I am curious as to what happened to the list.  For the most part I
was rather enjoying my discussions on this list, especially with
Danny and Peter; however, there hasn't been any discussion since the
latter part of May.

Kyle

Lowell Baker's Striping Service
1 Thess 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

1 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your
own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except
ye be reprobates?"


----- Original Message -----
From: Lowell Baker
To: Creation Talk (E-mail)
Cc: OriginsTalk (E-mail)
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 9:56 AM
Subject: [CreationTalk] Monument Valley










One thing that I don't think any creationist has addressed is Monument Valley.
One only has to look at the formations to see that the debris at the bottom of
these formations is only 1000's of years old. There simply is not enough
material at the base of these to have been standing for millions of years.
Especially, since you can see the material that has recently fallen off the
sides. You can still see where the base is washed away when the area lifted up
and soft layers of sediment washed away, leaving only recent material   which
has fallen off from the face and lower sides of the formation.  It seemed so
evident to me tonight after seeing the aerial pictures from the movie
"Windtalkers".  Just thought I would email it to you guys.



Lowell Baker


CreationTalk Discussion Group
Creation Science Resource
http://nwcreation.net/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Kyle, I have seen this sort of thing before.  I was very busy at the
end of the school year, so I have not been on often enough to stir
the pot so to speak.  What need to happen is to get new folks on the
list from both sides.  There were only about 6 active folks on the
list.  We need to invite some more folks out to get things going
again.


--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "apologetics_2000"
<apologetics@l...> wrote:
> I am curious as to what happened to the list.  For the most part I
> was rather enjoying my discussions on this list, especially with
> Danny and Peter; however, there hasn't been any discussion since
the
> latter part of May.
>
> Kyle

The founder of Sonlight Curriculum, a wildly popular Christian Homeschool
curriculum, recently converted to OEC from a young-earth view.

Interesting.

To read more about this http://sonlight.com/articles/young_or_old_earth.html


Fuz Rana

I just took a detailed look at AIG's 20 arguments Christians shouldn't use
in detail for the first time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Very interesting.

I noted that at the time of publication of this list, several discussion
group members, and AIG supporters, in a rather self-congratulatory way
heralded AIG's integrity for abandoning these bad arguments.  I do agree
that this took courage and AIG did the right thing in this instance.

I also recall that Hugh Ross was challenged to recant his faulty
arguments.  Of course, his integrity was repeatedly called into question.

It is interesting to note  that nearly every item on this list represents
an argument that Hugh, and RTB, has historically denounced as bad
apologetics.  In other cases, some of the  not-to-be-used arguments are
included on this list in direct response to Hugh's teachings.

This being the case, whose judgment should we mistrust?  I anticipate that
AIG, and other YECs, will be forced to recant many other arguments as
their questionable science and exegetical treatment of scripture becomes
more widely exposed and impossible to deny.

Fuz Rana


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

And if Rana and Ross want to take credit for AiG's recantation, then
they need to provide dates where *they* addressed the arguments and
where *AiG* first addressed them, then IF Ross was first, prove a
connection.

All Rana provided was assertion.  But the AiG article cited many old
AiG articles to back up the points, where were mainly just combined
in a summary article.  And many of them have never been advocated by
AiG in the first place, so Ross certainly can't take any credit
there. Note also, it wasn't just AiG supporters acknowledging AiG's
integrity but people like OEC Kyle Witten as well.

As can be seen from the copious citing from AiG articles, AiG had
already previously addressed most of the claims! Rather, this article
mainly combined them into a good summary article.

Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
means?  It's obvious he was on the back foot in his interview with
Eugenie Scott, and eventually had to back track and say what AiG has
said all along, that the "kind" is broader than the so-
called "species".  And I get no pleasure in seeing any representative
of Christianity wrongfooted by a leading antitheist.

Again, I must repeat what I [KS] said in Post 1788: Will Ross have
the integrity to publish "Arguments OECs shouldn't use"?, for
example,

When will Hugh Ross show the integrity Kyle acknowledged in AiG to
publish an article "Arguments OECs shouldn't use"? The article would
be voluminous, but here are some to start off with, which even Fuz
shouldn't dispute:

* The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood
(1 G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close
since 1 day = 86,400 sec).

* The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only
250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and these
are probably highly taxonomically "split").

* YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
discussion board, most Church Fathers and Reformers who addressed the
issued explicitly stated that the Earth wasn't even 6000 years old.
Also Ross fails to acknowledge that his local flood arguments are
essentially the same as those of 19th century compromiser John Pye
Smith and were virtually unheard of before the rise of old-
Earth "science").

* Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of
years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are a
number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World karstology
expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how anyone
could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long when
there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically
in the past.

* planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped
very quickly).

* Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field decay"
argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who
overlook, or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID
reversals over 15 years ago.)

* The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...> wrote:
> I just took a detailed look at AIG's 20 arguments Christians
shouldn't use
> in detail for the first time.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
>
> Very interesting.
>
> I noted that at the time of publication of this list, several
discussion
> group members, and AIG supporters, in a rather self-congratulatory
way
> heralded AIG's integrity for abandoning these bad arguments.  I do
agree
> that this took courage and AIG did the right thing in this
instance.
>
> I also recall that Hugh Ross was challenged to recant his faulty
> arguments.  Of course, his integrity was repeatedly called into
question.
>
> It is interesting to note  that nearly every item on this list
represents
> an argument that Hugh, and RTB, has historically denounced as bad
> apologetics.  In other cases, some of the  not-to-be-used arguments
are
> included on this list in direct response to Hugh's teachings.
>
> This being the case, whose judgment should we mistrust?  I
anticipate that
> AIG, and other YECs, will be forced to recant many other arguments
as
> their questionable science and exegetical treatment of scripture
becomes
> more widely exposed and impossible to deny.
>
> Fuz Rana
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fuz posts Holzmann's apostasy as though it's news.  But this has gone
on for years now.  Dr Tas Walker wrote the article "Geology and the
young earth Answering those 'Bible-believing' bibliosceptics",
Creation Ex Nihilo. 21(4)16-20 September-November 1999
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp was largely written in
response to Holzmann and his sources.  He claimed to have been well-
read in creationist literature, but was actually crassly ignorant of
our many published answers to his 'unanswerable' problems.
Amazingly, at the time, he had never read anything by Ken Ham on the
crucial importance of a plain reading of Genesis.  Despite claiming
that he is anti-evolution, Holzmann promotes the theistic-
evolutionary garbage by Glenn Morton, who takes most of the credit
for Holzmann's turn around from what was actually a sadly uninformed
YEC view.  Holzmann, like Ross, also promotes the old-earth
creationist book by Alan Hayward, who is a Christadelphian cultist
who denies the Deity of Christ (yet Ross has praised his
sound theology, and Kyle also admires the book).  Holzmann just
didn't want to know when Dr Tas Walker refuted all Hayward's
geological 'proofs' for an old earth (note that Dr Walker is actually
a geologist unlike Hayward!).  And he repeats Ross's LIE that YECs
fear that billions of years will make evolution possible, which as
shown is garbage as can easily be seen by reading Gish's 1970s and
1980s works, well before Ross's time.

Another thing you should know.  I've known about Holzmann's site for
ages, and he *recommends* heretical Roman Catholic books denying Sola
Scriptura and Sola Fide.  Compare his comments on a pro-Protestant
and pro-RC books (from November 2000):

Here is the single defence of Protestant orthodoxy with negative
comments:

The Gospel According to Rome  #8E08  $12.99
McCarthy. The founder and director of Good News for Catholics, Inc.,
examines basic Catholic doctrines as taught in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. Specific doctrines addressed include salvation, the
Mass, Mary, and Church Authority. He references various portions of
the Catechism, summarizes his understanding of the Catechism's
teaching and then compares that summary to Scripture. Note: Catholics
have complained that the author misrepresents Catholic teaching.
Researchers-both Protestant and Catholic-ought to acquire a copy of
the Catechism itself to see whether this charge is accurate. Pb, 397
pp. RA: 6-A; R: 8-A

But look at the glowing recommendations he gives to Papist books:

Catholicism and Fundamentalism  	 #8E04  $13.95
Keating. A masterful response to evangelical attacks on the Roman
Catholic faith. A heartfelt plea for understanding. The author is
editor of
Catholic Answers, a journal devoted to Roman Catholic apologetics. If
you purchase this book, you will want #8E08 and #8E09 as well. Pb,
360
pp.  RA: 7-A; R: 8-A

