes have been put up on the web and
| dittoed by the dittoheads like [the poster] is that they
| imply that these people do not think that evolution is
| true for some reason, and that the clever folk at AiG or
| wherever have "caught them in a slipup" that reveals
| their "true" beliefs. It is all a rhetorical trick.
|
| They have not been correctly quoted (except, perhaps, for
| the creationists in that list who are been falsely touted
| as evolutionists). This is the first dishonesty. Because
| every single one of the quotes so far checked do intend
| to say that evolution is correct, and that what we see is
| consistent with it. All of them. You can dance around
| this issue all you like, but it is still a lie, and an
| egregious one. Doing this in a first year undergraduate
| essay would earn an instant failure. It is the very worst
| of scholarship.
|
| The second issue is whether or not they are correct in
| their statements. Most of them are comments made about
| the punctuated equilibrium theory/model/pattern that was,
| at the time of most of these publications, a hot issue in
| evolutionary biology. There was considerable debate on
| the matter. The consensus that resulted, and which is in
| place today, is that evolution will show these sorts of
| patterns, both for the reasons Gould and Eldredge
| supposed (allopatric speciation) and for other reasons
| (nonlinear dynamics in populations). Hence, it is
| dishonest to imply, the way the quote miner does, that
| this is an unresolved issue in modern evolutionary
| biology.
|
| The third act of dishonesty is that the quote miner is
| "cherry picking". This is the term for when you go
| looking through the literature to find cites that back up
| your own personal hobbyhorse. Of course in this case the
| hobbyhorse is that "evolutionists are themselves
| questioning Darwinism", but still it is a bad thing to
| do, morally and academically.

In short, these quote-mined lists come with their own context which
makes them important to address. The site this list was "appropriated"
from, for example, prefaces it with the following:

| Before any serious dialogue of deity can be entertained,
| the subjects of spontaneous generation and evolution must
| first be addressed.
|
| This is one of the more inflammatory topics of
| discussion, especially coming from a creation point of
| view. In order to gain as much credibility as possible
| and so you can understand why I feel the way I do, I will
| use words spoken by evolutionists.

Clearly this list is intended to provide support both for a particular
religious view and for a denial of the scientific nature of
evolutionary theory. The first is an egregious abuse of the views of
most of the people quoted and the second is a blatant distortion
(whether through ignorance or dishonesty) of the words themselves. In
any event, to remain silent in the face of this tactic would be to be
to fail the avowed purpose of Talk.Origins and, worse, to be complicit
in the lie.

It is important, though, to note that this is not intended as an
indictment of religion in general or of those who believe that life is
the result of divine action. There is little doubt that the majority
of the contributors to this effort (many of whom are, themselves,
theists) would agree that this dishonesty is not the typical behavior
of believers in a moral and loving God. It is the aberration of a tiny
minority who, through tactics such as these, have gained importance
all out of proportion to the value of their ideas.




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:39 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

Rudy wrote, in part:

> The idea that a conclusion can
> be true if one or more of the
> premisess are untrue, as Baty
> contends, is nonsense.

Rudy says that like he thinks it is not true!

However, it is, according to the principles of sound reasoning and common sense,
quite true.

It's just a fact of life; hardly nonsense.

The idea of an argument is to have premises that "lead to" the conclusion

An argument with one or more false premises can, indeed, have a true conclusion.
That would just mean the premises do not "lead to" the conclusion!

Maybe Rudy should make an application for admittance to one of my Logic 101
classes.  As he noted earlier, he simply didn't learn all he could have from
Thomas B. Warren.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Schellekens
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:38 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
> <rudyschellekens@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Baty wrote:
> > > That one or both of the premises may not be true
> > > does NOT mean the conclusion is wrong!
> > >
> > > It merely means the premises do not "lead to"
> > > the conclusion.  An INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND
> > > (i.e., one or both premises being false)
> > > argument can have a true conclusion.
> >
> > Rudy writes:
> > Once again, a shining example of one who claims
> > to be logical.  How about reading a book, "Symbolic
> > Logic" by Susan K. Langer?
> >
> > Rudy writes:
> > If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the
> > true conclusion...
>
>
> I doubt you'll find anywhere in Langer's book where
> she says that "a + b = c" is an argument, valid or
> otherwise.
>
> "a + b = c" is a proposition.
>
> If Rudy lives in a world where a = NOT a, then all
> bets are off.
>
> Nevertheless, valid arguments can have false premises
> and a true conclusion:
>
> P1: If cows give chocolate milk, then chickens lay eggs.
> P2: Cows give chocolate milk.
>
> C: Therefore, chickens lay eggs.
>
Rudy writes:
A valid argument is not concerned about the truth factor of its
premises.  The above example is NOT what Baty contends! The idea that
a conclusion can be true if one or more of the premisess are untrue,
as Baty contends, is nonsense.


But then, it seems Rick and RObert make up their own rules of logic.






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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:33 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

DBWillis writes:

> I don't need to correct it.

Yes, if DBWillis is ever going to demonstrate he has an understanding of the
"Goliath of GRAS", he is going to have toa correct his wrong answer to the
question regarding the hypothetical.

DBWillis writes:

> It is untrue that (using your
> standard for "evidence") we
> could determine the age of
> an instantly created mature
> world.

DBWillis is getting ahead of himself, which is why the step by step process was
designed with such as him in mind.  I'll be posting an updated step by step
process shortly.

DBWillis wrote:

> It ("Goliath of GRAS) is based on
> a slanted definition of terms...and
> no YE with any sense would agree
> to such a definition. If such a
> definition will give us a false
> answer about the Resurrection
> then it is a bad one to use.

Followers of the discussion will note that DBWillis has run off from dealing
with his "resurrection" argument problem which I had built into the step by step
process.

It is false that the definitions are slanted.  The definitions go directly to
the issue in dispute!  YE's won't agree because, like DBWillis, their postion is
briefly summarized as:

> I, DBWillis, et al, have our
> interpretation of the text
> regarding the real world
> and that trumps any real
> world evidence to the
> contrary.

Please watch for followups and the updated step by step process to be posted
shortly.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

----------DBWillis' Message---------------

To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
From: DBWILLIS@...
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:38 PM

David Willis here,

Baty:>>> While I propose that it is possible
> to hypothesize a world in which
> some thing really is more than
> a few thousand years old and
> we can so determine from
> evidence independent of any
> interpretation of a religious
> text, DBWillis has yet to come
> to that knowledge!

> I await DBWillis' correction of his
> error. He can hypothesize such
> a world, we know he can do so,
> and he knows we know that he
> can do so.

> DBWillis just needs to correct
> his answer on step four and
> then proceed to step five.>>

I don't need to correct it. It is untrue that (using your standard for
"evidence") we could determine the age of an instantly created mature world. If
indeed God chose to instantly create, then your standard and method for aging
would give a wrong answer. Sorry but dems da berries. That is INDEPENDENT
of anything I am told by the text. I know that by common sense. It is
exactly like the same problem I'd have in determining how long a tree was in my
yard. Depends on if it were planted as a seed or moved there. In a real
world it may be possible to look closely at the roots etc...however, I use it
only as an illustration. If God wants to make a fully formed mountain or soil
or atmosphere INSTANTLY, there is no reason He would or could not.

Stop wasting our time with your silly syllogism. It is based on a slanted
definition of terms...and no YE with any sense would agree to such a
definition. If such a definition will give us a false answer about the
Resurrection
then it is a bad one to use.

And PLEASE try to cut out all the repetitive reposting of old
stuff...pasting it in at the end of your posts. It will cause me to overlook
anything new
you may say...I promise you. I am sick of wading through it to see if
something new is in there.

