IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No. 12-5089

ROBERT N. CADRECHA and
CYNTHIA CADRECHA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. No. 12-5089

UNITED STATES

Defendant-Appellee

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
PENDING EXECUTION OF THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT

The United States, appellee herein, through its counsel,
respectfully moves this Court to suspend further proceedings
in the above-captioned appeal.

In support of this motion, counsel states as follows:

1.

The appellants' opening brief was filed on July 26, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's order of July 24, 2012, the
appellee's answering brief was due to be filed on
September 7, 2012.

2.

On August 31, 2012, the United States moved for an
extension of time to October 9, 2012, to file its
brief in this appeal.

The Government explained that, in reviewing the record,
this office determined that it would be necessary for
us to confer with the Chief Counsel of the Internal
Revenue Service respecting the Government's position
in this case.

We stated that this consultation would likely take several
weeks, making it impossible for the Government to meet the
September 7, 2012 deadline for filing the appellee's brief.

The motion was unopposed, and the Court granted it on
September 10, 2012, making the Government's brief due on
October 9, 2012.

3.

Following our consultation with the Chief Counsel, we
contacted appellants' counsel, William Kalish, Esquire,
to discuss a possible settlement of the instant case.

Thereafter, appellants submitted a formal settlement
offer to the Department of Justice.

Because settlement of this case would obviate the need
for the Government to file its answering brief, the
Government moved for an extension of time in which to
file its brief.

The motion was unopposed, and the Court granted it on
October 1, 2012, making the Government's brief due on
November 8, 2012.

4.

Following our further consultation with the IRS Chief
Counsel, the appellants' settlement offer was accepted
on behalf of the Attorney General.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Government
is obligated to refund to the appellants a portion of the
amount of the income-tax payment that is at issue in this
case, in return for which the appellants are obligated to
dismiss their appeal in this case.

5.

To effect the settlement agreement, the Department of
Justice has instructed the Department of the Treasury to
process the agreed-upon tax refund — a process that
normally takes approximately three weeks.

The Treasury Department will execute a check for the
refund amount and forward it to the Department of Justice.

Upon receipt of this check, this office will promptly
forward it to counsel for the appellants, together with
a stipulation for dismissal of the appeal to be filed
with the Court.

6.

The settlement of this case obviates the need for the
Government to file its brief as appellee.

Under these circumstances, we believe it is appropriate
to suspend further proceedings in this appeal, including
the filing of the Government's answering brief, pending the
processing of the agreed refund and the voluntary dismissal
of this appeal.

7.

I have contacted the appellants' counsel, William Kalish,
Esquire, who states that the appellants do not object to
the requested suspension of these proceedings.

Wherefore, the United States respectfully prays that the
Court enter an order suspending proceedings in this appeal,
including the filing of the Government's answering brief,
pending the execution of the settlement of this case.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Carol Barthel
CAROL BARTHEL
Attorney, Appellate Section
Tax Division
Department of Justice
Post Office Box 502
Washington, D.C. 20044
202-514-2921
Carol.A.Barthel@...
Appellate.Tax civil@...
Counsel for the Appellee

Dated: This 31st day of October, 2012

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

Don Clifford is one of the alleged APT experts and promoters.
You know who Ken Ham is.
And you know me.

You know how it is with hobbies.  You work them in to just about every subject. 
And so, I got young-earth creation-science into the APT discussion over on
Forbes, and Don Clifford replied (see my earlier post regarding Mr. Steele's
response):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/10/28/balanced-budget-and-comprehe\
nsive-tax-reform-made-simple-the-automated-payment-transaction-tax/

(1)

From: Robert Baty
Date: October 31, 2012
Time: About 7:30 AM MT

(excerpt)

Perhaps an analogy could be made here between APT promoters
and young-earth creation-science promoters.

Young-earth creation-science promoters take advantage of the ignorance of
science in the general public to advance their
cause.

APT promoters take advantage of the ignorance of economics
and politics and our current tax system and technology in
the general public to advance their cause.

I think that analogy works.

(2)

From: Donald Clfford
Date: October 31, 2012
Time: About 10:30 PM MT

rlbaty:

Young Earth Creationism is faith based. Regrettably they're
unable to reconcile their faith with modern science.

The APT proposal has been submitted for academic peer review.

It cannot be implemented without first passing muster with
the best minds in the country, and then passing congress
with a broad based consensus.

APT is an opportunity to modernize taxation using technology
to improve efficiency, streamline commerce, free citizens of
the burdens of conventional taxation, and get the politics
out of the whole regimen of taxation.

This silly attempt to conflate the serious academic product
that is the APT proposal with Creationist religious dogma
illustrates the folly of your attempted skepticism/cynicism.

Next time try reason.

Don Clifford

(3)

From: Robert Baty
Date: November 1, 2012
Time: About 8:25 AM MT

Now I'm being "silly", Don!

I think the analogy works very well, thank you!

Of course, one of the problems with such things is that contrary sorts all so
often wind up in the fallacy of taking the analogy
too far; kinda like you have done.

I do appreciate you commenting, however.

I never know if my references to my young-earth creation-science hobby is going
to get any traction!

Ken Ham would probably take strong exception to your slight
of his hobby on that.

Thanks for summarizing why the APT scheme is not getting any traction; it can't
pass muster with the best minds, nor is
there the political will to risk it.

Don't let me get in the way; I'm ready to start writing
those yearly $200.00 checks (assuming you make a little
compromise in frustrating Robert Steele and let folks
like me just pay once a year).

I am being most reasonable, though my folly may be in jousting
a bit with you.  Those great minds, it appears, are not even
giving you the time of day here.  They seem to be treating you
like Richard Dawkins treats Ken Ham (another fine analogy,
methinks).

I appreciate the patronage.  That y'all have to try to pick
on folks like me who are skeptical of your scheme is, perhaps,
a testimony as to just how little traction you currently have
with the APT proposal.

I am glad to have contributed, quite substantively I think,
to the public effort.

You are welcome.

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

-- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

> I don't think Kenneth Miller has served any time yet.  I was under the
impression that he's been "out" through the whole process and remains free
pending sentencing.<

I'm under the same impression. I'm guessing that he struck a deal (after seeing
how Timothy Miller was blindsided by the FBI at the DC airport) under which he
would return from his residence in Ireland at his own expense provided he was
not imprisoned upon setting foot on American soil.  All the authorities are
saying is that he 'surrendered' in Vermont.

> Otherwise,  I thought the delay in sentencing was also unusual.  Maybe it has
something to do with the continuing grand jury investigation and his scheduled
testimony Nov. 15, 2012 testimony.<

I have no doubt of that whatsoever. He's appealed that order to testify and we
know how long appeals can take.

Daniel

I should have cited the source for this quote with which I ended my post (I had
to leave my computer just then and didn't want to lose all my work, so I just
hit 'send' without a final proofreading).

