--- In BereanSpirit@yahoogroups.com, "Robert H. Brandon"
<rhbrandon@h...> wrote, in part:

> "Evangelicalism" is rooted in the reaction of
> American Protestant Churches to the challenge
> to the legitimacy and reliability of the Bible
> in the face of adherents of textual criticism
> in the latter 19th and 20th centuries (later
> spreading to an objection to the role of science
> in interpreting matters theological and the
> "concession" of some mainline denominations to
> that with subsequent weakening of the proclamation
> of the gospel). . .

HMMMMM!

I guess that the "young-earth, creation-science" movement comes in to
play on that point, as well my little "Goliath" that now seems, most
recently on this list, to have put Chad Seaton on the run:

> "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 things are 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 things are actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

> Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I think the problem indicated in the story following my name below
may be the result, in part, of the disenchantment by Jews who are
denied the tax exempt housing allowance the basketball ministers at
places like ACU get.  They just figure out another way to get their
benefits!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

###########################################

The Associated Press
(an excerpt)

October 1, 2003

Synagogue bookkeeper convicted in embezzlement scheme

By DAVID B. CARUSO

DATELINE: PHILADELPHIA

A federal jury convicted a 74-year-old bookkeeper Tuesday on charges
that she helped embezzle $1.2 million from the suburban synagogue
where she worked for almost 40 years.

Prosecutors said Betty Shusterman conspired with the executive
director of the Temple Sinai in Dresher to siphon off the money, one
check at a time, between 1993 and 2000. Much of the cash went to a
secret bank account for the fictional "Temple Sinai Breakfast Club,"
prosecutors said.

The undiscovered thefts drained away a tenth of the synagogue's
budget and left it in severe financial distress, prosecutors said.
Its staff was forced to take a 5 percent pay cut in 1998 because of
persistent money problems.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Zauzmer said Shusterman pocketed about
$300,000 from the scheme, and doesn't deserve leniency because of her
age.

Shusterman's partner in the scheme, former temple executive Barry
Wilf, pleaded guilty in June to bank fraud, mail fraud and tax
evasion. He is scheduled to be sentenced in early October, and faces
slightly less time because of his guilty plea.

Prosecutors said the pair wrote more than 2,000 checks from temple
accounts, then altered its records to disguise the missing money.

Yep, another way where they got more money and stiffer sentences if
caught.  Glad they were.  You reckon the majority of crooked people who
do such as this are never caught?

Nelta

rlbaty50 wrote:

>I think the problem indicated in the story following my name below
>may be the result, in part, of the disenchantment by Jews who are
>denied the tax exempt housing allowance the basketball ministers at
>places like ACU get.  They just figure out another way to get their
>benefits!
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
>
>

http://www.hal-pc.org/~prime/
Bible discussion list:
1stCen-Christianity-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
ChurchOfChrist_Open_Discussion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
GospelAdvocatingForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Old_Testament_Prophesies-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Nelta <nib@h...> wrote:

> You reckon the majority of crooked people who
> do such as this are never caught?

I tried to send the story following my name earlier, but I don't
think I hit the right buttons.  I'll try again here.

To answer your question, Nelta, I figure that more don't get caught
than do; just another one of those little facts of life.  Of course,
in our system, a lot of those that get caught, don't get prosecuted.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

######################################

Star-Telegram
(an excerpt)

September 30, 2003

Bedford man pleads guilty in tax case
Toni Heinzl

FORT WORTH - Richard Simkanin, the Bedford businessman who cloaked
his opposition to the federal income tax in the patriotic language of
the Founding Fathers, pleaded guilty Tuesday to failing to collect
and pay taxes on his employees' wages.

In an unusual move in a plea bargain, federal prosecutors required
Simkanin, 59, to post on his Web site the plea documents and, later,
the judge's sentencing order. Simkanin was asked to do that because
he previously used his Web site to publish anti-government rhetoric,
prosecutors said.

Simkanin, the owner of Arrow Custom Plastics, had been a thorn in the
side of the Internal Revenue Service ever since he and a group of
like-minded citizens appeared in a full-page ad in USA Today on March
2, 2001, and declared their opposition to the federal income tax.

Under the plea agreement, he could be sentenced to up to three years
and fined a maximum of $250,000.

According to court records, Simkanin disregarded the advice of
Arrow's accounting firm that the wages of his employees are taxable
income under federal tax laws, as interpreted by the IRS and federal
courts.