Not By Faith Alone  #8E10  $24.95
Sungenis. Written for laypeople and scholars, the text of this book
is very easy to read, but it is heavily footnoted so that any serious
scholar can go to any of the hundreds of original sources, both
historical as well as modern, to pursue almost every point at greater
length. The author references-and seeks to refute-virtually all the
titles Protestants have come to rely on for their interpretation of
Scripture on this matter. He seeks, on the basis of Scripture alone,
to argue that the Protestant battle cry, "By Faith Alone!" is not
only unScriptural, but largely unsupported even by staunch,
conservative Protestants! -And, he asks, if this is the case, then
what is the truth about salvation? Extremely thought-provoking. A
wonderful model of careful scholarship and
gracious, passionate discourse. Pb, 774 pp.RA: 8-A; R: 8-A

Not By Scripture Alone  #8E12  $19.95
Sungenis, ed. Subtitled, "A Catholic Critique of the Protestant
Doctrine of Sola Scriptura," this is a companion volume to Not By
Faith Alone.
An historical, biblical, and philosophical critique of the Protestant
doctrine. As with its sister volume, this book is a model of careful,
gracious scholarship and discourse. Heavily footnoted, but still
relatively easy to read. Pb, 629 pp. RA: 8-A; R: 8-A

Evangelical is Not Enough  #8E03  $10.95
Howard. Written by one of Elisabeth Elliot's brothers, this is the
personal story of conversion to a Catholic view and practice out of
solid evangelical (and missionary) roots. Howard speaks winsomely and
earnestly to a Protestant audience. Highly thought-provoking; in the
style of C.S. Lewis. Pb, 162 pp. RA: 6-A; R: 8-A

I must conclude that Holzmann is a deceitful promoter of not only
serious doctrinal error in Genesis, but outright heresy in the vital
matters of bibliology and soteriologly.  This shows what a wolf in
sheep's clothing Holzmann really is.  I hope that evangelicals will
not buy a single pamphlet from him.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...> wrote:
> The founder of Sonlight Curriculum, a wildly popular Christian
Homeschool curriculum, recently converted to OEC from a young-earth
view.
>
> Interesting.
>
> To read more about this
http://sonlight.com/articles/young_or_old_earth.html
>
>
> Fuz Rana

Actually Kyle if you read back in the archives you will see where some rather
disturbing facts were shown about the site and its integrity. Kurt was shown in
a *very* bad light and most decided to leave the group in search of a more
honest discussion environment.

Another YEC type group was started but it was soon very clear that it was no
better.

I have as yet not found another group and as a result am sitting in the
background still.

God Bless
Peter Carter
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kurt_streutker
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 4:14 AM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: What happened to the list?


   Kyle, I have seen this sort of thing before.  I was very busy at the
   end of the school year, so I have not been on often enough to stir
   the pot so to speak.  What need to happen is to get new folks on the
   list from both sides.  There were only about 6 active folks on the
   list.  We need to invite some more folks out to get things going
   again.


   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "apologetics_2000"
   <apologetics@l...> wrote:
   > I am curious as to what happened to the list.  For the most part I
   > was rather enjoying my discussions on this list, especially with
   > Danny and Peter; however, there hasn't been any discussion since
   the
   > latter part of May.
   >
   > Kyle


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Somehow I am not surprised by this response.

Fuz
   -----Original Message-----
   From: kurtusmaximus [mailto:kurtusmaximus@...]
   Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:07 PM
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Founder of Sonlight Homeschool
Curriculum Converts to OEC


   Fuz posts Holzmann's apostasy as though it's news.  But this has gone
   on for years now.  Dr Tas Walker wrote the article "Geology and the
   young earth Answering those 'Bible-believing' bibliosceptics",
   Creation Ex Nihilo. 21(4)16-20 September-November 1999
   http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4127.asp was largely written in
   response to Holzmann and his sources.  He claimed to have been well-
   read in creationist literature, but was actually crassly ignorant of
   our many published answers to his 'unanswerable' problems.
   Amazingly, at the time, he had never read anything by Ken Ham on the
   crucial importance of a plain reading of Genesis.  Despite claiming
   that he is anti-evolution, Holzmann promotes the theistic-
   evolutionary garbage by Glenn Morton, who takes most of the credit
   for Holzmann's turn around from what was actually a sadly uninformed
   YEC view.  Holzmann, like Ross, also promotes the old-earth
   creationist book by Alan Hayward, who is a Christadelphian cultist
   who denies the Deity of Christ (yet Ross has praised his
   sound theology, and Kyle also admires the book).  Holzmann just
   didn't want to know when Dr Tas Walker refuted all Hayward's
   geological 'proofs' for an old earth (note that Dr Walker is actually
   a geologist unlike Hayward!).  And he repeats Ross's LIE that YECs
   fear that billions of years will make evolution possible, which as
   shown is garbage as can easily be seen by reading Gish's 1970s and
   1980s works, well before Ross's time.