DW

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





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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 3:15 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Testing a fundamental position-step by step!

My most vocal, recent critics (i.e., DBWillis and Terry W. Benton),
demonstrating a failure to understand the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the
history of the popular, public debate over young-earth creation-science, have
now made it quite clear that they are not up to completing the step by step
course in "Understanding the 'Goliath of GRAS'".

I have prepared this edited step by step course for others who may wish to take
up the course and, regardless of their position, demonstrate an understanding of
the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate!

Here's the "Goliath of GRAS" argument for ready reference, with the first steps
in the process following:

>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.

Step One:

Is the "Goliath of GRAS" a logically valid, modus ponens argument?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

Step Two:

Can you hypothesize a situation where
the Word of God (the text) cannot be wrong and says that everything was created
over a period of six days?

> Correct answer: "YES!"

Step Three:

Can you hypothesize a situation where
some interpret the text to mean that everything was created over a period of
six, literal, 24 hours or so days less than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less
than 100,000 years ago)?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

Step Four:

Can you hypothesize a situation, in conjunction with steps two and three, where
there is some thing(s) that is, really is, more than a few thousand years old
and that we can so determine from evidence independent of the interpretation of
the text by some?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

Step Five:

Can you hypothesize a situation where, if there really is some thing more than a
few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of the interpretation
by some of the text, that the interpretation of the text by some is wrong (i.e.,
that real world claims based on interpretations of religious texts are subject
to falsification and may, just may, like geocentrism, in fact, be falsified with
reference to the evidence independent of the text and its interpretation)?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

Step Six:

Is the following hypothetical statement, based on your answers to the above,
true:

"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."

> Correct answer: "YES"!

Once we come to agreement on the answers to the above questions, we can proceed
with further steps leading the student to further demonstrate his understanding
of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate over
young-earth creation-science.

Following my name below is the outstanding invitation regarding the proposed,
formal, in writing, for the record discussion of the substantive issue involved
in the "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

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

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the
churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement. To date, no
bonafide young- earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or
rebut the comments.

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

The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age
follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Here now 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".

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 (i.e., "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the
real world
evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

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 scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #2:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has not been in
> existence for more than ten
> thousand (10,000) years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd Greene

Proposition #3:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #4:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has not been in existence
> for more than ten thousand (10,000)
> years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd 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.

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated (i.e., Terry W.
Benton, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific position
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.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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



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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:46 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: More Tinroad6g Lies

Terry W. Benton wrote, in part:

> Robert Baty is like tinroad6g in
> this way: they both repeat their
> antics many times a day and never
> actually engage a meaningful
> discussion of problems that their
> position holds.

That is false, and Terry W. Benton knows it is false.  I've been desperately
trying to get Terry W. Benton to have a meaningful discussion with me regarding
his various, well-documented and assorted problems, and to work with me to
demonstrate a basic understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS".  He has steadfastly
refused, preferring his unseemly, unrepentant course and vowing that his
repentance just

> "ain't going to happen"!

Terry W. Benton wrote:

> Robert Baty was the one addressed
> who will not answer questions
> pertaining to these topics because
> they expose a major flaw in his belief-
> system.

That also is false, and Terry knows it is false.

See my response above.

Yet, nice guy that I am, I remain available to assist Terry W. Benton with his
assorted problems and help him work through the step by step program designed to
allow him to demonstrate a basic understanding of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Look for the updated step by step program to be published shortly.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry W. Benton
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:56 AM
To: DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] More Tinroad6g Lies

Tinroad6g:   Here is an example of a cult members attitude

TB: Tinroad6g is of the Baptist cult and actually would be considered cultic in
his behavior by most of them because he tries to control the flow of information
so as not to ever discuss things with an opponent in a fair setting. That is the
way Jim Jones got the People's Temple to go along with him to Guyana and swallow
his poison. So, Tinroad6g actually proves that HE is a "cult member". Then this
cult member, tinroad6g, takes the following statement out of context and
misapplies the point. I had been using Robert Baty's antics and playing his
words back to him and when I did this a couple of time Robert responded with:

RB: Please Terry, don't further condemn yourself with your "foolish"
antics!

I replied to Robert with:
TB: Hahahaha. Now he sees how foolish his antics sound when played
back to him. HAHAHAHA. Now, what if we just did this 50 times a day,
playing his antics back and never actually engaging a meaningful
discussion of problems that his position holds for other issues like
the full-grown first man, Adam, the full-grown rib made woman, the
flood, the water to wine miracle, and the resurrection. What a
tinroad6g we have in Robert Baty!

The point was not that tinroad6g does not believe these things, but that Robert
Baty is like tinroad6g in this way: they both repeat their antics many times a
day and never actually engage a meaningful discussion of problems that their
position holds. The same tactics are employed by both tinroad6g and Robert Baty,
but not on the same issues. Now, look at that quote, and see how tinroad6g
misapplies it below.


tinroad6g
*Cult members lie about Christians and Christianity

TB: So, that proves that tinroad6g is indeed a cult member.

I (tinroad6g)believe in--"the full-grown first man, Adam, the full-
grown rib made woman, the flood, the water to wine miracle, and the
resurrection" yet the cultist Terry Benton indicates that I do not.
There will never be an apology for this outright lie so I won't ask
for one.

TB: Tinroad6g will not ask for an apology and get one because he knows he is
lying (cult members do this you know). He knows that Robert Baty was the one
addressed who will not answer questions pertaining to these topics because they
expose a major flaw in his belief-system. The comparison to tinroad6g is only in
how they avoid legitimate debate and discussion and use similar taunting and
grandstanding antics while avoiding answering questions about the scriptures and
how those scriptures relate to and call into serious question his stronger
respect for naturalistic science above the word of God. So, I am asking that
tinroad6g apologize for outright lying again.

Tin: However-the post by this cultist demonstrates the teachings of his
cult and what those teachings have done to him

TB: I'm glad to see how a cultist operates. First, he controls the flow of
information, never letting his sheep hear an opposing viewpoint, and never
entering and finishing a real debate in a fair setting and will delete things
from the archives so people cannot check behind him on things he said, and will
taunt and grandstand as some mighty hero of the faith for appearance sake, and
will lie to the people on his list to create more control of how his sheep will
distrust all but him because he is so honest and all his opponents are liars (he
tells them so repeatedly), and never comes out of his fox-hole to a fair arena
for a fair exchange. Lies, control, deleting archives for further control,
taunting and grandstanding from his safety-zone, never discussing and debating
in a fair setting, all marks of a cult leader. I'd say all the markings of a
true cultist is seen right there in tinroad6g. I should have added "false
identity" is also sometimes characteristic of the deceiver
  s and cultists. The only way that this fellow can prove he is not a cultist is
to do the following: 1) give us his real name, 2) stop lying and taunting from
his safe fox-hole, and 3) enter a reasonable and fair arena such as
ReligiousDebates@YahooGroups.com and agree to reasonable topics and reasonable
and fair rules of engagement and then follow through to the end of the
discussion. Will that happen? Only if he is not a cult leader. But, if he
continues his present games on into the future, we know his use of "cult" is
just another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Cult? Cult leaders love
to use this prejudicial term toward others to give themselves more cultic
control. Anybody can use it for prejudicial purposes, and actual cultists are
notorious for using it when someone invites them into a fair arena for
discussion and they know they will be exposed there. It becomes handy to avoid
the fair arena and create prejudice by throwing out terms like that. Why has
tinr
  oad6g avoided an open and fair discussion at a fair site? Why is he taunting,
lying, and using slanderous and prejudicial words? These are the markings of a
true cultist.