The plea documents also state that "Simkanin believed that if he
could articulate a clear legal rationale for his position, then the
IRS would take no action against him and he would not be prosecuted."

Simkanin's earlier anti-government postings on his Web site and a
threat against federal judges reported by an undercover informant
have angered the federal judge handling his case.

McBryde issued a scathing order July 14, stating his reasons for
keeping Simkanin in jail pending trial. He remained in jail Tuesday
afternoon.

"He and those who share his views have a cult-like belief that laws
that are generally accepted by citizens of the United States are not
applicable to them," McBryde said in his July 14 order. "Certain of
them have joined Simkanin in publicly announcing that they are not
complying with the internal revenue laws of the United States."

IRS Special Agent Mike Lacenski said in a news release: "Some people
find themselves irresistibly drawn to the anti-tax movement's
illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal
income tax. The Courts have repeatedly rejected these arguments as
frivolous."

ONLINE: www.treas.gov/irs/ci/ tax_fraud/docnonfilers.htm

This sound a lot like the case of the woman who had 100s of shoes.
(Can't think of her name.)  She was caught not paying taxes and she said
to someone, "Only little people pay taxes."

Nelta

rlbaty50 wrote:

>--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Nelta <nib@h...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You reckon the majority of crooked people who
>>do such as this are never caught?
>>
>>
>
>I tried to send the story following my name earlier, but I don't
>think I hit the right buttons.  I'll try again here.
>
>To answer your question, Nelta, I figure that more don't get caught
>than do; just another one of those little facts of life.  Of course,
>in our system, a lot of those that get caught, don't get prosecuted.
>
>Sincerely,
>Robert Baty
>
>######################################
>
>Star-Telegram
>(an excerpt)
>
>September 30, 2003
>
>Bedford man pleads guilty in tax case
>Toni Heinzl
>
>FORT WORTH - Richard Simkanin, the Bedford businessman who cloaked
>his opposition to the federal income tax in the patriotic language of
>the Founding Fathers, pleaded guilty Tuesday to failing to collect
>and pay taxes on his employees' wages.
>
>
snip

http://www.hal-pc.org/~prime/
Bible discussion list:
1stCen-Christianity-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
ChurchOfChrist_Open_Discussion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
GospelAdvocatingForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Old_Testament_Prophesies-subscribe@yahoogroups.com




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

Star-Telegram
(an excerpt)

September 30, 2003

Bedford man pleads guilty in tax case
by: Toni Heinzl


FORT WORTH - Richard Simkanin, the Bedford businessman who cloaked
his opposition to the federal income tax in the patriotic language of
the Founding Fathers, pleaded guilty Tuesday to failing to collect
and pay taxes on his employees' wages.

In an unusual move in a plea bargain, federal prosecutors required
Simkanin, 59, to post on his Web site the plea documents and, later,
the judge's sentencing order. Simkanin was asked to do that because
he previously used his Web site to publish anti-government rhetoric,
prosecutors said.

Simkanin, the owner of Arrow Custom Plastics, had been a thorn in the
side of the Internal Revenue Service ever since he and a group of
like-minded citizens appeared in a full-page ad in USA Today on March
2, 2001, and declared their opposition to the federal income tax.

Under the plea agreement, he could be sentenced to up to three years
and fined a maximum of $250,000.

Simkanin was arrested June 20, one day after a federal grand jury
returned a 27-count indictment accusing him of failing to withhold
and pay $175,000 in taxes due on his employees' wages from January
2000 through December 2002.

The indictment also alleges that Simkanin filed 15 fraudulent claims
for tax refunds totaling $234,515 in January 2000.

According to court records, Simkanin disregarded the advice of
Arrow's accounting firm that the wages of his employees are taxable
income under federal tax laws, as interpreted by the IRS and federal
courts.

"However, based upon Simkanin's research on the history of the
Internal Revenue Code and other sources, Simkanin concluded that he
disagreed with the law as interpreted by the IRS and the courts of
the United States," according to the plea documents.

The plea documents also state that "Simkanin believed that if he
could articulate a clear legal rationale for his position, then the
IRS would take no action against him and he would not be prosecuted."

Simkanin's earlier anti-government postings on his Web site and a
threat against federal judges reported by an undercover informant
have angered the federal judge handling his case.

McBryde issued a scathing order July 14, stating his reasons for
keeping Simkanin in jail pending trial. He remained in jail Tuesday
afternoon.