   Another thing you should know.  I've known about Holzmann's site for
   ages, and he *recommends* heretical Roman Catholic books denying Sola
   Scriptura and Sola Fide.  Compare his comments on a pro-Protestant
   and pro-RC books (from November 2000):

   Here is the single defence of Protestant orthodoxy with negative
   comments:

   The Gospel According to Rome  #8E08  $12.99
   McCarthy. The founder and director of Good News for Catholics, Inc.,
   examines basic Catholic doctrines as taught in the Catechism of the
   Catholic Church. Specific doctrines addressed include salvation, the
   Mass, Mary, and Church Authority. He references various portions of
   the Catechism, summarizes his understanding of the Catechism's
   teaching and then compares that summary to Scripture. Note: Catholics
   have complained that the author misrepresents Catholic teaching.
   Researchers-both Protestant and Catholic-ought to acquire a copy of
   the Catechism itself to see whether this charge is accurate. Pb, 397
   pp. RA: 6-A; R: 8-A

   But look at the glowing recommendations he gives to Papist books:

   Catholicism and Fundamentalism        #8E04  $13.95
   Keating. A masterful response to evangelical attacks on the Roman
   Catholic faith. A heartfelt plea for understanding. The author is
   editor of
   Catholic Answers, a journal devoted to Roman Catholic apologetics. If
   you purchase this book, you will want #8E08 and #8E09 as well. Pb,
   360
   pp.  RA: 7-A; R: 8-A

   Not By Faith Alone  #8E10  $24.95
   Sungenis. Written for laypeople and scholars, the text of this book
   is very easy to read, but it is heavily footnoted so that any serious
   scholar can go to any of the hundreds of original sources, both
   historical as well as modern, to pursue almost every point at greater
   length. The author references-and seeks to refute-virtually all the
   titles Protestants have come to rely on for their interpretation of
   Scripture on this matter. He seeks, on the basis of Scripture alone,
   to argue that the Protestant battle cry, "By Faith Alone!" is not
   only unScriptural, but largely unsupported even by staunch,
   conservative Protestants! -And, he asks, if this is the case, then
   what is the truth about salvation? Extremely thought-provoking. A
   wonderful model of careful scholarship and
   gracious, passionate discourse. Pb, 774 pp.RA: 8-A; R: 8-A

   Not By Scripture Alone       #8E12  $19.95
   Sungenis, ed. Subtitled, "A Catholic Critique of the Protestant
   Doctrine of Sola Scriptura," this is a companion volume to Not By
   Faith Alone.
   An historical, biblical, and philosophical critique of the Protestant
   doctrine. As with its sister volume, this book is a model of careful,
   gracious scholarship and discourse. Heavily footnoted, but still
   relatively easy to read. Pb, 629 pp. RA: 8-A; R: 8-A

   Evangelical is Not Enough       #8E03  $10.95
   Howard. Written by one of Elisabeth Elliot's brothers, this is the
   personal story of conversion to a Catholic view and practice out of
   solid evangelical (and missionary) roots. Howard speaks winsomely and
   earnestly to a Protestant audience. Highly thought-provoking; in the
   style of C.S. Lewis. Pb, 162 pp. RA: 6-A; R: 8-A

   I must conclude that Holzmann is a deceitful promoter of not only
   serious doctrinal error in Genesis, but outright heresy in the vital
   matters of bibliology and soteriologly.  This shows what a wolf in
   sheep's clothing Holzmann really is.  I hope that evangelicals will
   not buy a single pamphlet from him.