Terry W. Benton

Visit: www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

Dan Billingsly vs. Terry W. Benton Exchange on the Four Gospels at:
http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com/SiteFiles/157/Benton%20Billingsly%20Debate\
.doc

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




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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:38 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Testing a fundamental position-step by step!

(Updated to add partipant answers.  Feel free to let me know if I got your
answers wrong, with justification for any change.  New students, or those I may
have left out, can post their answers to this subject thread and will be added
to the review posts.-RLBaty)

My most vocal, recent critics (i.e., DBWillis and Terry W. Benton),
demonstrating a failure to understand the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the
history of the popular, public debate over young-earth creation-science, have
now made it quite clear that they are not up to completing the step by step
course in "Understanding the 'Goliath of GRAS'".

I have prepared this edited step by step course for others who may wish to take
up the course and, regardless of their position, demonstrate an understanding of
the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate!

Here's the "Goliath of GRAS" argument for ready reference, with the first steps
in the process following:

>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.

Step One:

Is the "Goliath of GRAS" a logically valid, modus ponens argument?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

> DBWillis: "YES"!
> Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Step Two:

Can you hypothesize a situation where
the Word of God (the text) cannot be wrong and says that everything was created
over a period of six days?

> Correct answer: "YES!"

> DBWillis: "YES"!
> Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Step Three:

Can you hypothesize a situation where
some interpret the text to mean that everything was created over a period of
six, literal, 24 hours or so days less than a few thousand years ago (i.e., less
than 100,000 years ago)?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

> DBWillis: "YES"!
> Terry W. Benton: "YES"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Step Four:

Can you hypothesize a situation, in conjunction with steps two and three, where
there is some thing(s) that is, really is, more than a few thousand years old
and that we can so determine from evidence independent of the interpretation of
the text by some?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

> DBWillis: "NO"!
> Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Step Five:

Can you hypothesize a situation where, if there really is some thing more than a
few thousand years old and we can so determine independent of the interpretation
by some of the text, that the interpretation of the text by some is wrong (i.e.,
that real world claims based on interpretations of religious texts are subject
to falsification and may, just may, like geocentrism, in fact, be falsified with
reference to the evidence independent of the text and its interpretation)?

> Correct answer: "YES"!

> DBWillis: "NO"!
> Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Step Six:

Is the following hypothetical statement, based on your answers to the above,
true:

"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."

> Correct answer: "YES"!

> DBWillis: "NO"!
> Terry W. Benton: "NO"!
> Todd S. Greene: "YES"!
> Rick Hartzog: "YES"!

Once we come to agreement on the answers to the above questions, we can proceed
with further steps leading the student to further demonstrate his understanding
of the "Goliath of GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate over
young-earth creation-science.

Following my name below is the outstanding invitation regarding the proposed,
formal, in writing, for the record discussion of the substantive issue involved
in the "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

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

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

---------Outstanding Invitation-------------

I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the
churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement. To date, no
bonafide young- earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or
rebut the comments.

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

The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age
follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Here now 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".

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 (i.e., "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the
real world
evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

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 scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #2:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has not been in
> existence for more than ten
> thousand (10,000) years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd Greene

Proposition #3:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #4:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has not been in existence
> for more than ten thousand (10,000)
> years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd 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.

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated (i.e., Terry W.
Benton, DBWillis, et al) have themselves retreated into the UNscientific
position
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.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:06 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] The rest of the quotes...

I wrote yesterday:
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote (in part):
> >
> >
> > Since Rick seems to know what the "missing" context is,
> > maybe he has the material and will be so kind as to
> > present it here.
>
> Yes, I already have it, and will certainly present it.
>
> I'm busy today in the outside world.
>
> The first thing to keep in mind -- and you can verify
> this from Terry's rhetoric in these posts -- is that
> he is still pretending the FACT of evolution and the
> THEORIES used to explain it are one and the same.
>
> He is pretending that a quote saying that Darwinian
> "gradualism" is not well-supported in the fossil record
> EQUALS saying that the FACT that the life forms on
> Earth have changed over the course of hundreds of millions
> of years is not supported by the fossil record.  I have
> pointed this out several times.
>
> Notice the care he takes to always talk about the
> "general theory of evolution" as if showing some
> vague and unspecified part of one of the theoretical
> aspects is not supported by fossils, that means the
> whole thing is false.
>
> I have explained this to Terry numerous times -- he is
> doing this deliberately.  You can get rid of all the
> theories about evolution completely and we will still
> be left with layers of sedimentary rock several thousand
> feet thick that conclusively prove that the life forms
> on Earth have changed dramatically over the course of
> several hundred millions of years.
>
> If Terry doesn't like the "theories" that explain that
> *fact*,  which falsifies his young-earth creationism,
> no big deal -- "gradualism", "punctuated equilibria",
> whatever... HOWEVER evolution happens, his young-earth
> creationism is still false and is indisputably shown
> to be false by the fossil record.  That is why he has
> to pretend that these quotes talking about theories
> are in some way evidence against the FACTS.
>
>
>
>
> Rick Hartzog
> Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


Here are the answers to the questions I asked Terry
about his quotes -- answers that Terry refused to
provide.

I had written:

>> Terry,
>>
>> I know you are pressed for time, so instead of
>> playing pattycake with a common internet troll,
>> how about giving us the answers to these questions
>> I have asked repeatedly concerning your use of
>> these quotes?
>>
>> Once again...
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Re: Facts To Remember
>>
>> [One fact to remember is that Terry W. Benton
>> doesn't like to answer questions...]


> TB: Nor does Rick Hartzog in certain areas of study.

Look -- I answer your questions and you ignore the
answers.

I refute your pasted creationist nonsense and you
don't discuss it; you just paste more.


> Yet, whether I have satisfied Rick on questions
> that concern him so much does not alter even one
> of the facts presented.

Nor does your misrepresentation of those facts alter
them, nor does your pretense that discrediting the
explanation for an observation will make the observation
itself just go away.


> This reply will offer some insight to the extent
> I am able to respond...

I think Terry means it will offer some insight into the
amount of evasiveness he is willing to engage in to keep
from answering a few simple questions.


> ...but expect no more until and unless I start
> getting some answers from Rick who does not like
> to answer questions.

That's a laugh!

Want me to post the list of messages you haven't
responded to -- again?  It's a lot longer now than
it was the last time.  (And by the way, most of the
questions you ask at the end of this post were already
answered in one or more other messages to which you
have never offered any response.)

Anyway, about these quotes:


>> Terry Benton *very selectively* quotes Mark Ridley:
>>
>> (3) "Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and
>> pattern of evolution ..... it springs, I believe,
>> from the false ides that the fossil record provides
>> an important part of the evidence that evolution took
>> place." Written by Mark Ridley (Zoologist, Oxford
>> University) in his article "Who Doubts Evolution?"
>> in New Scientist, Vol. 90, June 25, 1981 p:830
>>
>>
>> (5) "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether
>> gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record
>> as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution ....."
>> Written by Professor Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology,
>> Oxford University) in his article "Who Doubts Evolution?",
>> in New Scientist, Vol. 90, No. 1259, June 1981 p:831
>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> In quote (3) here it appears you have left out a
>> substantial chunk of text and replaced it with an
>> ellipsis.
>>
>> 1) What is the sentence in the original article that
>> follows the first sentence of your quote (3)?

> TB: How does it alter what he said? Is there something
> he said that reverses this part of what he said?