"He and those who share his views have a cult-like belief that laws
that are generally accepted by citizens of the United States are not
applicable to them," McBryde said in his July 14 order. "Certain of
them have joined Simkanin in publicly announcing that they are not
complying with the internal revenue laws of the United States."

IRS Special Agent Mike Lacenski said in a news release: "Some people
find themselves irresistibly drawn to the anti-tax movement's
illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal
income tax. The Courts have repeatedly rejected these arguments as
frivolous."

ONLINE: www.treas.gov/irs/ci/ tax_fraud/docnonfilers.htm

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Nelta <nib@h...> wrote:

> This sound a lot like the case of the woman who
> had 100s of shoes.  (Can't think of her name.)
> She was caught not paying taxes and she said
> to someone, "Only little people pay taxes."

That would be Leona Helmsley.  Following my name is an excerpt from
an article that references her famous quotation.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

###################################

PROFILE OF OFFSHORE BANK CUSTOMERS EMERGES

The people the IRS suspects of committing tax fraud by hiding income
offshore access the accounts with credit cards they use to shop at
the Gap, surf America Online, fly Southwest Airlines, stay at the
Ramada Inn, and buy Mary Kay cosmetics.

Policymakers who wonder how far down-market the tax shelter
phenomenon has gone need only consult the IRS's latest list of
summonses, which reads like a chronicle of an everyday shopper's
preferred vendors.

Leona Helmsley's admonition that "only little people pay taxes" is
being turned inside out as a substantial number of little people
appear to have offshore accounts they access with credits cards.

The people suspected of cheating the tax system use their offshore
credit cards to buy things off of eBay, services from Yahoo!, and
books, music, and movies from Amazon.com, according to the latest
summonses requested by the government. They use the credit cards to
pay their BellSouth and AT&T phone bills. They charge their plane
tickets from Delta and American Airlines on these credit cards, along
with the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog products they buy in- flight and
the Hertz and Avis Rent A Car charges they ring up after they land.

These offshore bank customers stay at Hyatts and Ramada Inns and Omni
Hotels. They read Time Life publications. They shop at Nordstrom and
Old Navy. They charge Microsoft computers, Earthlink memberships, and
AT&T wireless telephones on these credit cards. So reads the list of
40 vendor recipients of the latest round of summonses as the IRS
makes use of information gleaned from earlier summonses served on
credit card companies.

The times have clearly changed from when primarily "rich guys" would,
for example, use the cards to hide assets from their ex- wives. While
the rich guys stashed their money away and forgot about it, the new
offshore card customer clearly uses his or her account for current,
everyday consumption and living expenses.

I got this today from Cheapskate Monthly and thought I should bring
it to your attention:

Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Ignore this IRS Letter!
www.benjamindover.com


The identity thieves are at it again, this time they're posing as the
IRS. There are two phony forms (currently) circulating: "IRS Form W-
9095" or "Form W-8888." They'll usually be accompanied by a cover
letter (supposedly from a bank) requesting the taxpayer's full name
and address, Social Security Number, detailed information about bank
accounts, account numbers, passwords, personal identification numbers
(PINs) and the biggest bomb of all: your mother's maiden name.


In His Grace,
Karen

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in New York to talk about the
>world.
> >After her talk she offers question time.
> >
> >One little boy puts up his hand, and the Senator asks him what his name
>is.
>"Kenneth."
> > "And what is your question, Kenneth?"
> > "I have three questions:
> >First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
> >Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the
>office?
>and
> >Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left
>the White
>House?"
> >
> >Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the
>kiddies that
>they will continue after recess.
> > When they resume Hillary says, "Okay where were we?
> >Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"
> >A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and
>asks him
>what his name is.
> >"Larry." "And what is your question?"
> >"I have five questions:
> >First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
> >Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the
>office?
> >Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left
>the White
>House?
> >Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? and Fifth -
>what
>happened to Kenneth?"



--
nib
Nelta Brock
http://www.hal-pc.org/~prime/
Bible discussion list:
1stCen-Christianity-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Oh, Robert...when you said "little people" I thought you were
referencing my little green buddies. My mistake. BTW, I got a recent
newspaper clipping that said Bigfoot was seen in VA last month. Hoax?
No way.
em :)

Em, you wrote, in part:

> BTW, I got a recent newspaper
> clipping that said Bigfoot was seen
> in VA last month. Hoax? No way.