   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...> wrote:
   > The founder of Sonlight Curriculum, a wildly popular Christian
   Homeschool curriculum, recently converted to OEC from a young-earth
   view.
   >
   > Interesting.
   >
   > To read more about this
   http://sonlight.com/articles/young_or_old_earth.html
   >
   >
   > Fuz Rana


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurtusmaximus"
<kurtusmaximus@y...> wrote:

Now there's another account - Kurtus Maximus? Are you going to hack
us all to bits now??? I see you have your picture posted as Russell
Crowe for your old account: http://profiles.yahoo.com/kurt_streutker

Ok - ok, I'll stick to the points at hand.

Yes it's vr_junkie again - at least until whoever is moderating is so
fearful of an OEC opponent that he bans this account too!
Incidentally - if this account stops posting - it's not because I'm
lurking - it's because the YEC was so afraid - I was banned. Since I
was cited in this post - I have a right to respond.

<<<
Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
means?
>>>

Why do you keep bringing this up? He doesn't have to pick one... he
simply pointed out that it's a little more complicated than you
implied! There is no "one" definition - hence all the various means
of classification!

When are you going to EVER answer post 157 (especially point # 3 in
full) and requested again in messages # 408, # 650, and yet again in
824!

For your convenience (157 link):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/157

<<<
* The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood (1
G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close since 1
day = 86,400 sec).
>>>

Kurt, let's just look at 1 ramification... Do you know what a tsunami
is? You don't need to have something like 20G acting on the ark to
have the ark completely destroyed by the effects of G force!


<<<
The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only
250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and these
are probably highly taxonomically "split").
>>>

I have long challenged you on these marine fossil statistics! They do
not begin to address the entire issue. One minor point you might
consider... Do you think EVERY species to EVER exist is represented
with a fossil???

<<<
* YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
discussion board,
>>>

Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
won't repeat him.

<<<
* Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of
years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are a
number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World karstology
expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how anyone
could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long when
there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically
in the past.
>>>

I asked Kyle for details on this - I never saw them (not that he
can't provide them). The bigger issues is while there may be unique
locations and situations that can produce some formations quickly  -
it is VERY hopeful at best to say that our largest world famous
formations in the caves are just a few hundreds or thousands of years
old! Your "huge" is relative - to be kind. Most of these rare cases
are the result of  artificial structures involving leaching out of
porous Portland cement. Also many of these rare instances produce
very delicate ash like formations not the VERY hard structures found
in caves through natural processes.

<<<
* planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped
very quickly).
>>>

I don't know about this one... I do remember that Ross did cite a
source (it wasn't just his assertion) - he cited the material, if you
are that concerned - go check it out!

<<<
* Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field decay"
argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who overlook,
or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID reversals
over 15 years ago.)
>>>

This is VERY disingenuous. YECs long disputed the reversals. Just
because Russ publishes - does not make him right. He has many free
parameters that could be adjusted to make any result desired come
out. Also his work ignores the other component of the field - it
looks at one component only.

<<<
* The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.
>>>

This is pure conjecture. Trees in the area are much more valuable for
their wood component than they would be for boiling into pitch! And
the tree pitch is a more recent industry. Even your AIG articles talk
about the great English ship building industries using the process -
this is just a little after Noah's time. Fact is there is natural
occurring asphalt in the area! Around the Dead Sea you can still find
it - it was mined! It is over 90% pure black asphalt! There are even
ancient records of the Egyptians importing it.

Regardless of how Noah pitched his ark or what materials he used -
how do you explain there being asphalt thousands of years ago being
mined before you even acknowledge the "pitch" (read asphalt) was
formed - since you think it's all the result of the flood and
subsequent processes playing out over time!

-VR

PC: "Actually Kyle if you read back in the archives you will see
where some rather disturbing facts were shown about the site and its
integrity."

The only "disturbing" things that have ever been shown is Virtual
Reality's propensity for muckraking (which I showed up for their
libellous nature).  Also, PC's snuggling up to outright heretics like
Gromit (possibly because PC has all the theological discernment of a
dead fish), and their refusal to retract their errors about the
teachings of the church Fathers, and Fuz Rana's refusal to come clean
on what RTB means by "species".

PC:"Kurt was shown in a *very* bad light and most decided to leave
the group in search of a more honest discussion environment."

You mean, VR made some accusations relating to IP addresses which I
showed to be without foundation.

PC:
"Another YEC type group was started but it was soon very clear that
it was no better."

Not that heretic-supporter PC is in any position to judge.

PC: "I have as yet not found another group and as a result am sitting
in the background still."

Oh, you poor dear.