It's from a peer-reviewed journal article by Dr. Humphreys. The calculations
don't come through very well in an email but you can access a pdf of it via this
link:

http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-o\
f-pioneer-spacecraft

Daniel Buck

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, I wrote:

> The point is, there are a lot of problems
> with Dr. Giberson's model too:
>
> " A broad class of creationist cosmologies  offer an
> explanation for the `Pioneer effect', an apparent small
> Sunward anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11
> spacecraft.  If a large volume of empty space surrounds
> the matter of the cosmos, so that the cosmos can have a
> centre of mass, then the matter is in a deep gravitational
> potential `well'.  If space is expanding and spreading the
> matter outward, then the depth of the well is decreasing.
>
> According to general relativity, especially a new solution
> of Einstein's equations derived in the Appendix (which also
> deals with Birkhoff's theorem), the decreasing depth
> continuously shortens `radar' distances within the well,
> causing the observed apparent acceleration.  The magnitude
> of the anomalous acceleration implies the bottom of the
> potential well has not yet risen very far above the critical
> depth for gravitational time dilation.  Thus the Pioneer
> effect supports the essentials of several creationist
> cosmologies: a centre of mass, expansion of space and recent
> time dilation.
>
> Big bang theorists, whose cosmology does not have a centre
> of mass, cannot use this explanation.  As yet, they have
> no alternative theory upon which they agree."

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

T.C. Memo. 2012-305

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

BRUCE GUNKLE AND
SHERILYN S. GUNKLE,

Petitioners

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

Docket No. 5650-11.
Filed November 1, 2012.

Scott W. Gross, for petitioners.
Brooke S. Laurie, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $16,262 in
petitioners' Federal income tax for 2007 and a penalty of $3,252.40 under
section
6662(a).

The issues for decision are whether petitioners' taxable income includes
deposits into two bank accounts, whether they are entitled to charitable
contribution deductions, and whether they are liable for the penalty.

All section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and
all
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioners resided in Texas at the time they filed their petition.

Bruce Gunkle
earned a bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy and a master's
degree in theology from Antioch University.

Sherilyn Gunkle attended one year of
college at the University of South Carolina.

During 2007 petitioners served as pastors and conducted religious worship
services and performed sacerdotal functions for the City of Refuge Christian
Fellowship (City of Refuge CF).

The City of Refuge Christian Fellowship, Inc. (City of Refuge, Inc.), was
formed as a domestic nonprofit corporation on January 11, 1990, by filing
articles of
incorporation with the secretary of state for Texas. In 1991 the Internal
Revenue
Service (IRS) granted City of Refuge, Inc., exempt status under section
501(c)(3).

In 2002 petitioner Bruce Gunkle attended a Church Leadership Conference.
Elizabeth Gardner and Fredrick "Ric" Gardner were invitees to the conference,
and
Elizabeth Gardner was a speaker at the conference. Petitioners requested that
the Gardners help them establish Bruce W. Gunkle, a religious corporation sole
and his successors for the governance of the City of Refuge CF.

Thereafter petitioner Bruce Gunkle concluded that he did not wish to continue
operating as a nonprofit corporation or to continue the section 501(c)(3) status
previously acknowledged by the IRS for City of Refuge, Inc., because of concern
that such status might allow Government interference with the organization, that
the
"business model" of a corporation allowed the directors a say in the operations,
and
that continuity of the organization would be aided by a new format. On February
25, 2004, the Office of Presiding Pastor, Bruce W. Gunkle, And His Successors, A
Corporation Sole, was formed in Nevada.

On March 1, 2004, petitioners each
signed a document entitled "Vow of Poverty".

By a resolution dated April 1, 2004,
the City of Refuge CF resolved in part that "The church accepts their
confirmation
and * * * City of Refuge Christian Fellowship will provide all their needs as
Apostle
and as pastors of this church ministry. A check will be placed in the church
pastoral
account every two weeks according to all the needs of the pastors."

Petitioners
executed a deed transferring their residence to the City of Refuge CF.
On April 22, 2004, the City of Refuge, Inc., was dissolved by articles of
dissolution signed by Bruce Gunkle and filed with the secretary of state for
Texas.

On June 16, 2004, the IRS notified the City of Refuge, Inc., and Bruce Gunkle
that the organization's section 501(c)(3) status was terminated and that
contributions to it were no longer tax deductible.


During 2007 a checking account was held at Wells Fargo Bank in the name of
"The City of Refuge Christian Fellowship Pastoral Expense Account" (pastoral
account).

Petitioners each had signature authority for the pastoral account.
Petitioners' daughter, Theresa R. Gunkle, and Sylvia Crutchfield, office
administrator and children's pastor for the City of Refuge CF, also had
signature
authority on the pastoral account. However, neither petitioners' daughter nor
the
office administrator signed any checks to withdraw funds from the pastoral
account
during 2007. Bank statements for the pastoral account were mailed to
petitioners'
residence.

Deposits into the pastoral account during 2007 included payments by church
members and nonmembers as well as Social Security payments to Bruce Gunkle
electronically deposited pursuant to directions of Bruce Gunkle.
During 2007 all checks written to make withdrawals from the pastoral
account were written by one of petitioners.

Petitioners used the funds in the
pastoral account to purchase groceries for their personal consumption, to make
payments on a 2006 Ford Explorer and a 2006 Lincoln LT truck that they owned
personally, to pay other vehicle expenses, and to pay their household and living
expenses and other personal expenses. Payments for the mortgage, as well as
payments for utilities and repairs and maintenance on petitioners' residence,
were
made from the pastoral account.

Sherilyn Gunkle had signature authority on an account at Randolph Brooks
Federal Credit Union (RBFCU account) during 2007. The RBFCU account was in
the names of Sherilyn Gunkle, Theresa Gunkle, and Lisa Sue Blasco.

Bank
statements for the RBFCU account were sent to petitioners' residence. Deposits
into the RBFCU account during 2007 consisted of $7,800 transferred from the
pastoral account, cash, and dividends earned on the account.

All cash deposits into
the account were made by petitioners.

On their jointly filed 2007 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,
petitioners reported $36,993, the amount of Bruce Gunkle's military pension, as
wages.

They also reported $14,466 of Social Security benefits received and that
$4,637 was the taxable amount of those benefits.

They did not report any income
from the City of Refuge CF. They claimed a deduction of $13,917 for charitable
contributions, of which $8,926 was claimed for contributions to the City of
Refuge
CF.

The tax return was prepared and signed by Frederick Gardner.

On March 21, 2008, an injunction was entered in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in civil action No. CV05-3073-PCT-EHC enjoining
Frederick Gardner and Elizabeth Gardner from activities including promotion of
corporations sole because, among other things, the District Court found that
they
had participated in an abusive tax program promising unwarranted tax benefits
from
a corporation sole.

Bruce Gunkle received a copy of the injunction in June 2008
and read it.