My sources tell me he/she/it is hiding behind a certain statue on
Monument Row in Richmond!

Robert

Robert, forget it. There is NO WAY you are getting me to check out
that statue in Richmond!
em :)

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
>
> Em, you wrote, in part:
>
> > BTW, I got a recent newspaper
> > clipping that said Bigfoot was seen
> > in VA last month. Hoax? No way.
>
> My sources tell me he/she/it is hiding behind a certain statue on
> Monument Row in Richmond!
>
> Robert

Can anyone name me just one thing that you know is scientifically true about
evolution? Just one thing?  Thanks, Steven Estes


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

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Estessteven7@a... wrote:

> Can anyone name me just one thing that you know
> is scientifically true about evolution? Just one
> thing?

> Thanks, Steven Estes

#######################################

I thought that question to put under the wrong thread, so figured I
would copy it under this thread for those that might want to address
the issue Steven Estes has brought up.

"Evolution happens"!

I'm just wondering if that qualifies as a scientifically true thing
about evolution?

I figure that's not exactly what Steven had in mind.  Then again, I
don't figure Steven is asking for information.  He's smart enough to
already know a lot about the subject.

Just like Colin Patterson who obtained to some notoriety for asking a
similar question.  We've discussed that to some extent around here.

It might even be observed that Todd S. Greene has, in effect, asked
the same question, in reverse to Steven Estes.  I wonder if Steven
will endeavor to answer it for Todd and take up the cause.

Todd's question, in effect, is:

> Can anyone name me just one thing that you know
> is scientifically true about the "young-earth,
> creation-science" evidence for a young-earth.

Todd's challenge can be found on his website.

Maybe Steven will take up the challenge and engage Todd in yet
another discussion so as to determine if Steven Estes is the one to
change the course of history and provide the sustainable evidence for
a "young-earth/universe" based on the scientific evidence.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "emilyseyes795"
<emilyseyes795@y...> wrote:
>
> Robert, forget it. There is NO WAY you are getting
> me to check out that statue in Richmond!

You are too late anyway, Em.

Reports came in this morning that the Bigfoot was captured.

He/she/it had removed the Maury statue from its pedestal and took its
place, disguising himself/herself/itself as Maury.

He/she/it might never have been detected as impersonating the Maury
statue, except one small boy noticed that the Maury impersonator had
a bible in hand.  The small boy, having heard my reports, knew that
the Maury statue wasn't supposed to have a bible in its hand.

The boy is credited with the capture of the Bigfoot, and the return
of the real Maury statue, no bible in hand, to its rightful place on
the pedestal.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

As a follow up to Karen's post on the subject, following my name
below is some additional information.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

###################################

REPARED TESTIMONY OF DALE HART DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SMALL
BUSINESS/SELF-EMPLOYED OPERATING DIVISION INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON
TAX SCAMS AND SCHEMES
(an excerpt)

APRIL 1, 2003

Identity Theft

[20] Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the
nation. Identity thieves use someone's personal data to steal his or
her financial accounts, run up charges on the victim's existing
credit cards, apply for new loans, credit cards, services or benefits
in the victim's name, and even file fraudulent tax returns.

[21] Tax-related identity theft takes different forms, as
demonstrated by two schemes that recently came to our attention. In
one, tax preparers allegedly used information, such as Social
Security numbers and financial information, from their clients' tax
returns to commit identity theft. In another, con men sent bank
customers fictitious bank correspondence and IRS forms in an attempt
to trick them into disclosing their personal and banking data.

[22] Last May, we warned taxpayers about a fraudulent scheme that
uses fictitious bank correspondence and IRS forms in an attempt to
trick taxpayers into disclosing their personal and banking data. The
information fraudulently obtained is then used to steal the
taxpayer's identity and bank account deposits.

[23] We received reports of the scam surfacing from coast-to-coast,
including Maine, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, California
and the state of Washington. Dozens of U.S. and foreign victims have
been identified.

[24] In this scam, a letter claiming to be from the taxpayer's bank
states that the "bank" is updating its records in order to exempt the
taxpayer from reporting interest or having tax withheld on interest
paid on his or her bank accounts or other financial dealings.
Legally, banks must report interest to the IRS, and taxpayers must
include it as income.