--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
> Actually Kyle if you read back in the archives you will see where
some rather disturbing facts were shown about the site and its
integrity. Kurt was shown in a *very* bad light and most decided to
leave the group in search of a more honest discussion environment.
>
> Another YEC type group was started but it was soon very clear that
it was no better.
>
> I have as yet not found another group and as a result am sitting in
the background still.
>
> God Bless
> Peter Carter
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: kurt_streutker
>   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
>   Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 4:14 AM
>   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: What happened to the list?
>
>
>   Kyle, I have seen this sort of thing before.  I was very busy at
the
>   end of the school year, so I have not been on often enough to
stir
>   the pot so to speak.  What need to happen is to get new folks on
the
>   list from both sides.  There were only about 6 active folks on
the
>   list.  We need to invite some more folks out to get things going
>   again.
>
>
>   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "apologetics_2000"
>   <apologetics@l...> wrote:
>   > I am curious as to what happened to the list.  For the most
part I
>   > was rather enjoying my discussions on this list, especially
with
>   > Danny and Peter; however, there hasn't been any discussion
since
>   the
>   > latter part of May.
>   >
>   > Kyle
>
>
>   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
>   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

VR aka Virtual Reality:
"Ok - ok, I'll stick to the points at hand."

That wuold make a change.

VR: "Yes it's vr_junkie again - at least until whoever is moderating
is so fearful of an OEC opponent that he bans this account too!"

If you stick to the points at hand, instead of resorting to abusive
ad hominem, muckraking and electronically stalking other people's
wives, then I'm sure you have nothing to fear.

<<<
Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
means?
>>>

VR: "Why do you keep bringing this up?"

Perhaps because he's too gutless to actually answer!

VR:"He doesn't have to pick one... he simply pointed out that it's a
little more complicated than you
implied! There is no "one" definition - hence all the various means
of classification!"

Quite simply, because RTB *hypocritically* accuses YECs of having no
consistent definition of "kind", while they have a consistent
identification of kind with "species".  So please let's hear what
they mean by "species", otherwise their identification of "kind" is
as vacuous as they claim the YEC definition is.

....

<<<
* The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood (1
G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close since 1
day = 86,400 sec).
>>>

Kurt, let's just look at 1 ramification... Do you know what a tsunami
is? You don't need to have something like 20G acting on the ark to
have the ark completely destroyed by the effects of G force!

But Ross claimed the *G-forces* would destroy it.  You're avoiding
his outright blunder by changing the subject.  And of course I've
heard of a tsunami, but you evidently haven't heard of the paper by a
group of Korean naval architects
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_arks
afety.asp>
who showed that "The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis
of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have
navigated through waves higher than 30 metres."  These are waves
three times larger than typical tsunamis.

<<<
The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only
250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and these
are probably highly taxonomically "split").
>>>

VR:
"I have long challenged you on these marine fossil statistics! They
do not begin to address the entire issue."

It's common knowledge.  David Raup (Species diversity in the
Phanerozoic, Paleobiology 2:279-288, 1976) gives the figure of  the
actual number of fossil species recovered is approximately 200,000,
including just over 190,000 marine-invertebrate species,  and about
10,000 species of fossil vertebrates (Padian, K. and Clemens, W.A.,
Terrestrial vertebrate diversity, In:  Phanerozoic Diversity
Patterns, Valentine, J.W. (ed.), Princeton University Press, New
Jersey, p. 43, 1985).  At most, given a few uniformitarian
assumptions, projections might be up to 1.2 million (121. Signor,
P.W., Real and apparent trends in species richness through time, In:
Phanerozoic Diversity Patterns, Valentine, J.W. (ed.),
Princeton University Press, New Jersey, p. 146, 1985).

VR:
"One minor point you might consider... Do you think EVERY species to
EVER exist is represented
with a fossil???"

I don't have to.  It's those who make the claim of billions of
species, like Ross, who have to prove their claim. A real scientist
goes with the actual evidence, which is only 250,000 fossil species.
In fact, these claims of billions are the result of evolutionary
theory which you affect to disagree with, since they presume there
must have been many intermediate species linking the ones we actually
find.  Ross claimed billions -- deal with his error, rather than
trying to obfuscate.

<<<
* YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
discussion board,
>>>

VR:
"Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
won't repeat him."