The notice of deficiency was based on analysis of bank accounts over which
petitioners maintained control, to wit, the pastoral account and the RBFCU
account.

By this method, respondent determined that petitioners had unreported income of
$72,727.79, but respondent has made concessions reducing the unreported income
amount to $62,456.64.

Respondent also disallowed all of petitioners' claimed
charitable contribution deductions and adjusted the taxable amount of Social
Security benefits to reflect the increased income determined in the notice.

OPINION

Unreported Income

Petitioners contend that deposits into the pastoral account were nontaxable
gifts by various donors to the City of Refuge CF and that their vows of poverty
insulate them from taxation on the compensation they received for their
services to that church.

In very similar circumstances we have held that deposits made into the
account of a purported church were includable in the taxpayers' gross income
where
the taxpayers were the owners of the bank accounts, exercised complete control
over the funds in the accounts, and used those funds for personal expenditures.

See
Woods v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-611, aff'd without published opinion, 929
F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Chambers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2011-114.

In Woods we stated:

> It is not necessary to disregard the separate
> existence of the church or to challenge the
> tax status of the church as an entity in order
> to sustain respondent's determinations in this
> case. Whether they were entitled to the funds
> or embezzled the funds from the church,
> petitioners exercised complete dominion and
> control over deposits into the various bank
> accounts that were the basis of respondent's
> determination. * * *

Taxpayers may not self-declare an exemption from income tax by the simple
expediency of taking a vow of poverty. See McGahen v. Commissioner, 76 T.C.
468, 478-479 (1981), aff'd without published opinion, 720 F.2d 664 (3d Cir.
1983).

Payments or benefits received in exchange for services rendered by
individuals and not on behalf of a separate and distinct principal are taxable
to the
individuals. See Pollard v. Commissioner, 786 F.2d 1063, 1065-1066 (11th Cir.
1986), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1984-536; Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 995,
999-1002 (1982), aff'd, 748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984); McGahen v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. at 478-479; Yoshihara v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-375.

Petitioners in their reply brief deny that there is an entity named "The City of
Refuge" and simultaneously assert that Bruce Gunkle formed the City of Refuge
CF.

Their claims that the payments deposited into the pastoral account were for a
church
for which petitioners were merely agents is unsupported, inexplicable, and
unpersuasive.

Here payment of their personal living expenses from funds of the City of
Refuge CF was, by the agreement reflected in the resolution accepting
petitioners'
vows of poverty, in exchange for services petitioners performed as pastors.

Thus
the payment of their personal expenses was compensation they received.

In
addition, petitioners exercised complete dominion and control over all of the
funds
in the pastoral account without any restriction by the City of Refuge CF or any
other
person.

One of Bruce Gunkle's stated reasons for dissolving the corporation
known as City of Refuge, Inc., was his belief that such an entity allowed the
directors of the corporation to control management of the entity.

City of Refuge CF
was controlled only by petitioners.

They did not receive payments as agents of City of Refuge CF. To the contrary,
payments made to the City of Refuge CF
pastoral account were solely for their benefit.

Although petitioners claim to be members of a religious order, they have not
shown that the City of Refuge CF has any characteristics of a religious order.
See,
e.g., Kircher v. United States, 872 F.2d 1014, 1018-1019 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Found.
of Human Understanding v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1341 (1987); St. Joseph Farms
of Indiana Bros. of the Congregation of Holy Cross, Southwest Province, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 9 (1985); Rev. Proc. 91-20, 1991-1 C.B. 524.

Thus they
are not entitled to rules applicable to payment of expenses on behalf of members
of
a religious order.

Petitioners identify the RBFCU account as a savings account which they also
used as their own and have not shown that any other person had an interest in or
control over the account. Respondent has conceded that transfers from the
pastoral
account into the RBFCU account are not taxable, but petitioners have not shown
that the cash deposits into the RBFCU account or the interest earned on the
account
are not their income. See Price v. United States, 335 F.2d 671, 677 (5th Cir.
1964);
Chambers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-114; Yoshihara v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-375.

We conclude that respondent's determination of petitioners' unreported
income, as reduced by the concessions in respondent's brief, properly included
amounts deposited into the pastoral account and the RBFCU account.

Charitable Contribution Deductions

Respondent asserts that the amounts claimed for contributions to the City of
Refuge CF were not deductible because petitioners did not give up control over
those amounts, which ultimately were used for their benefit. See sec.
170(c)(2)(C).

Moreover, argues respondent, there is no evidence that City of Refuge CF
qualified
under section 501(c)(3) to receive deductible contributions once the exempt
status
of City of Refuge, Inc., was terminated.

Respondent also disallowed deductions for alleged contributions to John P.
Kelly Ministries, Inc. (DBA L.E.A.D.), and International Christian
Wealthbuilders
Foundation and argues that there is no evidence in the record establishing the
eligibility of these organizations to receive tax-deductible contributions under
section 170(c)(2).

Finally, respondent argues that there is no evidence that petitioners actually
made the claimed charitable contributions because the bank records reviewed by
respondent do not show the source of the claimed charitable contributions.

To the
extent the Court finds that the income deposited into the pastoral account is
the taxable income of petitioners, respondent concedes that any amounts paid
from the pastoral account should be treated as amounts paid by petitioners.

Petitioners have the burden of proving their entitlement to deductions
claimed. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934).

Petitioners have presented only purported receipts for the contributions and no
evidence regarding the charitable or church status of the entities issuing the
receipts.
See, e.g., Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 1002 ("To get a charitable
deduction, petitioner[s] must prove that the recipient organization qualified
under
section 170(c)(2).

For a church to so qualify, it must meet the section 501(c)(3)
organizational and operational tests".). They have not addressed in their briefs
respondent's contentions concerning entities other than City of Refuge CF and
have
made only generalized and unsupported assertions concerning the status of City
of
Refuge CF.

Under the circumstances of this case, petitioners have not satisfied the
burden of proof and have not presented credible evidence under section 7491 to
shift the burden to respondent.

Section 6662 Penalty

Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) imposes a 20% accuracy-related penalty
on any underpayment of Federal income tax attributable to a taxpayer's
negligence
or disregard of rules or regulations or substantial understatement of income
tax.

Section 6662(c) defines negligence as including any failure to make a
reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Code and defines
disregard
as any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard. Disregard of rules or
regulations
is careless if the taxpayer does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine
the
correctness of a tax return position that is contrary to the rule or regulation.
Sec.
1.6662-3(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.

An understatement of income tax is substantial if
it exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return or
$5,000. Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

Under section 7491(c), respondent has the burden of producing evidence that
the section 6662 penalty is appropriate. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
438, 446-447 (2001).

Respondent has met this burden by evidence of unreported
income and improper deductions that resulted in a substantial understatement of
income tax.