[25] The "bank" correspondence encloses a phony form that purports to
come from the IRS and seeks detailed personal and financial data. The
letter urges the recipient to fax the completed form to a specific
number within 7 days or lose the reporting and withholding exemption,
resulting in withholding of 31% on the account's interest. The scheme
promoters then use the faxed information to impersonate the taxpayer
and gain access to the taxpayer's finances.

[26] One such phony form is labeled "W-9095, Application Form for
Certificate Status/Ownership for Withholding Tax." The form requests
personal data frequently used to prove identity, including passport
number and mother's maiden name. It also asks for sensitive financial
data such as bank account numbers, passwords, and PIN numbers that
can be used to gain access to the accounts.

[27] The fictitious W-9095 appears to be an attempt to mimic the
genuine IRS Form W-9, "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and
Certification." The only personal information a genuine W-9 requests
is the taxpayer's name, address and Social Security number or
employer identification number.

[28] Another form used in the scam is Form W-8BEN, "Certificate of
Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax
Withholding." There is a legitimate IRS Form W-8BEN, which is used by
banks to ensure that their non-U.S. customers meet the criteria to
remain exempt from tax reporting requirements. However, the W-8BEN
used by the scam promoters has been altered to ask for personal
information much like the W-9095. This altered form targets residents
of foreign countries who bank in the United States.

[29] Another totally fictitious IRS form used in this scam is
labeled "W-8888." It too asks for information similar to the phony W-
9095 and W-8BEN. The real Forms W-9 and W-8BEN can be found on the
IRS's web site at www.irs.gov.

[30] The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
investigates a wide variety of offenses, including the misuse of the
IRS' insignia, seals and symbols and identity theft related to tax
administration. Taxpayers who have received a fraudulent letter and
form should report this to TIGTA by calling the toll-free fraud
referral hotline at 1-800-366-4484, faxing a complaint to 202-927-
7018, or writing to the TIGTA Hotline, P.O. Box 589, Ben Franklin
Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-0589. TIGTA's Web site is located at
www.ustreas.gov/tigta.

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Steven Estes wrote (post #2526):
> Can anyone name me just one thing that you know is scientifically
> true about evolution? Just one thing?
>
> Thanks, Steven Estes

Hi, Steven.

It is usually rather difficult to have an intelligible discussion
about the historical nature of evolution with young earth
creationists because of how YECs fail to comprehend the fact of
antiquity. The clearest "one thing" scientifically true about
evolution that I would point people to is the pattern of the fossils
through time. The fossil history clearly shows an evolutionary kind
of pattern. And even though being fossilized is a very chancy and
biased occurrence in itself, we happen to have some good, interesting
examples of macroevolution, such as in the case of the reptile-to-
mammal transition, or the transition from Hyracotherium to the modern
horse.

The *Acanthostega gunnari* is an interesting transitional fossil all
on its own. Here are some online references regarding this animal and
its evolutionary significance:

Acanthostega gunnari
by Jennifer A. Clack
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Acanthostega
(take a look at a good model of Acanthostega)

Out of the Swamps
by Richard Monastersky
http://www.sciencenews.org/Sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm

Evolution of Limbs from the Fossil Record and Molecular Biology
by Robert Williams
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

There are two distinct ways in which the fossil record shows an
evolutionary history: (1) the general distribution of the kinds of
organisms through time, and (2) the specific distribution of the
kinds of organisms following what a descent pattern would create: a
nested hierarchy (i.e., a branching tree).

In regard to (1), this simply refers to the fact that the general
pattern of fossils of organisms that we see through time follows the
kind of pattern that *must* be the case if biological evolution is
what took place: single-celled organisms come first (indeed, they
come first, and then that's all there is for billions of years). Then
the first fossil multicelled organisms are "simple" ones like sponges
and jellyfish. In the Cambrian timeframe (beginning around
approximately 600 million years ago) was a geologically rapid
diversification of sea animals and plants, commonly referred to as
the "Cambrian explosion." *After* this come simple land plants and
simple land animals. Fish - relatively sophisticated ocean animals -
come later. Then more complex land animals come along, beginning with
the amphibians. Over tens of millions of years, reptiles eventually
show up. Same thing with plants, after tens of millions of years of
plants being on land, plants like bushes and then eventually trees
show up. *After* the reptiles have been around awhile, dinosaurs and
mammals show up. *After* the dinosaurs have been around awhile, birds
show up. It's this general pattern of "this comes first, this comes
later" that substantiates that evolution is "scientifically true."