Here is what he said:

| "Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern
| of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent
| publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a
| fact.  The evidence for evolution simply does not
| depend upon the fossil record."
|
| "Some palaeontologists maintain that animals have
| evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate
| stages from one form to another. Others point out that
| fossils record offers no firm evidence for such gradual
| change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any
| one animal species in the past survived more or less
| unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved
| rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus,
| instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of
| "punctuated equilibrium". The argument is about the
| actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders,
| seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is
| about the truth of evolution --- whether evolution
| occurred at all.
|
| "This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe,
| from the false idea that the fossil record provides an
| important part of the evidence that evolution took place.
| In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set
| of arguments --- and the present debate within
| palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence
| that supports evolution."
(Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts
evolution?" New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.830)


Ridley is saying that people like Terry Benton hear
about this argument among paleontologists and misrepresent
it as if it is saying that evolution never happened,
which is exactly what Terry Benton has done.

Haven't you, Terry?


> If the point being made is only regarding the point
> being made by the quote, is it dishonest to suggest
> that all quotes must also include enough to make
> OTHER points? Is this not a dishonest tactic of the
> evolutionist? To pretend that the quote was taken out
> of context because the quote did not include other
> side-points? Is that not a little disingenuous? So,
> I take it that this question is suggestive about YOU.
> You are taking the quote of the quote out of context,
> and trying to make it appear that the creationist
> is misquoting and being deceptive. By this I mean that
> you are claiming that because the quote does not
> include more, that one would get a different idea
> than the quote itself conveys if one will read the
> next sentence. No, the next sentence only makes a
> different point.

I don't think you really believe this, but OK.

You wrote:

> Jesus was an idiot. He spoke of those things
> as if the Bible had it right. Poor, ignorant,
> uneducated Jew: he knew nothing of poetry and
> symbolism, much less of the good science we all
> now know to be Gospel.

I disagree, Terry.

I don't see how anybody who claims to be a preacher
could say such things.


You say:

> The point of the quote is about the point the sentence
> makes, namely, that even evolutionists will admit that
> the fossil record does not show sufficient proof of
> general evolution.

But the fossil record *does* prove "evolution"!  See!
You are pretending that the quote says the fossil record
doesn't prove evolution, and the fossil record most
certainly *does* prove evolution -- and that is NOT
what Ridley is talking about!  He is talking about
proving *theories* of HOW evolution happened -- to
creationists!

And you are pretending that the fossil record leaves
some doubt as to whether evolution DID happen.  That is
not the case at all -- the fossil record proves it!
Change over time -- that is exactly what the fossil
record shows, in a big way.


>> 2) What is the "it" that *really* "springs" from
>> the "false idea that the fossil record provides an
>> important part of the evidence that evolution took
>> place"? What exactly is the "it" that Ridley is
>> referring to here, Terry?

> TB: I don't know.

I don't believe you.

I think you do know, and that's one of the reasons you
wouldn't produce the quote:

| "The argument is about the actual historical pattern
| of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy
| unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth
| of evolution --- whether evolution occurred at all.
|
| "This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe,
| from the false idea that the fossil record provides an
| important part of the evidence that evolution took
| place."

You are making a "terrible mistake", Terry, according to
your source:


| "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it
| is the creationists and the media. But why? One reason
| that keeps on betraying itself is that a lot of people
| just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution
| stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the
| gradual descent of one species from another in the
| fossil record.  However, the gradual change of fossil
| species has never been part of the evidence for
| evolution."
(p.830-831)


> How would any "it" alter the fact that he said that
> it is a false idea that the fossil record provides
> an important part of the evidence that evolution
> took place"?

He's saying that creationists arguing about fossils
isn't going to get them anywhere -- that there are
much more robust proofs of evolution that they are
going to have to deal with.  Little did Ridley realize,
I suspect, that the creationists don't have any intention
of dealing with all the lines of evidence that converge
at biological evolution.


> No matter what "it" is (I am not going to chase all
> these things down for you)...

What do you mean by that?  You should have chased
this stuff down BEFORE you pasted it to the list --
you don't want to be passing along inaccurate and/or
misleading information, now do you?

You are doing exactly what Ridley was talking about!

You pretend, because Ridley says the proof of evolution
is NOT dependent on the fossil record, that means that
"evolution never happened".  You pretend that Ridley
saying "real" evolutionists don't use the fossil record
to prove evolution means that the fossil record does
not support the fact that the life forms on Earth have
changed over time.


> there is nothing that will change the strength of
> the quote. If he said "it" in reference to "green
> cow concepts", then green cow concepts spring from the
> false idea that the fossil record provides an important
> part of the evidence that evolution took place. Again,
> this is a very suspicious maneuver. What difference does
> it make what "it" refers to?

"It" is creationist confusion.  Ridley says:

| "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it
| is the creationists and the media."
(p.830)

That's YOU, Terry.


> The quote is not saying the author does not believe in
> the general theory of evolution. He is only making the
> point that the author agrees with the creationist
> regarding the inadequacy of the fossil record to prove
> the theory of evolution.

Your problem is not what some theory about how evolution
came about may say -- YOUR problem is that the fossil
record clearly shows that the life forms on Earth have
changed dramatically over hundreds of millions of years.


I had written:

>> As to quote (5), we have already discussed this
>> and you either did not understand it or you have
>> decided to ignore it.
>>
>> 1) Why does Ridley say that no "real" evolutionist
>> uses the fossil record to prove either gradualism or
>> punctuated equilibria to creationists?

> TB: Because the fossil record can't prove it, and
> real evolutionists know it.  That is the point.

But the fossil record does prove that the life forms
on Earth have changed over hundreds of millions of
years, which Ridley full well knows, and THAT is the
point that you can't accept, and that you are pretending
this quote is evidence against!  THAT'S the point!

The fossil record DOES prove that evolution occurred!

Whether it was gradual or punctuated or polka dotted is
not your problem -- YOUR problem, Terry, is what the
fossil record does clearly show: that your young-earth
creationism is wrong.


>> 2) What is the rest of the sentence in quote (5),
>> and the sentence that follows it?

> TB: It is immaterial to the point. You miss the point,
> and imply deception is going on in the use of the quote
> because he does not quote all about other points. Well,
> would it then be more honest to just quote the entire
> work, no matter what the point, just so we don't get
> accused of not including the next sentence for dishonest
> reasons? Ridiculous! Ridley admits the particular point
> about the inadequacy of the fossil record. That is all
> the creationist is showing from hostile witnesses, which
> becomes a stronger piece of evidence for the creationist
> on that particular point, rather than just trying to make
> the point with friendly witnesses. By the way, I know
> that Ridley believes in evolution, and nobody said otherwise.

Here is the answer I asked you for:

| "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist
| or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in
| favor of evolution as opposed to special creation.  This
| does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

In our particular case, Terry, I am not trying to prove
either gradualism or punctuated equilibrium to you, nor
am I trying to prove "evolution over special creation",
since I believe that evolution IS part of God's special
creation.

No, all I am doing is showing that your young-earth
creationism is wrong, and regardless of what you think
Ridley may be saying, you ARE going to have to deal with
the fossil record.


> It is the fact that he admits the particular point that
> the fossil record does not prove and demonstrate the truth
> of evolution, that becomes very important to know, because
> some people are misled to believe that the fossil record
> proves the case for general evolution and it does not, as
> admitted by Ridley. Also, by the way, I know that Ridley
> said afterwards, but it is not germane to the point being
> made about the inadequacy of the fossil record.

The fossil record is quite adequate to show that the life
forms on Earth have changed over hundreds of millions of
years.  That is why it is so dishonest of you to use
this quote in this way -- Ridley says that the proof of
biological evolution does not *depend* on the fossil record.