Petitioners have not addressed the reasonable cause or good-faith defenses to
the section 6662 penalty. See sec. 6664(c)(1); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
at 448-449.

They do not claim to have relied on anyone with respect to the
omissions of income or claimed deductions.

For obvious reasons in view of his
history, petitioners do not claim to have relied on Frederick Gardner, the
preparer of
their tax return.

They simply claim that they did not have unreported income
and that they substantiated their deductions, claims that we have rejected for
the reasons stated above.

We have considered the other arguments of the parties in their poorly
organized and less than satisfactory briefs. They are lacking in merit or
irrelevant to
our conclusions.

To reflect respondent's concessions,

Decision will be entered
under Rule 155

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

Some may recall my considerable, and brief, jousting with "Bonesiii" regarding
the age of stuff; he failed his "Goliath of GRAS" exercise.  Please note that
"Bonesiii" has a science fiction hobby and is a specialist/expert therein. -
RLBaty

http://bonesiiitruthseeker.webs.com/apps/blog/entries/show/19678655-purpose-of-s\
tars

Purpose of Stars

Posted by bonesiii
November 1, 2012 at 6:15 AM

(excerpts)

The question of why God made so many stars has puzzled many, from my experience
talking with people I know.

Reactions to this range from...to...the idea that God would not want to confuse
us about the age of the universe in this early scientific era when we have very
limited information but enough to know that at face value distant starlight
seems to require much more age than the Bible's 6000 years (as of the 2000s AD).

(O)ne occured to me recently that I haven't seen anyone ever say.

That is to demonstrate a large number, so that he could make a comparison to the
number of the stars when giving Abraham a prophecy of how numerous his
descendants would be, and for others to understand how vast the numbers of
humans would be.

This is one of the most common uses of the idea of the stars in the Bible.

It often accompanies another comparison to the sand on the seashore.

This gives me the idea that this may be a factor in why God created our world
with atoms, molecules, and the possibility of larger particles like sand, versus
making something more abstract like a computer simulation.

Just as evolution is a popular myth now that confuses Christians, there was a
powerful myth in biblical times and even with surviving traces today that matter
is evil, while only the 'heavenly' is good (though those who put this forward
have no answer for what the heavenly is like or whether it, too, is made of
particles).

Thus it puzzled many why God did make a universe with matter.

(W)hat I like about this answer is that it incorporates actual Scripture rather
than just speculation.

Once we consider that God decided to make numerous "particles" both tiny and
massive -- atoms and stars, photons and galaxies -- the vast distances become
necessary because long-burning sources of light such as stars require that much
space, thereabouts, or else we would burn up from the concentrated heat.

If we take as a premise that under the originally perfect system, God would NOT
cease reproduction at that point, then it is quite possible with eternal
lifespans that we could travel to the stars.

All that would be needed would to make a spacecraft that could contain enough
supplies to last for the first journey and a long time after landing on another
planet to serve as a colony, with terraforming technology to make the new world
eventually habitable (possibly after a long time of sending out intersteller
probes).

Presumably this would be quite within our means; there would be no need for
faster-than-light travel technically, although who knows what sort of technology
would be possible with perfect minds and the possibility of common miracles.

Even if he did cease reproduction, I think it would be inevitable that we would
want to explore and possibly terraform, just so we would have more room to be
creative. Eventually everybody could own their own terraformed planet or
multiple terraformed planets.

Possibly it would take incredibly long times to travel between them, but it
would be possible.

A problem with that, of course, is that once you leave Earth, you're opening up
the risk of death.

We don't know how protective the original created system was, but presumably God
would not allow us to do anything that he would not agree to give us protection
for, including possibly miraculous protection. Since we would not be at odds
with him due to sin, there would be no reason for him to withhold miraculous
protection from us, even from the deadly nothingness of space.

I think another -- very obvious -- purpose of stars is just that God is highly
creative.

He seems to like to watch vast numbers of possibilities play out.

I know I would if I were him.

Give me the option to make a tiny universe with one star and a few planets, or a
vast universe filled with galaxies full of stars, and there would be no question
I'd choose the latter.

Now, of course another purpose of stars is directly stated in Genesis; to give
more light to the Earth at night.

They are also helpful with navigation at sea, among countless other uses.

Plus, they give us something to use our minds studying for enjoyment.

The list really can go on and on.

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/rev-robert-schuller-heads-to-court-for-claims-\
against-crystal-cathedral-84249/

Rev. Robert Schuller Heads to Court for Claims Against Crystal Cathedral

Crystal Cathedral Ministries Founder Says Church Broke Contract, Owes Him More
Than $5M

By Nicola Menzie
Christian Post Reporter
November 1, 2012

(excerpts)

The Rev. Robert H. Schuller is headed to a California bankruptcy court Thursday
to address a $5 million claim that the ministry he founded nearly 50 years ago
has reneged on its agreement to financially support he and his wife, and has
been violating his intellectual property rights.

The elder Schullers claim in their lawsuit that Crystal Cathedral Ministries
owes them money based on a contract made several years ago and in which it was
agreed that administrators would provide the couple with more than $337,000
yearly for housing and insurance and for Robert Harold, Inc., among other
payments.

Robert Harold, Inc. is the name of the Rev. Schuller's corporation, according to
The OC Register.

The elder Schuller, 86, also accused the ministry of exploiting and benefiting
from his dozens of top-selling books and television recordings, reportedly
saying in court papers that

> "...both my wife and I were quite generous
> in allowing (Crystal Cathedral Ministries)
> to use our intellectual property."

> "However, at some point, the ministry started
> to exploit our intellectual property on the
> Internet, in ways that I had never contemplated,"

he added.

> "We agree they belong to him,"

said Charles of Schuller's books.

> "We don't offer anything of his for sale. We
> don't quote him or use any of his material.
> We don't show his image on TV or any Internet
> pages."

Crystal Cathedral Ministries sold its sprawling Garden Grove campus to the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Orange last year for $57.5 million, and plans to move to a
different property owned by the diocese next summer, according to The OC
Register.

The ministry currently pays the diocese rent to use the Garden Grove facilities
while in transition.

The Diocese opened the Crystal Cathedral church, renamed Christ Cathedral, for
prayers last month.

Over 1,200 Roman Catholic worshippers gathered at the iconic class sanctuary and
prayed in front of an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the San Jose Mercury News
reports.

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

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:

> Zuma, you said:
>  
>> Psalm 90:4 does not support the Lord
>> treats a day to be indefinite length
>> of human time.

Great!

You refer a day in the Bible to indefinite length of human time.

As a day for you in the Bible is indefinite length of human time, God in Genesis
1 would take indefinite length of human time (infinity) to create the universe.