In regard to (2), evolution (biological descent of organisms through
time) must by definition produce what is known as a "nested
hierarchy" of organisms. It is the only known process that generates
such a pattern. The fossil record shows just such a nested
hierarchical pattern of organisms. This pattern is recognized on the
basis of morphological characteristics (because of what fossils are).
(It just so turns out that analyses of genetic similarity of living
organisms also shows a nested hierarchical pattern - and this pattern
is the almost the same as is already recognized from fossil studies.
Indeed, the ones that are not the same prove to be very instructive
concerning studying evolution further, because when the biochemical
evidence is unequivocal it can show where the fossil evidence has
been misinterpreted and point to the need for further paleontological
investigation.)

Anyway, here is an online reference about several additional lines of
evidence for evolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
by Douglas Theobald
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I would make this additional point, though it's based on pragmatic
considerations rather than substantive ones, and that is this: The
people "in the know" - i.e., the guys and gals who work with the
relevant scientific information professionally - accept the fact of
evolution. These creationist guys - such as Steven Estes - are people
who are personally biased in terms of religious belief to refuse to
accept the facts about the physical world that they don't like, since
these ideas contradict their religious beliefs. As demonstration of
this point, I would further point out that creationists don't publish
any scientific research in the professional science literature. (Yes,
I realize that they love to promote a grand conspiracy theory about
this, but the facts are that, first of all, creationists almost never
do any actual scientific research in the first place; and, second,
the editors of professional science journals reject genuinely bad
science - and just poor science - from all scientists, and not just
creationists, all of the time. The creationists' conspiracy theory is
just a big crock for the creationist propaganda mill.)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.creationism.cc/

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
October 1, 2003 Wednesday
(an excerpt)

October 1, 2003 Wednesday REGION EDITION

Is it Bigfoot?

Experts at the East Coast Bigfoot Conference and Expo estimate at
least 4,000 Bigfoot creatures live in North America. An itinerant
band is believed to live on the west side of Chestnut Ridge. They
travel a 100-mile strip of wilderness that reaches from Indiana,
Westmoreland and Fayette counties into West Virginia. How can
observers know if the animal they see is one of these elusive Bigfoot?

Here are the usual characteristics:

* He's big. Most of the creatures average 7.5 feet tall and about 650
pounds, with smaller specimens turning up in swampy southern states.

* He's hairy. "He's invariably 100-percent covered with hair,"
according to National Parks zoologist Tim Cassidy, with colors
ranging from tawny blonde to white, chestnut and black. His eyes
reflect light beams, and sometimes glow yellow or red.

* His hands dangle down to knee-level. He has little or no neck. He
often walks with a slight stoop.

* He is a shy woodland creature.

Bigfoot sightings peak on summer weekends -- Saturdays in August are
prime time -- as opposed to UFOs, which tend to appear on Wednesdays
in October and March.

* He eats corn, berries, fruit and meat, and will sometimes steal
deer carcasses from roadsides or hunters. He will eat cats, but he
enjoys fish, too. Seafood purveyors in the Pacific Northwest have
reported seeing the creatures "Dumpster-diving" during the fresh
salmon season.

No skeletal remains or Bigfoot corpses have ever been found, even at
sites where point-blank shootings supposedly occurred.

Chicago Daily Herald
(an excerpt)

HEADLINE: Could this be the end of the punch line for jokes about
theCubs?

BYLINE: Chuck Goudie

- What's the difference between Bigfoot and a smart Cubs fan?

Bigfoot has been sighted before.

----- Original Message -----
From: "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...>
Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] 4,000 Bigfeet in North America?


Good day to all--

While reading this post I stumbled through the following line, having to
re-read it a few times:

> How can
> observers know if the animal they see is one of these elusive Bigfoot?

Here is my question -- presented as nothing more than something else to
argue about:  What is the plural form of "bigfoot"?  Bigfeet?  Bigfoots?
Bigfeets?

Ya'll don't hurt yourselves as you ponder this most important issue :-)


Chad Longley

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Chad Longley <mcl98e@a...>
wrote, in part:

> Here is my question --

> What is the plural form of "bigfoot"?

> Bigfeet?  Bigfoots?  Bigfeets?

HMMM?

Hey, maybe it is like "sheep", "deer" and "fish", and the plural form
is the same as the singular.