Which may be true, since there are a number of other ways
to prove biological evolution has occurred, but the fossil
record is solid *disproof* of young-earth creationism.


>> 3) What are the three things that Ridley suggests the
>> critics of evolution *really* need to be thinking
>> about (i.e., "dealing with"), rather than trying to
>> argue about the fossil record?

> TB: Again, the quote was not used to show that Ridley
> doubts evolution, so that would not be the use of the
> part that was quoted. The part that was quoted was
> indeed quoted in context, and nothing he said before or
> afterwards changes the fact that a hostile witness
> (hostile to creationism) admitted that the fossil record
> does not prove evolution. That point should be emphasized,
> and so it was and will always be correct for me to remind
> people of these FACTS.

Here is the answer to the question -- the answer you refused
to provide:

| "So what is the evidence that species have evolved?
| There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence,
| and it is these, not the 'fossil evidence', that the
| critics should be thinking about.  The three arguments
| are from the observed evolution of species, from
| biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of
| taxonomy."
(page 831)

| "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability
| of species.  Other defences of the theory of evolution
| could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a
| coherent alternative.  Darwin's theory is also uniquely
| able to account for both the presence of design, and the
| absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature."
(page 832)

And keep in mind that this was before genetics was sequencing
entire genomes.  So there is ANOTHER very solid line of
evidence that creationists would have to try to explain.

But YOUR problem, Terry, is that the fossil record does show
that the life forms on Earth have changed over *hundreds of
millions of years*.

What Ridley was saying (in 1981) is that the fossil record
could not show one species turning into another (which is
no longer the case, by the way), and that creationists
could just as easily claim that God actively replaced one
kind of trilobite with another kind every few million
years.  Ridley was saying that between Darwinian
"gradualism" -- slow and continuous change -- or punctuated
equilibria -- periods of stasis followed by relatively
rapid change, neither of these THEORIES could be proved
by relying solely on the fossil record, and that there
are better proofs of evolution than fossils.

Little did he suspect, I imagine, that over 25 years later
young-earth creationists would still be trying to avoid
those issues by pointing to a snippet from one of his
articles and saying that the fossil record is inadequate
to show that "the general theory of evolution" ever happened.

In reality, the quotes you have used here are taken
out of their context of not only Ridley's article but
out of the context of the entire body of scientific
literature on the subject of paleontology.



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


>> Terry Benton quoted:
>>
>> (4) "Darwin's theory of natural selection has always
>> been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
>> probably most people assume that fossils provide a
>> very important part of the general argument that is
>> made in favour of Darwinian interpretations of the
>> history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
>> true." Written by Dr David M. Raup (Curator of Geology,
>> Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago) in his article
>> "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" in Field
>> Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1,
>> 1979 p:22
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> As to this quote from David M. Raup, the last time you
>> used it I simply offered some comments off the top of
>> my head and went on to the next quote:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8909
>>
>> You never responded to those comments in any way,
>> but now here you are using the same quote again.
>>
>> Maybe you look at things a little different than I do,
>> but it seems to me that when one makes an assertion
>> in a discussion group and somebody else offers some
>> criticism of that assertion, for one to just repeat the
>> assertion without responding to the criticism is at
>> best rude, and possibly disingenuous.

> TB: I saw no need to say more than was already said
> repeatedly, and that is the quote was in context, and
> it was used to make the particular point, not a point
> as to whether Raup or Ridley or Gould disbelieved in
> evolution.

We aren't talking about whether Raup believes in
evolution or not; we are talking about whether what
he means by this is what you are pretending he means.


> When we show that hostile witnesses agree with the
> particular point that the fossil record does not show
> and demonstrate the progression of evolution from
> species to new classification, it strengthens THAT
> point only.

Well, even if it were true that the fossil record does
not show such progressions, that would still leave YOU
with the much larger problem -- the fossil record does
clearly show that the life forms of Earth have changed
over the course of hundreds of millions of years.


> So, it is a common and dishonest ploy to act like the
> creationist was trying to make a broader point, that
> the person quoted did not still believe in the general
> theory of evolution on some other grounds that the
> fossil record alone could not provide.

And here again you act as if disproving some theory or
another would get rid of the fact that the fossil record
does clearly show that the life forms on Earth have changed
dramatically over the course of hundreds of millions of
years.


> The quote is discussing the adequacy of the only tangible
> evidence of the past, and that is what is left in the
> fossil record.

Sorry, but the fossil record is NOT the only tangible
record of the past.  You are also going to have to deal
with the genetics.


> That evidence is sorely lacking, and leading
> evolutionists testify to that FACT.
>
> So, I encourage people to keep that FACT in mind.

The fact that YOU need to keep in mind is that the
fossil record is PLENTY good evidence to blow your
young-earth creationism out of the water.


>> RH:This time I have taken the trouble to look up a little
>> information about the quote and it turns out my earlier
>> comments were pretty much right on target.
>>
>> So let me ask you:
>>
>> 1) What are the very next two sentences after your
>> selected excerpt?

> TB: It does not matter. Raup makes the particular point
> we are pointing out to be FACTUAL, and that is what
> leading evolutionists and creationists agree upon,
> and that is the FACT that the fossil record alone is
> not a good source for proving that general evolution
> happened.

| "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution --
| defined as change in organisms over time -- and the
| explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution,
| through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest
| how the evolutionary change took place."
(p.22)

Sound familiar?

And this is what I keep telling you -- that the fossil record
does prove that evolution happened, and you are wrongly
using these quotes.  Raup is talking about an aspect of the
*theory* -- Darwinian "natural selection" -- as a mechanism
for how evolution works, and saying that the fossil record is
not really able in most cases to show us WHAT made the changes
happen, or how big a role simple natural selection played
in bringing these changes about.


> What he said established that point, and what he said
> afterwards in no way diminishes that point.

What point?  You are trying to claim, based on this
quote, that the CHANGES NEVER HAPPENED!  That is NOT
what Raup is saying -- he is saying that we can't tell
from the fossil record WHY the changes happened.

We can SEE the changes -- the fossil record clearly
shows that life on Earth has changed over long
periods of time.


> So, this implication of dishonesty you are raising about
> the quotes only implicates you.

Well then answer me honestly -- why are you misrepresenting
what Raup said?


> You want two more sentences that make another point?
> Why not two more to amke another point, and two more
> to make another? What you need to show is that Raup
> did not mean what he said in the part quoted from him.

He means that we can't tell, simply from seeing the changes
in the fossil record, what mechanism(s) are at work to
bring those changes about.  If YOU had provided the
sentences I asked you for, this would have been very
evident.


>> 2) Why didn't you include these two sentences in
>> your selected quote -- did it sound too much like
>> what I've been telling you all along?

> TB: It does not matter. Raup makes the particular point
> we are pointing out to be FACTUAL, and that is what
> leading evolutionists and creationists agree upon,
> and that is the FACT that the fossil record alone is
> not a good source for proving that general evolution
> happened. What he said established that point, and what
> he said afterwards in no way diminishes that point.

This is exactly the same thing you said above, and you
are as wrong now as you were before.

Here is what Raup says:

| Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see
| change. If any of us were to be put down in the
| Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the
| difference. Some of the plants and animals would be
| familiar but most would have changed and some of the
| types would be totally different from those living today...
| This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that
| evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as
| change; but it does not tell us how this change too place,
| and that is really the question. If we allow that natural
| selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil
| record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for
| 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.
(p. 26)

Now that DIRECTLY REFUTES the claim you are making --
that Raup "agrees with the creationists" that the fossil
record is not a good source for proving your "general"
evolution.