How do you reconcile the billion years of creation to indefinite length of human
time in creating this universe to support your evolution?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
>
> Zuma says:
> >>>If the word, serpent, in Genesis 2-3 is meant to be symbolic, how could
Adam and Eve have dialogue with it and turn up to have fallen into sin then?
>  
> Answer:
> Actually, it was Eve who 'talked' to the 'serpent' (Gen.3: 6). This just means
she was tempted. She had conflicting emotions about disobeying God. Have you
never sinned and had internal dialogue before doing it? We talk to the "serpent"
in this manner every day, that is why Satan is called the "old serpent". He does
the tempting, not animals. You didn't read Rev. 12: 9 did you? Open your Bible
and read it and think about it!
>  

You have presumed that Eve should have dialogue with herself and the so-called,
serpent, should refer to her conflicting emotions.  Eve should blame herself. 
Why should she blame the serpent as if that it should be from the third party?

Besides, you refer her emotion to a serpent.  How could her conflicting emotion
would turn up to be a serpent in her?

As every Christian has conflicting emotion whether to do good or bad, does your
conclusion turn up to be that there are serpents among all Christians and all of
them have been possessed by serpents?

Could you point to me that which part of the Bible gives a clear definition that
the word, serpent, refers to the conflicting emotions?

The word, serpent, has been defined in the Strong Concordance to be snake.  How
could you relate the word, snake, as spelt out in the Strong Concordance to her
conflicting emotions?

Point out to me any word from the Bible that gives a clear cut that the word,
serpent, in the Bible could also be defined as conflicting emotions.

If you could not point it out from me from the Bible that the word, serpent,
could be interpreted as conflicting emotions, your conclusion simply comes from
your wild imagination.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
>
> Zuma, you said:
>  
> Psalm 90:4 does not support the Lord treats a day to be indefinite length of
human time.
>
> Read carefully Psalm 90:4 as follows:
>
> Psalm 90:4,
>
> > "For a thousand years in thy sight
> > are but as yesterday when it is past,
> > or as a watch in the night."
>

You have mentioned the phrase, indefinite length of human time.  The time could
not be defined only when the time would last until infinity.  If a day in Psalm
90:4 is meant for unknown number of days, the day as mentioned in Psalm 90:4 has
to be lasted until infinity.  If you insist that it should not be lasted until
infinity, you should explain why it is not so in Psalm 90:4?

Besides, you have mentioned with the phrase, length of human time.  If a day
that is mentioned in Psalm 90:4 can be measured in length of human time and yet
human beings could only live up to the most 120 years old, a day as mentioned in
Psalm 90:4 would be fixed within the length of human time.  Thus, the day is
known.

If you would insist that Psalm 90:4 should be meant for unknown number of years,
explain your answer also why a day in Psalm 90:4 should not be interpreted  as
literally a day.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
>
> Zuma, you said:
>  
> Psalm 90:4 does not support the Lord treats a day to be indefinite length of
human time.
>
> Read carefully Psalm 90:4 as follows:
>
> Psalm 90:4,
>
> > "For a thousand years in thy sight
> > are but as yesterday when it is past,
> > or as a watch in the night."
>
>  
> I say this:
> You need to work on a better grasp on the English language. There are ways of
speaking which are literal and there are ways of speaking which are symbolic. 
>  
> When some one says, "a thousand years seems like yesterday" then that is
figurative speech meaning the time behind us is gone. And that is what Psalms
90:4 is saying. A "watch in the night" is referring to people who stayed up at
night to watch for danger such as invading armies. Once the time is behind us,
it is gone, whether it was one evening doing watch, or a thousand years.
>  

A day in literature always stretches across to an unknown number of days.  This
is the same as they would use any part of human body to describe the
environment.

Interpret the Bible from literature's point of view, the words, God, Adam, Eve,
and, Jesus, in the Bible would turn up to be symbolic.

However, we are living in the real world instead of the world with full of
imagination.

The word, day, in Psalm 90:4 should be interpreted literally a day instead of
unknown number of days.

If you like to twist the word in the Bible, explain to me why Adam and Eve in
Genesis 2-3 are not meant for symbolical.

Explain to me why the word, God, in Genesis 1 is not symbolic.

Explain to me why the word, Jesus, in the New Testament is not meant to be
symbolic.

If you mention all these words are not meant for symbolical, explain to me why a
day, as mentioned in Genesis 1 should be so special to be treated as exception
from the word, God, in Genesis 1 and the names, Adam, and, Eve, in Genesis 2-3,
not to be meant for symbolical despite they are mentioned continuously in
Genesis 1:3.

Should I know what is your religion?

Catholics or Charismatic Churches or Jehovah Witness or Mormon

If you belong to any of these churches, I would comment whether your church
teaches the right doctrine.

Grammatical error -

How could her conflicting emotion turn up to be a serpent in her?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29330
"zumamusa64" <zumamusa64@...> wrote:

> Besides, you refer her emotion to a serpent.
> How could her conflicting emotion would turn
> up to be a serpent in her?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
>
> > I said:
> >  
> >> It sounds like you do not think any where
> >> in the Bible is symbolic. So, how about
> >> Revelation 12: 1-5?
> >

Different churches have different interpretations of the book of Revelation. 
They might accept either pre-millennium or millennium or post-millennium or
pre-tribulation or post tribulation or etc.

I support neither of them since I do not want to give any comment on the book of
Revelation for the full compliance of the verses as follows:

Revelation 22:18   For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19   And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of
the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "zumamusa64" <zumamusa64@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@> wrote:
> >
> > > I said:
> > >  
> > >> It sounds like you do not think any where
> > >> in the Bible is symbolic. So, how about
> > >> Revelation 12: 1-5?
> > >
>
> Different churches have different interpretations of the
> book of Revelation.  They might accept either pre-millennium
> or millennium or post-millennium or pre-tribulation or
> post tribulation or etc.
>
> I support neither of them since I do not want to give any
> comment on the book of Revelation for the full compliance
> of the verses as follows:
>
> Revelation 22:18   For I testify unto every man
> that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
> If any man shall add unto these things, God shall
> add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
>
> Revelation 22:19   And if any man shall take away
> from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
> shall take away his part out of the book of life,
> and out of the holy city, and from the things
> which are written in this book.

Such threats never seemed to concern Henry Morris:
http://www.icr.org/article/5931/

It's a lot more expedient for young-earth creationists
to claim Leviathan was a dinosaur than for them to
consider its origin in Sumerian mythology -- well before
the invention of Hebrew writing.


w_w_c_l

When God furnish to us the prophecy in the book of Revelation, He should have
His own interpretation what it should be.

What if God's interpretation of the word, dragon, in Rev 12 should co-incide
with Leviathan, their interpretation should be accepted for that reason.

However, what if God's interpretation of the word, dragon, in Rev 12 does not
refer to Leviathan but otherwise, they have indirectly put or added word in
God's mouth despite He might not mean it.

Some might mention that they do not add any words in the book of Revelation, but
simply interpret it.  They have to bear in mind that God would have His own
interpretation of the book of Revelation.  By pointing out that a certain part
of the book of Revelation to be something in which God does not mean it, they
have indirectly added words in God's mouth.