One "bigfoot" or 100 "bigfoot".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

In a message dated 10/2/03 7:49:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rlbaty@...
writes:

> Todd's question, in effect, is:
>
> >Can anyone name me just one thing that you know
> >is scientifically true about the "young-earth,
> >creation-science" evidence for a young-earth.
>
>

Hello all, I will attempt to address this later on tonight as I have to get
ready for work. Steven Estes


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

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Estessteven7@a... wrote:

> Hello all, I will attempt to address this later
> on tonight as I have to get ready for work.

> Steven Estes


Thanks Steven,

I hope I adequately paraphrased Todd's challenge and he will be up to
the task of responding to your address of the issue.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Anybody else run across this:

> Computer Incident Alert

> What is it?

> A new trojan, a type of malicious code, affects
> Internet Explorer and changes Domain Name Service
> (DNS) settings.  The trojan, named Qhosts, prevents
> the proper functioning of Internet Explorer and other
> services relying on DNS.

> What does it look like?

> The trojan is distributed via a web-based banner ad
> at FortuneCity.com and uses Java Script to redirect
> a self-closing "pop-under" ad--a web-based ad that
> appears "under" other windows and then closes--making
> it highly unlikely that a user would notice it.

> Affected users will not be able to browse internal or
> external websites.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Steven, you wrote:

> I will attempt to address this later
> on tonight as I have to get ready
> for work.

More particularly, here is the "challenge" as quoted from Todd's
website:

#####################

Ancient Universe Challenge:

I challenge any young earth/young universe advocate to provide
information to me, relevant to the age of the universe, that shows that
the universe is only about 6,000 years old.

Remember your logic now: This information must be genuinely inconsistent
with the idea that the universe has been around far longer than just
6,000 years. I will post such information on this website, and we can
discuss it if appropriate. I offer you the opportunity to show that the
idea of the ancient universe is wrong. (In correspondence with this, I
will even do the HTML editing of your writing for you.)

######################

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

My opinion is "Bigfoots" and I am an English major!
em

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Chad Longley <mcl98e@a...>
> wrote, in part:
>
> > Here is my question --
>
> > What is the plural form of "bigfoot"?
>
> > Bigfeet?  Bigfoots?  Bigfeets?
>
> HMMM?
>
> Hey, maybe it is like "sheep", "deer" and "fish", and the plural
form
> is the same as the singular.
>
> One "bigfoot" or 100 "bigfoot".
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Bat

I finally figured it out!!! LOL
It's great to have something to talk about that isn't stressful, huh?
em

I took Hilbert up on his invitation to join the ISOS list and so am
posting this introductory note.  Some may know more about the
coincidence than I do.

In any case, I noticed that there has been some recent discussion on
ISOS about the "Intelligent Design" movement.  I am glad to see that
Keith Sisman and some other(s) share my view of that, at least in part.

Steven Estes announced today that he may try later tonight to engage
Todd S. Greene  on his challenge concerning certain related topics on my
little list.

That list is public and anyone can post, member or not.

So, feel free to visit and let us know over there what you think.

Here's the place:

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

If you join, you will be able to enjoy the links and take part in the
polls.  No waiting, anyone can join.

Oh, for those that haven't heard, Chad Seaton recently boasted of having
the "stones" to take on my little "Goliath of GRAS".  Now it appears he
has run off.

Anyone interested is welcome to consider my "Goliath", preferably on my
list where there are not so many constraints as sometimes complicate
things on other lists.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

In a message dated 10/2/03 5:22:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rlbaty@...
writes:

> I challenge any young earth/young universe advocate to provide
> information to me, relevant to the age of the universe, that shows that
> the universe is only about 6,000 years old.
>
> Remember your logic now: This information must be genuinely inconsistent
> with the idea that the universe has been around far longer than just
> 6,000 years. I will post such information on this website, and we can
> discuss it if appropriate. I offer you the opportunity to show that the
> idea of the ancient universe is wrong. (In correspondence with this, I
> will even do the HTML editing of your writing for you.)

Capitalization is only for emhasis, I am not "yelling" or "raising my voice"
it is just for emphasis.

The main point I believe is that we must realize that science is LIMITED to
what we can OBSERVE and what we can EXPERIMENT with in repeatable units.
OBVIOUSLY nobody observed the origin of the universe, and it is obvious that you
cannot repeat the experiment, therefore were not talking "scientifically" but
rather "philosophically."   The point is; that science DISPROVES evolution, but
DOES NOT and CANNOT "disprove" a special creation of God!