Raup's article says the same thing I said when you
used this quote the last time -- you are deliberately
confusing the FACT that the life forms on Earth have
changed over hundreds of millions of years with various
parts of the *theories* that explain how the fact
came about.


>> 3) How much evidence did Raup say there was that
>> natural selection actually works?

> TB: It does not matter. Raup makes the particular point
> we are pointing out to be FACTUAL, and that is what
> leading evolutionists and creationists agree upon, and
> that is the FACT that the fossil record alone is not a
> good source for proving that general evolution happened.
> What he said established that point, and what he said
> afterwards in no way diminishes that point.

This is exactly the same thing you said above, and you
are still wrong.  Leading evolutionists and creationists
DO NOT agree on the point you claim, because what YOU
mean by "general evolution" is that it never happened,
and what Raup is saying is that it did happen (a fact
that is clearly proved by the fossil record) but what
the fossil record doesn't tell us is HOW it happened.

So you DO NOT agree with Raup, and you are using this
quote to pretend he is saying something he is NOT
saying.

Here is the answer to the question (3) I asked:

| "I think it is safe to say that we know for sure
| that natural selection, as a process, does work.
| There is a mountain of experimental and observational
| evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows
| that natural selection as a biological process works.
(p.25)

And now we have genetics...


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


>> Terry Benton quoted:
>>
>> (7) "Contrary to what most scientists write, the
>> fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory
>> of evolution because it is this theory (there are
>> several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.
>> By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if
>> we then say the fossil record supports this theory"
>> Written by Ronald R. West in "Palaeontology and
>> Uniformatarianism", Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968 p:216
>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> As you well know, I have sometimes been critical of
>> what I perceive to be slipshod "scholarship" on the
>> part of creationists.
>>
>> 1) For the quote by West, why do you have the title
>> of the article wrong?

> TB: Probably a quick scribal error. How is this
> significant? If you mistype something, does that
> implicate you as dishonest?

Well, as that article about young-earth creationist
quote-mining tactics that Todd pasted said, once
is a mistake, twice is carelessness, three times is
stupidity.  In that first list of quotes you pasted
there were a dozen or more places where the author's
name was misspelled, or the citation was wrong, or
the wrong person was being quoted -- this is
deliberate misinformation.  We run into it again and
again -- they do it so you won't be able to track
down the original sources.


>> 2) Why have you not included the full name of the
>> publication in which the article appears?

> TB: For brevity sake. What of it? Are you implying
> that these things were devious ploys to keep people
> from finding the reference because it does not
> establish the point being made?

No, I am not "implying" it, I am saying it point-blank.

These shysters don't want you to be able to find the
original source, and they know that very few people
will go to the trouble of ever tracking it down.


> How disingenuous on your part, and perhaps intentionally
> deceptive too. Why are you making something deceptive of
> it? Is this for creating suspicion? Or, is there some way
> that abbreviating becomes deceptive and evil only in the
> hands of creationists?

I am saying that this is a standard tactic of creationist
quote-miners that happens time after time after time.
As the article Todd pasted pointed out, this would get
any undergraduate who was so "careless" a failing grade,
but it is so commonly used by creationists that it cannot
be "accidental".  I pointed this out in the first batch
of quotes you produced -- and I have pointed it out to
others long before now.  It is deliberate dishonesty.


>> 3) Having read a little longer excerpt of this article
>> than what you have included here, it appears to me that
>> you are once again trying to use a quote to say one
>> thing when the original author is trying to make an
>> entirely different point; in other words, you are using
>> the quote out of context. At least that's what it looks
>> like. But to give you the benefit of the doubt:
>>
>> What is it that West is getting at here?

> TB: West is affirming evolution for sure. No doubt
> about it. However, as he does so, he leaks some tidbits
> of truth that some people need to recognize as FACT.

You haven't even looked for more of West's article, have
you?  You don't have any idea what West's article is
even about, do you?


> He admits the particular point we are pointing out
> to be FACTUAL, and that is what leading evolutionists
> and creationists agree upon, and that is the FACT
> that the fossil record alone is not a good source for
> proving that general evolution happened. What he said
> established that point, and what he said afterwards in
> no way diminishes that point.

You are oh so wrong.


> And, I might add that is it disingenuous and deceptive
> to play this kind of game with legitimate quotes and
> frame it as if it is something quoted out of context.

Give me a break.  You don't have any idea what West's
article was about, so you don't know whether the quote
was taken out of context or not.


> If we said that West does not believe in evolution,
> and then quoted this part to prove THAT point, then it
> would be taken out of context.

If you say that West is saying the fossil record is
indadequate to show that evolution has occurred you
are doing *worse* than taking it out of context --
you don't even understand what he's saying!


> What is happening here is that YOU are taking the
> quote of the quote out of context, and trying to make
> it appear that the creationist is misquoting and being
> deceptive.

In this case the creationist is just showing his
ignorance.


> They know these guys believe there is other evidence
> for evolution. The point of the quote is that in
> regard to the fossil record, these guys agree that it
> does not show and prove the general theory of evolution.

No, what West is saying that the theory of evolution --
whatever it is -- has to adjust itself to what the
geological record shows, rather than interpreting the
geological record in accordance with any particular
theory of evolution.


> So, what West is getting at in no way undermines the
> FACT that he agrees that the fossil record cannot itself
> prove the general theory of evolution.

The fossil record does very clearly show that the life
forms on Earth have changed dramatically over the course
of hundreds of millions of years.  However any "theory
of evolution" has to be formulated to fit with that fact,
that is a fact that the theory is going to have to take
into account.


>> Please be specific.

> TB: In this quote, West is getting at the fact that
> the fossil record is inadequate to prove the general
> theory of evolution.

BALONEY.  You don't have a clue as to what you are
talking about.

West is saying that you CANNOT use any theory of
BIOLOGICAL evolution to interpret a GEOLOGICAL record.

He is saying that principles of geology must be used
to interpret the fossil record, and that if these
uniformitarian principles are ignored and the fossil
record is interpreted according to biological theory,
then it is a circular argument.  That is what he is
stressing -- geology is a science in its own right and
knows how to go about interpreting rock formations.


> Whatever ELSE he is also "getting at" does not at
> all diminish the FACT of what this quote says about
> the fossil record.

The quote doesn't say ANYTHING about the fossil record,
except that biologists are going to have to work with
whatever the geologists come up with, using geological
methodology!

It says:

| "Boundary conditions are the limits within which
| the theory is applicable.  Thus there does not seem
| to be any compartmentalization of attitudes as Scott
| suggests; evolutionary theory deals with biology in
| the present, and uniformitarianism permits the use of
| present processes to explain past events.  The concept
| of uniformitarianism does not enter the picture until
| the attempt is made to use evolutionary theory
| (biological present) to explain the fossil record
| (paleobiological past). Contrary to what most scientists
| write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian
| theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are
| several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.
| By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we
| then say the fossil record supports this theory. When
| an effort is made to explain the fossil record (whether
| it be taxonomic differences or changes in response to
| ecological factors) in terms of Darwinian evolution the
| concept of uniformitarianism is essential, for it allows
| us to use the present to explain the past.  This should
| be its main purpose, to allow us to reconstruct the past
| on the basis of a theory or theories founded on
| nonhistoric events." [Ronald R. West, "Paleoecology and
| Uniformitarianism", The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon,
| Vol. 45, No. 4, May 1968, p. 216]


You really blew it on this one, Terry.