God is above me and I could not outsmart the intellectual mind of God.

As God demand me not to add or remove any words from the book of Revelation as
mentioned in Rev 22, I leave the interpretation to God entirely.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29335
"w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
> "zumamusa64" <zumamusa64@> wrote:
>
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
>> Ray Ausban <rayausban@> wrote:
>>
>>> I said:
>>>
>>>> It sounds like you do not think any where
>>>> in the Bible is symbolic. So, how about
>>>> Revelation 12: 1-5?
>>
>> Different churches have different interpretations
>> of the book of Revelation.  They might accept
>> either pre-millennium or millennium or post-millennium
>> or pre-tribulation or post tribulation or etc.
>>
>> I support neither of them since I do not want to
>> give any comment on the book of Revelation for the
>> full compliance of the verses as follows:
>>
>> Revelation 22:18   For I testify unto every man
>> that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,
>> If any man shall add unto these things, God shall
>> add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
>>
>> Revelation 22:19   And if any man shall take away
>> from the words of the book of this prophecy, God
>> shall take away his part out of the book of life,
>> and out of the holy city, and from the things
>> which are written in this book.
>
> Such threats never seemed to concern Henry Morris:
> http://www.icr.org/article/5931/
>
> It's a lot more expedient for young-earth creationists
> to claim Leviathan was a dinosaur than for them to
> consider its origin in Sumerian mythology -- well before
> the invention of Hebrew writing.
>
> w_w_c_l

http://www.screendaily.com/home/afm/danny-glover-derek-luke-join-phil-driscoll-p\
rison-drama/5048531.article?blocktitle=Latest-news&contentID=1846

Danny Glover, Derek Luke join Phil Driscoll prison drama

2 November, 2012
By Jeremy Kay

Danny Glover, Derek Luke and Brian Dennehy will star alongside Grammy winner
Phil Driscoll in Saboa Entertainment's true-life prison drama Long Day Journey.

Ellen Pittleman's Hybrid Entertainment is handling worldwide sales on the 3D
drama, based on Driscoll's screenplay about his incarceration for tax evasion.
Driscoll will play himself and will also take a producer credit.

Glover and Luke will play fellow inmates who teach Driscoll how to survive
inside prison, while Dennehy will portray the bullying prison warden. Francis
Delia will direct.

> "You can't go through the devastation I went
> through without it being a life-changing
> experience,"

said Driscoll.

> "The time I spent in prison opened my eyes and
> gave me a perspective on life that I could not
> have found on my own. My time there was the most
> devastating time of my life. But looking around
> me, I saw men and families that were destroyed
> forever."

Phil Driscoll will score the film while providing previously unheard music
written during his sentence. Long Day Journey will be presented in 3D.

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

From: William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith Newsletter)
To: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, November 2, 2012

Subject: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

Reasonable Faith newsletter
October 2012
(excerpts)

Dear Friends of Reasonable Faith,

This past month Jan and I joined our old friends Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg
in Denver, Colorado, for a nationwide simulcast called "Unpacking Atheism."

Churches around the country signed up to receive this broadcast featuring Lee,
Mark, and me discussing the surge of atheism among today's youth and how best to
respond to it, along with inspiring testimonies from two former atheists Holly
Ordway and Randall Niles.

In the live audience there were seventy or so people from local atheist
organizations who chose to attend.

After the simulcast was over, we moved to an adjoining hall where for another
hour and a half we fielded questions from the audience, especially the
unbelievers.

In many ways this dynamic interaction was more exciting than the televised
event!

We talked about the evidence for God's existence and their objections to theism,
all in a cordial spirit of mutual respect.

The feedback from those at the event was so positive that we're exploring how
Reasonable Faith might do such a simulcast of an On Guard conference.

Bill & Jan

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

My sponsor over at Forbes has now just posted a column dealing with the Gunkle
case and that "corporation sole" scheme:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/11/02/evangelicals-and-corporation\
-sole-not-a-marriage-made-in-heaven/

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Maybe it's just a glitch, but I tried to access Jamie's FaceBook page today and
got the following:

http://www.facebook.com/jamie.beller.3?ref=ts&fref=ts

> The page you requested was not found.
>
> You may have clicked an expired link
> or mistyped the address.
>
> Some web addresses are case sensitive.
>
> Return home
> Go back to the previous page

I clicked on the icon for Jamie Beller's page which is still accessible and got
the above, and I also clicked on the link previously provided here that used to
work in accessing Jamie's FaceBook page:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29227
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

> Debate Venue:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/jamie.beller.3

Same response:

> The page you requested was not found.
>
> You may have clicked an expired link
> or mistyped the address.
>
> Some web addresses are case sensitive.
>
> Return home
> Go back to the previous page

Jamie,

What's up?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/02/low-view-of-scripture\
/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+th\
e+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

Low View of Scripture

November 2, 2012
By Ken Ham

(excerpts)

God's Word is clear in the creation account
in Genesis.

The creation of the universe and everything
in it is explained as a miraculous creation
by the power of the words of God in six
literal days.

It would be difficult to misunderstand that.

So why would Pastor Hamilton accuse Dr. Broun of
misrepresenting Genesis?

That's simple - Dr. Broun expressed a view of
God's Word that conflicts with evolutionary
ideas.

But what Hamilton needs to realize is that any
belief that conflicts with (Ken Ham's interpretation
of) the creation has to be lie-otherwise, God's
Word can't be trusted.

As I've said many times over the years, biblical
creationists do appreciate science-just not
evolutionary ideas.

What is sad, however, is that Hamilton's biggest
problem with Dr. Broun seems to be that he has made
the Bible the basis for every area of his thinking,
while Hamilton has not.

And what's worse is that Pastor Hamilton-if he is
teaching these views to his congregation-is leading
his church into serious error.

Pastor Hamilton's compromise with man's religion of
evolution and millions of years is the typical low
view of Scripture that is so prevalent in much of
the church today!

Thanks for stopping by,
Ken Ham

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

My further comments:

Ken Ham, my "Goliath of GRAS" is still waiting for you!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/11/02/feedback-colorado-river

Feedback: What Is Unique About the Colorado River?

by Dr. Andrew Snelling
November 2, 2012

(excerpts)

> I did do a bit of searching on your site about
> my inquiry, but didn't find an exact answer.
> Perhaps it will be a question you will find
> time to answer.
>
> If evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon
> was formed by the Colorado River, why don't rivers
> like the Mississippi, Missouri or the Ohio also
> have some form of canyon?
>
> Thank you,
> Dan White

Dear Mr. White,

I hope these brief comments are a help.

Our understanding of the Flood-how it happened in the past
as described in (our interpretation of) God's Word-is what
informs us of how these present-day rivers are where they
are.