The problem is, we have 2 philosophical FAITH propositions, evolution or
creation. The question is: Based on the scientific evidence that we all have, is
it more logical , is it more rational, and is it more scientific to put our
faith in evolution? OR, is it more rational, more logical and more scientific to
put our faith in God and creation?

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC evidence for creation! IN FACT evolution is PROVEN
WRONG by science. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter
ARE NOT being created or destroyed, they remain constant!

The 2nd law of TD states that all the energy in the universe useful for work
(kinetic energy) is in a process of running down! Evolution has it BACKWARDS!
The theory of evolution says that everything is moving upwards to greater and
greater complexity and organization, ALL BY CHANCE! But THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
(the 2nd law of TD) says that everything is going in the OPPOSITE direction,
from what the evolutionists ASSUME!

Evolutionists (many of them) will state that if you just allow enough time
ANYTHING can happen. Time is the "magic pill" for them. BUT A BASIC LAW OF
PHYSICS states that the GREATER THE TIME SPAN, the GREATER the CHAOS and
DISORGANIZATION!

My question to you is ; what do you do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Now, I do not want your "philosophical assumptions," give me SCIENTIFIC FACTS!

My other question is what do you do with the PROVEN LAW OF BIOGENESIS? That
Louis Pasteur and others established when they PROVED over 130 years ago that
NONLIFE CANNOT PRODUCE LIFE!!!

When Louis Pasteur DISPROVED spontaneous generation, he DESTROYED the whole
foundation of the evolutionary theory. LIFE ONLY COMES FROM LIFE

Now I know some do not want to be confused by the facts but just want to hold
on to their bias presuppositions, But spontaneous regeneration if
SCIENTIFICALLY impossible!

There is NO evidence for evolution, in fact, it all demonstrates that we are
a unique creation of GOD!

Some will not accept this fact philosophically because some do not want to
believe in God, therefore they choose to believe in that which they KNOW is
SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

I have a few questions;

1. How do you get life from non living matter? When it is scientifically
impossible, the law of Biogenesis says that life ONLY comes from life! I want to
know the scientific FACTS, not your ASSUMPTIONS of faith in evolution.

2. In regards to the basic Laws of Probability, what is the probability of
life arising by chance?  This one I will answer for you; the probability of life
arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a six on a die FIVE
MILLION CONSECUTIVE TIMES!!

The probability of life evolving to greater and greater complexity and
organization by chance is the same probability as having a tornado tear through
a
junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 jetliner at the other end!

The FACT is: Random impersonal chance does NOT produce complexity and
organization, it produces only greater CHAOS!  People need to be intellectually
honest!

So, the RIDDLE is this: How, when no life existed, did substances come into
being which are absolutely essential for life, BUT can only be produced BY
LIFE? (examples; the metabolic motor of a cell, RNA, DNA etc. etc.)

How when no life existed, did these (RNA,DNA etc) and other substances come
into being which are essential for life, but again can ONLY be produced by
life?

You must ASSUME BY FAITH, that contrary to the Laws of science, SOMEHOW it
occurred!

Why are there no PROVEN (not hoaxes like the Piltdown man, Lucy, etc)
transitional fossils? There should be MILLIONS upon millions of transitional
forms,
but in REALITY not ONE has been found. What has been found is everything
appearing FULLY FORMED after its own kind!

We have never observed evolution in the fossil record, and we have never
observed evolution in the natural world. IN FACT, evolution exists ONLY in the
IMAGINATION of evolutionists!

I think that many think that evolution is "morally comfortable," that as long
as they believe they are nothing but an accident, evolved from slimy algae,
that they are nothing but an animal, they can live morally any way they choose.

They seem to think that if there is no God and they are simply evolved from
slimy algae, they have no moral consequences. BUT, as soon as they ADMIT that
there is a creator, then they become morally RESPONSIBLE to that creator!  And,
they do not want to be morally responsible to anyone! If people "understand"
that as long as they believe that they are nothing but animals, they can live
any way they choose! BUT, as soon as they admit there is a God, the whole ball
game changes.  More upcoming, Steven Estes


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

Steven,
This is a very well written response.
Did you forget to attribute the source?
There is nothing wrong with quoting when
the original authors are referenced.
Citing references is honest and fair and
will help keep you out of tight jams in
followup conversations.

I believe the reference you omitted is:
"Fast Facts on False Teachings"
by Ron Carlson and Ed Decker

Welcome to this list and good luck
persuading some very hard heads.