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


>> Terry Benton quoted:
>>
>> (6) "..... anatomy and the fossil record cannot be
>> relied upon for evolutionary lineages. Yet
>> palaeontologists persist in doing just this."
>> Written by J. Lowenstein & A. Zihlman in "The
>> Invisible Ape", New Scientist, Vol. 120, No. 1641,
>> 1988 p:57
>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> I frequently say that you take your quotes out of
>> context and present them as if they were some kind of
>> evidence against biological evolution.
>>
>> To me, it appears that you have done this yet again
>> with this quote from Lowenstein and Zihlman. But to
>> give you the benefit of the doubt I am going to ask
>> you to elaborate.
>>
>> 1) Do you know what this article is about, and what
>> Lowenstein and Zihlman are suggesting as a better way
>> of establishing evolutionary lineages?

> TB: Again, yes I know this. I know they are hostile
> witnesses to creation, yet hostile witnesses strengthen
> certain FACTS that need to be kept in mind. Nothing
> these guys said before or afterwards in any way changes
> or diminishes the factual point they make about the
> inadequacy of the fossil record to demonstrate the
> progression of life-forms from one classification into
> another and another.  Do you know that these guys
> establish that point as FACT?

YOUR problem is NOT whether Australopithecus gracilis
is ancestral to Homo erectus, Terry!  YOUR problem is
these tool-using hominids that are clearly not modern
humans that were living in Africa over two million
years ago!


>> 2) Please provide the sentence that immediately
>> precedes the above quote (and while you're at it,
>> replace the word you have left out of the above
>> quote).

> TB: No! Why? Because it is irrelevant to the point.
> : "the fossil record cannot be relied upon for
> evolutionary lineages. Yet palaeontologists persist
> in doing just this." That FACT is what is being
> observed, not whether these guys believe in evolution
> on some other grounds.

Lowensteing and Zihlman say that the fossil record does
tell us a lot about evolution.  They say that we can't
tell, just by anatomy and fossils whether, for example,
Homo habilis is ancestral to Homo erectus, or if they
represent two concurrent lineages who shared a common
ancestor.  But that is not what the real problem is
for young-earth creationists.


> It is a bit deceptive and disingenuous to imply that
> creationists are distorting this quote. It is a
> contextually accurate quote.

The parts you snipped out show otherwise.  For one thing,
they are talking about the fossil record for *human*
evolution alone -- not the entire fossil record.  And they
tell us some things that the fossil record does show about
human evolution.  You are trying to pretend that human
evolution NEVER HAPPENED -- but the fossils, and this very
article by Lowenstein and Zihlman, clearly say otherwise.


> What is happening here is that YOU are taking the quote
> of the quote out of context, and trying to make it
> appear that the creationist is misquoting and being
> deceptive.

If you REALLY wanted to honestly report to us on the current
state of paleontological understanding of human evolution,
why are you using a snippet of a quote from a popular
press article that is 20 years old?

That single fact, all by itself, is enough to show that
creationists are not interested in presenting the facts.


> They know these guys believe there is other evidence
> for evolution.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT "OTHER EVIDENCE" for the FACT
that evolution occurred, we're talking about WHICH
fossil hominids are ancestral species to modern humans.


> The point of the quote is that in regard to the fossil
> record, these guys agree that it does not show and
> prove the general theory of evolution. So, what
> Lowenstein and Zihlman are getting at in no undermines
> the FACT that they agree that the fossil record cannot
> itself prove the general theory of evolution.

You are still (very dishonestly) pretending that the
FACT of evolution and the THEORY that explains it are
one and the same -- that as long as "Darwinism" or whatever
is still a theory then the FACT never happened.

>> 3) Where is it that Lowenstein and Zihlman suggest
>> we will find "the invisible ape"?

> TB: : It does not matter.

Well, since this article was written in 1988, we have
made a good bit of progress in finding that "invisible
ape", Terry.


> They DO make the particular point we are pointing out
> to be FACTUAL, and that is what leading evolutionists
> and creationists agree upon, and that is the FACT that
> the fossil record alone is not a good source for
> proving that general evolution happened.

See, that's where you are wrong, and that is why the
quotes most certainly are "out of context".  You are
pretending that the fossil record is not a good source
for proving that the life forms on Earth have changed
over the course of hundreds of millions of years, while
the "evolutionists" (translate, "actual scientists") are
saying that the fossil record does not tell us *HOW* the
changes took place.

There is NO QUESTION that the fossil record does show,
very clearly, that the life forms on Earth have changed
over hundreds of millions of years -- a fact that YOU deny,
and you are using these quotes to pretend that they support
your position.  They do not.


> What they said established that point, and what they
> said afterwards in no way diminishes that point.

The point you are trying to make is that the life forms
on Earth have not changed over hundreds of millions of
years, and these quotes DO NOT support that idea at all.


>> Please don't try to bluff me on this, Terry. Show us
>> that you have not deliberately taken this little
>> snippet out of its context within the New Scientist
>> article.

OK -- Terry tried to bluff me.

Lowenstein and Zihlman say that we know from the fossil
record that ape-like creatures evolved into upright-walking
hominids.  It's right there in the sentence that
*immediately precedes* Terry's quote, the sentence that I
asked Terry to produce and he said "No!":

| Without the fossil record, we could not know that
| our ancestors walked on two legs before their brains
| became larger, or that savanna was a very early human
| habitat.

Terry, your selected source unequivocally REFUTES your
position in the sentence immediately before the sentence
you partially quoted in defense of your position!

I would say that is "out of context".


> TB: Seems like all the "bluffing" and dishonesty has
> been on your part. You are in fact telling and implying
> bold-faced lies to make it appear that the creationists
> were taking quotes out of context. Each time we see that
> it is not.  They are making the particular point about
> the inadequacy of the fossil record, not whether these
> guys doubt the general theory of evolution.

But these guys DO doubt "the general theory of evolution",
in that they doubt that the explanations we have so far for
HOW evolution takes place are completely adequate to explain
everything we observe in nature showing that evolution DOES
take place.  And Lowenstein and Zihlman make a prediction,
in 1988, about how some of these doubts will be resolved.

What is NOT doubted is that biological evolution is a
FACT.

This has been explained to you over and over, and you are
still using weasel-words to pretend you don't know what
I'm saying.

The FACT is that the fossil record conclusively proves that
the life forms on Earth have changed over hundreds of millions
of years.  The theory ("theories") of evolution explain HOW
these changes took place.  I have explained this to you over
and over, and you are deliberately trying to act as if you
don't have enough sense to understand it.

Here's an excerpt from the New Scientist article. If
Terry would bring himself up to speed on current research
instead of relying on little snippets of 20 year old
popular press articles to make his case, he would find out
that Lowenstein and Zihlman were right -- the completion
of the human and chimpanzee genomes has given us a lot of
insight into that "invisible ape":


| Imaginations run riot in conjuring up an image of our
| most ancient ancestor -- the creature that gave rise
| to both apes and humans. This ancestor is not apparent
| in ape or human anatomy nor in the fossil record,
| but is evident only in the unseen world of the
| genome within the cell.

| ... Without the fossil record, we could not know that
| our ancestors walked on two legs before their brains
| became larger, or that savanna was a very early human
| habitat. But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be
| relied upon for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet
| paleontologists persist in doing just this. They rally
| under the banner of a methodology called cladistics,
| in which  family trees of living and fossil primates
| are constructed on the basis of "primitive" and
| "derived" traits (mostly of teeth and bones), which
| are either shared or not shared. Shared primitive
| characteristics are shared because they come from a
| common ancestor; unshared derived characteristics
| reveal separate evolutionary paths. The subjective
| element in this approach to building evolutionary trees,
| which many palaeontologists advocate with almost
| religious fervour, is demonstrated by the outcome:
| there is no single family tree on which they agree.
| On the contrary, almost every conceivable combination
| and permutation of living and extinct hominoids has
| been proposed by one cladist or another.

| The invisible ape, our common ancestor, is certainly
| not identical to any living species of ape, but the
| molecular, anatomical, behavioural and paleontological
| constraints point to a creature very much like a
| chimpanzee. The molecules tell us that it was more
| closely related to living chimpanzees than to gorillas.
| So it probably looked more like a chimpanzee than any
| other ape. The fact that chimpanzees can walk on two
| feet and that they are social creatures and use tools
| also supports the view that they might have come from
| the same ancestor as humans. The earliest known human
| fossils were like chimpanzees in both size and structure
| of the bones, and differed mainly in the teeth and pelvis.
The invisible ape, by J. Lowesnstein & A. Zihlman,
New Scientist vol 120, no 1641, 3 Dec 1988.