Thanks for your question.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Andrew Snelling

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

From: bucksburg

> It's from a peer-reviewed journal article by
> Dr. Humphreys. The calculations don't come
> through very well in an email but you can
> access a pdf of it via this link:
>
>
http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-o\
f-pioneer-spacecraft

Pi:

>> As it happens, the Pioneer anomaly was explained
>> a few months ago without any need for a new
>> cosmology.  In fact, ordinary well established
>> physics was the only thing necessary. . . For
>> one thing, the Voyager space craft did not
>> experience this anomaly.  Humphreys would need
>> to explain why the Pioneer mission had this
>> problem while the Voyager mission did not.  An
>> extensive review of the data has shown the Pioneer
>> anomaly is due to spacecraft design.

Thanks a bunch for the update, Pi.

Your point about Voyager needing to show this anomaly is well taken, since
Voyager has passed and continues to gain on Pioneer at the rate of 1 AU a year.

Definitely if Humphreys is right, Voyager should show the same anomaly.

If Humphreys turns out to be wrong, this falsifies only one small portion of his
theory: that time dilation is ongoing because space is still expanding. It
doesn't impact any other aspect.

But by the same token, Slava Turyshev (bless his heart, he put so much of his
own time into the Pioneer portion of the research) also needs to show how his
theory explains the same effect in the deceleration of the Galileo and Ulysses
spacecraft.

It looks like he's already written off the possibility of investigating the
change in acceleration of those two spacecraft, dismissing it as "noise in the
data."

http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html

There's another anomaly to Tryshev's triumphant pronouncement, moreover, that
perhaps has already been addressed (I couldn't access the Journal article): for
years he proposed the launch of a new spacecraft specifically to explore the
Pioneer anomaly.

Why would he do this if Voyager was already in space and still sending back
data?

Well, it turns out that the Voyager spacecrafts'design involved "numerous
attitude-control maneuvers" that "can overwhelm the signal of a small external
acceleration." (ibid)

In other words, the Voyagers were designed to overcome the Pioneer effect rather
than exhibit it.

So they are now dropped from the witness list, and we are left with a theory
that apparently only explains only two out of the four recorded cases of the
Pioneer Anomaly.

And another theory that apparently accounts for all of the data.

Daniel

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"zumamusa64" <zumamusa64@...> wrote:

> Should I know what is your religion?
>
> Catholics or Charismatic Churches or
> Jehovah Witness or Mormon
>
> If you belong to any of these churches,
> I would comment whether your church
> teaches the right doctrine.

As I have mentioned earlier, the comments on different practices among churches
are not meant for judgment.

Neither it is to be meant for criticism.

It is merely for the benefit among people so that their church practices could
be acceptable to God and many people would be saved through rectification.

My greatest ambition is to have many people to turn to God and be saved.

If all Christians would have the same ambition in striving for their aim, we
could then be able to see many Christians in heaven in the future.

(Maybe he just went underground on FaceBook??)

I just posted the following to FaceBook:

> From: Robert Baty
> To: http://www.facebook.com/
> Date: Friday, November 2, 2012
> Time: About 7:30 PM MT
>
> What happened to Jamie Beller's Face Book page?
>
> The link now gives the following information:
>
>> The page you requested was not found.
>>
>> You may have clicked an expired link
>> or mistyped the address.
>
> Was it deleted?
>
> Has it gone underground?
>
> When I tried to post the complete link here
> I got the following response:
>
>> Could Not Post to Timeline
>>
>> The privacy settings for this
>> attachment prevent you from
>> posting it to this Timeline.
>
> That seems to indicate he's still got his FaceBook
> page but it's now gone "underground".
>
> Jamie, anybody, what's up with that?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

Maybe it's just a glitch, but I tried to access
Jamie's FaceBook page today and got the following:

http://www.facebook.com/jamie.beller.3?ref=ts&fref=ts

> The page you requested was not found.
>
> You may have clicked an expired link
> or mistyped the address.
>
> Some web addresses are case sensitive.
>
> Return home
> Go back to the previous page

I clicked on the icon for Jamie Beller's page
which is still accessible and got the above,
and I also clicked on the link previously provided
here that used to work in accessing Jamie's
FaceBook page:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29227
  "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:

> Debate Venue:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/jamie.beller.3

Same response:

> The page you requested was not found.
>
> You may have clicked an expired link
> or mistyped the address.
>
> Some web addresses are case sensitive.
>
> Return home
> Go back to the previous page

Jamie,

What's up?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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

Forwarded:

Date: Friday, November 2, 2012
Subject: Millennials and Nones

Listers may be interested in my opportunity last weekend to put
faces on some young people not affiliated with any church - the nones.

...and I were in the hills where Georgia, Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Virginia almost come together.

...had rented some cabins for our family and friends to gather
for the wedding of...and his bride...

Their back-to-nature wedding was beautiful but unconventional.

In addition to family, some special friends of..., including a
dozen of his Air Force Academy and Wings of Blue parachute pals
made up the audience.

...graduated from the USAF five years ago, as did the other AF friends. In that
five-year period, he has earned a master's
degree in Arabic and middle eastern studies, and has become
fluent in Pashto and competent in Urdu and some other languages.

His tours in Afghanistan involved negotiating agreements with provincial
governors and recruiting Taliban fighters for
reintegration into civilian life.

One of his AF friends has earned a medical degree and is doing
a residency in trauma surgery. Another is doing a residency in physchiatry,
working to rehab wounded warriors.

Two are F-16 pilots.

One is a C-17 pilot, currently flying equipment and vehicles
when the president, vice-president, or first lady travel.

One has passed both the LSAT and MCAT, chosen medicine over law,
and is being accepted by every medical school where he has interviewed.

One has been medically retired after being diagnosed with
inoperable brain cancer which is not responding well to
radiation or chemo.

One is a Special Forces sniper able to hit a human target half
a mile away and visible only through a telescopic sight.

All have high security clearances.

Most of the men in the group avidly pursue CrossFit training,
and have muscle definition that would make Bernini envious.

All this is background to give you a brief introduction to a
group of remarkably intelligent, brave, strong, young men and
women.

The two things they have in common are that they are all in
their twenties, and only one is actively involved with a church.

They are all interested in fundamental questions about how life began, why we
are here, what the future holds, etc.

But they see churches as irrelevant.

I would be embarrassed for them to know the intramural sniping
(and I plead guilty) that appears on this list.

...with the brain cancer is...of a Presbyterian pastor but thinks
church has nothing to offer.

My point, if there is one, is to call attention to the kind of
world we live in.

Our recent discussions about the future of the restoration
movement, seen through the lens of this group, is worse than
bleak.

These are the kind of people who will be leaders of our military
and national programs in the near future.

They are not unspiritual or irreligious, but they see churches
as failed or irrelevant institutions.

I have no idea how to meet the challenge they present...

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

I knew I posted these to my Google+ stream for a reason.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

Pioneer Anomaly Solved!
Posted By Bruce Betts (4/19/2012)
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

Pioneer Anomaly Solved? Interstellar Travelers of the Future May Be Helped by
Physicist's Calculations
(Science Daily, 10/9/2012)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121009161103.htm



--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
>
> From: bucksburg
>
> > It's from a peer-reviewed journal article by
> > Dr. Humphreys. The calculations don't come
> > through very well in an email but you can
> > access a pdf of it via this link:
> >
> >
http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-o\
f-pioneer-spacecraft
>
> Pi:
>
> >> As it happens, the Pioneer anomaly was explained
> >> a few months ago without any need for a new
> >> cosmology.  In fact, ordinary well established
> >> physics was the only thing necessary. . . For
> >> one thing, the Voyager space craft did not
> >> experience this anomaly.  Humphreys would need
> >> to explain why the Pioneer mission had this
> >> problem while the Voyager mission did not.  An
> >> extensive review of the data has shown the Pioneer
> >> anomaly is due to spacecraft design.
>
> Thanks a bunch for the update, Pi.
>
> Your point about Voyager needing to show this anomaly is well taken, since
Voyager has passed and continues to gain on Pioneer at the rate of 1 AU a year.
>
> Definitely if Humphreys is right, Voyager should show the same anomaly.
>
> If Humphreys turns out to be wrong, this falsifies only one small portion of
his theory: that time dilation is ongoing because space is still expanding. It
doesn't impact any other aspect.
>
> But by the same token, Slava Turyshev (bless his heart, he put so much of his
own time into the Pioneer portion of the research) also needs to show how his
theory explains the same effect in the deceleration of the Galileo and Ulysses
spacecraft.
>
> It looks like he's already written off the possibility of investigating the
change in acceleration of those two spacecraft, dismissing it as "noise in the
data."
>
> http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html
>
> There's another anomaly to Tryshev's triumphant pronouncement, moreover, that
perhaps has already been addressed (I couldn't access the Journal article): for
years he proposed the launch of a new spacecraft specifically to explore the
Pioneer anomaly.
>
> Why would he do this if Voyager was already in space and still sending back
data?
>
> Well, it turns out that the Voyager spacecrafts'design involved "numerous
attitude-control maneuvers" that "can overwhelm the signal of a small external
acceleration." (ibid)
>
> In other words, the Voyagers were designed to overcome the Pioneer effect
rather than exhibit it.
>
> So they are now dropped from the witness list, and we are left with a theory
that apparently only explains only two out of the four recorded cases of the
Pioneer Anomaly.
>
> And another theory that apparently accounts for all of the data.
>
> Daniel
>

By the way, Humphreys' article was never published in a "peer-reviewed journal"
of a professional science publication. The statement that it was published in a
"peer-reviewed journal" is, thus, a lie.

Just being honest and forthright about it. It's this kind of deceitful rhetoric
- which young earth creationist literature is permeated with - that is one of
the many features that expose the corrupt nature of the mentality of young earth
creationism.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> I knew I posted these to my Google+ stream for a reason.
>
> Chuckling,
> Todd Greene
>
> Pioneer Anomaly Solved!
> Posted By Bruce Betts (4/19/2012)
> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
>
> Pioneer Anomaly Solved? Interstellar Travelers of the Future May Be Helped by
Physicist's Calculations
> (Science Daily, 10/9/2012)
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121009161103.htm
>
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg" <bucksburg@> wrote:
> >
> > From: bucksburg
> >
> > > It's from a peer-reviewed journal article by
> > > Dr. Humphreys. The calculations don't come
> > > through very well in an email but you can
> > > access a pdf of it via this link:
> > >
> > >
http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-o\
f-pioneer-spacecraft
> >
> > Pi:
> >
> > >> As it happens, the Pioneer anomaly was explained
> > >> a few months ago without any need for a new
> > >> cosmology.  In fact, ordinary well established
> > >> physics was the only thing necessary. . . For
> > >> one thing, the Voyager space craft did not
> > >> experience this anomaly.  Humphreys would need
> > >> to explain why the Pioneer mission had this
> > >> problem while the Voyager mission did not.  An
> > >> extensive review of the data has shown the Pioneer
> > >> anomaly is due to spacecraft design.
> >
> > Thanks a bunch for the update, Pi.
> >
> > Your point about Voyager needing to show this anomaly is well taken, since
Voyager has passed and continues to gain on Pioneer at the rate of 1 AU a year.
> >
> > Definitely if Humphreys is right, Voyager should show the same anomaly.
> >
> > If Humphreys turns out to be wrong, this falsifies only one small portion of
his theory: that time dilation is ongoing because space is still expanding. It
doesn't impact any other aspect.
> >
> > But by the same token, Slava Turyshev (bless his heart, he put so much of
his own time into the Pioneer portion of the research) also needs to show how
his theory explains the same effect in the deceleration of the Galileo and
Ulysses spacecraft.
> >
> > It looks like he's already written off the possibility of investigating the
change in acceleration of those two spacecraft, dismissing it as "noise in the
data."
> >
> > http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html
> >
> > There's another anomaly to Tryshev's triumphant pronouncement, moreover,
that perhaps has already been addressed (I couldn't access the Journal article):
for years he proposed the launch of a new spacecraft specifically to explore the
Pioneer anomaly.
> >
> > Why would he do this if Voyager was already in space and still sending back
data?
> >
> > Well, it turns out that the Voyager spacecrafts'design involved "numerous
attitude-control maneuvers" that "can overwhelm the signal of a small external
acceleration." (ibid)
> >
> > In other words, the Voyagers were designed to overcome the Pioneer effect
rather than exhibit it.
> >
> > So they are now dropped from the witness list, and we are left with a theory
that apparently only explains only two out of the four recorded cases of the
Pioneer Anomaly.
> >
> > And another theory that apparently accounts for all of the data.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
>

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29348
"Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in part:

> By the way, Humphreys' article was never published
> in a "peer-reviewed journal" of a professional
> science publication.

I think Humphreys' paper was published the Journal of Creation.

I found this on that:

http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/tj.htm

> Creation Science Rebuttals
> Technical Journal ("TJ") and Journal of Creation
>
> Answers in Genesis produced a technical journal
> for the general public.  This journal, called
> Technical Journal, or TJ, is claimed to be
> "peer-reviewed."
>
> However, the peers doing the reviewing are also
> young earth creationists.
>
> Therefore, in the normal understanding of what
> peer-review means, this journal fails to meet
> the standards.
>
> Many Technical Journal articles are also posted
> on the web.  On this page you can access our
> rebuttals for the contents of this magazine.
>
> With the defection of the United States branch
> of Answers in Genesis, Answers in Genesis -
> Australia has been renamed Creation Ministries
> International.
>
> The Australian branch was the publisher of TJ.
>
> As of 2006, this journal has been renamed
> Journal of Creation.

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