Terry might want to be thinking, as well, about some of
the fossil hominids that have been found since then --
what is he going to do with toolmakers from over two
million years ago?


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


>> "Terry W. Benton" pasted (in part):
>>
>> (7) If anything should give an indication that
>> evolution results in simple life becoming more
>> complex, it should be shown in the amount of
>> genetic material a species cell contains. The
>> more complex an animal, the greater the number
>> of genes required for it to function. The
>> converse should also be true. An examination,
>> however, of the chromosome number of living
>> things shows that this is not the case. For
>> example, the number of chromosomes for some
>> animals in order of their supposed evolutionary
>> development are:- worm (2), crayfish (100),
>> shrimp (254), goldfish (94), housefly (12),
>> chicken (78), mouse (40), horse (66), & human (46).
>> E. Sinnott, et al, "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed.),
>> McGraw-Hill: New York, 1958 p:11
>>
>>
>> Terry, what *specific* claim against biological
>> evolution are you trying to make by using this
>> quote from 1958?

> TB: The quote is making the point that the number
> of chromosomes numbers are too spasmodic to fit
> the theory of simple to complex theory of general
> evolution.

Well since the number of chromosomes doesn't have
anything whatsoever to do with simple-to-complex,
and evolutionary theory doesn't make any such claim,
you are just showing your ignorance by trying to use
a strawman.

> Evolution is the long term development of simple
> organisms into complex organisms over � billion years.
> Why do the numbers jump up and down for different
> creatures instead of steadily climbing with complexity.

Why don't you read a biology book and find out, rather
than making silly claims based on your ignorance?


>> What exactly do you think this means, and why do
>> you believe that it is evidence against biological
>> evolution?

> TB: It means that things are not so logically connected
> from simple to complex with steady rises from a few
> chromosomes in simple creatures to more in the more
> complex. At least this particular way of analyzing
> things shows strange numbers that do not fit the theory
> as one would expect.

Don't you mean as one might have expected 50 years ago?

Don't you suppose that is exactly the misconception that
Sinnot is about to clear up for the students using this
textbook?  This quote is from page 11 -- he's going to
dispense with this misconception right at the beginning
of the semester -- first class meeting.

And since then there have been a lot of advances made.
(Sinnot's book was originally published in the 1930s
I think.)  Goldfish have 94 chromosomes; humans have 46.

Hint, hint.

It isn't so much a question of the number of chromosomes,
but has more to do with the size of the chromosomes and
the number of genes and the amount of information in each
gene.  And we do know that two chromosomes can fuse
together into a single larger chromosome.

Furthermore, we have long since learned that it doesn't
take nearly as much genetic difference to bring about
some big changes, and that all the body plans rely on
a limited number of genes.

So this quote doesn't have a thing in the world to do
with calling into question the fact of biological
evolution or anything about modern evolutionary theory.

If you want to argue over evolutionary theory based on
anything having to do with genetics you are going to
have to deal with the things they have been finding
out in the last ten years or so.



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


>> Terry W. Benton quoted (in part):
>>
>> (1) "Why in subsequent periods of great evolutionary
>> activity when countless species, genera, and families
>> arose, have there been no new animal body plans
>> produced, no new phyla?" Roger Lewin lamenting the
>> fact that macroevolution doesn't appear to have
>> occurred after the Permian period when it was expected.
>> Science, Vol. 241, 1988 p:20
>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> Roger Lewin asks here why no new body plans and no
>> new phyla arose during "subsequent periods of great
>> evolutionary activity", and you say he is "lamenting"
>> that "macroevolution doesn't appear to have occurred
>> after the Permian".
>>
>> I have two questions:
>>
>> 1) Why would you say that Lewin was "lamenting"?

> TB: Because he is. Duh!

Where is your evidence that Lewin is lamenting?  Do you
need a little fuller quote to show the angst, the
heartache?


>> 2) Are you defining "macroevolution" as the appearance
>> of a new body plan or phylum?

> TB: That is involved in what is supposed to happen if
> macroevolution has ever been true.

Well, this evasive answer is going to cost you.  If you
say that according to your definition, no macroevolution
has happened since the phyla differentiated, what is
the big problem?  You are saying that there has been
no macroevolution ever since Chordata appeared!

Fine!

If that's how you want to define macroevolution, that
means Man and all the rest of the mammals are the
same "kind" as the fishes, and everything that has
happened since the Cambrian has just been "small
variations within the kinds" -- "microevolution,
which no creationist denies"!

What a laugh!


> TB: Now, it is time for Rick to answer questions.

I'll reply to this part in another post...



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:17 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Baty...your posts won't be read if you continue

Succinctly and properly interpreted, DBWillis is notifying this list that he is
simply going to run off from dealing with his problems and/or letting me help
him with his problems!

DBWillis has been beaten; by me, Robert Baty!

In the final analysis, the fundamental, UNscientific position being espoused by
DBWillis, who refuses to demonstrate he is able to understand the "Goliath of
GRAS" and its place in the popular, public debate regarding young-earth
creation-science, is succinctly summarized as follows:

> I, DBWillis, have my interpretation
> of the text regarding the real
> world and that trumps any real
> world evidence to the contrary.

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

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--------------DBWillis' Message-----------

To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
From: DBWILLIS@...
Subject: [coCBanned] Baty...your posts won't be read if you continue
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:36 AM

David W here,

I have already wasted too much of my time opening and then scanning quickly
through far far too many of Baty's posts...looking for something SUCCINCT from
him which is NEW for me to address, and finding out that he just hauled out
some old moldy post of his from the past 10 years that says nothing new or
useful to address.

It seems he only does that to hear himself speak...or to purposefully be
annoying.

So I am just telling you Robert... I will only SCAN RAPIDLY (if THAT) through
any post of yours that has big long sections of stuff I recall seeing before.

And I will reply to those who write in a useful and succinct way...which at this
point is NOT you.

If that is what you want, rather than for me to actually read and reply, then
just keep it up. Most of us don't love looking at ourselves (or our posts) in
the mirror as much as you seem to.

DW

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



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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:36 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Baty...your posts won't be read if you continue

David W here,

I have already wasted too much of my time opening and then scanning quickly
through far far too many of Baty's posts...looking for something SUCCINCT from
  him which is NEW for me to address, and finding out that he just hauled out
some  old moldy post of his from the past 10 years that says nothing new or
useful to  address.  It seems he only does that to hear himself speak...or to
purposefully be annoying.

So I am just telling you Robert...  I will only SCAN RAPIDLY (if THAT)
through any post of yours that has big long sections of stuff I recall seeing
before.  And I will reply to those who write in a useful and succinct 
way...which
at this point is NOT you.  If that is what you want, rather  than for me to
actually read and reply, then just keep it up.  Most of us  don't love looking
at ourselves (or our posts) in the mirror as much as you seem  to.

DW



**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


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




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