Most wise, since it is completely fallacious (including the genetic
fallacy), esp. given the fact that leading Australian creationists
had never even heard of Price when they became creationists, and were
merely adopting the same interpretation as Basil, Luther and Calvin
and many others.

<<<
* Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of
years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are a
number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World karstology
expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how anyone
could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long when
there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically
in the past.
>>>

VR:
"I asked Kyle for details on this - I never saw them (not that he
can't provide them). The bigger issues is while there may be unique
locations and situations that can produce some formations quickly -
it is VERY hopeful at best to say that our largest world famous
formations in the caves are just a few hundreds or thousands of years
old! Your "huge" is relative - to be kind. Most of these rare cases
are the result of artificial structures involving leaching out of
porous Portland cement. Also many of these rare instances produce
very delicate ash like formations not the VERY hard structures found
in caves through natural processes."

Not at all.  They have been found in caves and mine shafts, and
totally dwarf the miners (there was a photo in Creation magazine).
I'd call that "huge"!  It's up to the critics to prove that they must
form slowly, in the face of evidence that they can and do form
quickly, and that even on theoretical grounds they must before the
water changes course from dripping from those particular spots.

<<<
* planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped
very quickly).
>>>

VR:
"I don't know about this one... I do remember that Ross did cite a
source (it wasn't just his assertion) - he cited the material, if you
are that concerned - go check it out!"

We have, and Ross's source said no such thing, as usual.  The Earth's
material dampens even the strongest earthquakes very quickly.  Ross
said it, and even the rabid theistic evolutionist you hero-worship so
much, Glenn Morton, rebuked Ross on this.

<<<
* Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field decay"
argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who overlook,
or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID reversals
over 15 years ago.)
>>>

VR:
"This is VERY disingenuous. YECs long disputed the reversals."

And LONG AGO Russ showed they occur, and LONG AGO AiG and ICR
accepted them.  It's plain dishonest for Ross to attack an OLD
argument as though it's still the most current argument leading
creationist organisations use.

VR:
"Just because Russ publishes - does not make him right."

Wow, what a strong argument.  And once again ignoring the dishonest
way Ross that knocks down a straw man.  Ross has not shown that he's
capable of refuting the current magnetic field argument.

VR:
"He has many free parameters that could be adjusted to make any
result desired come out."

Oh, tell us more.

VR:
"Also his work ignores the other component of the field - it looks at
one component only."

Wrong again VR.  That's what you get from trusting scientifically
unqualified heretics like Gromit.  Dr Humphreys has EXPLICITLY
addressed that at
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3318.asp#Multipole>

<<<
* The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.
>>>

VR:
"This is pure conjecture."

What on earth are you talking about???  It's not "conjecture" at all
but a historical fact!

VR:
"Trees in the area are much more valuable for their wood component
than they would be for boiling into pitch!"

This is ridiculous.  Who cares about value when you have an Ark to
waterproof and anything left behind will be submerged?!

VR:
"And the tree pitch is a more recent industry. Even your AIG articles
talk about the great English ship building industries using the
process - this is just a little after Noah's time."

The point is -- Ross has made a definite claim that it MUST have been
a petroleum-based pitch.  I showed naval pitch based on petroleum is
a recent invention and that tree resin pitch has a more ancient
history.
So it is up to *Ross* to demonstrate that not only petroleum-based
pitch *could* have been used, but *must* have been used.

VR:
"Fact is there is natural occurring asphalt in the area! Around the
Dead Sea you can still find
it - it was mined! It is over 90% pure black asphalt! There are even
ancient records of the Egyptians importing it."

Totally irrelevant to the case at hand.

VR:
"Regardless of how Noah pitched his ark or what materials he used - "

Again changing the subject.  As long as it was even *possible* (and
it was actually highly *probable*) that Noah used tree resin to make
pitch, Ross's argument collapses.

VR:
"... how do you explain there being asphalt thousands of years ago
being mined before you even acknowledge the "pitch" (read asphalt)
was formed - since you think it's all the result of the flood and
subsequent processes playing out over time!"

Yes, the Flood would have buried peat bogs and other organic matter.
We know that coal and oil can form rapidly.  And we should not
uncritically accept the secular "dates" of Egyptian history.


--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "vr_junkie2" <vr_junkie2@y...>
wrote:
> Now there's another account - Kurtus Maximus? Are you going to hack
> us all to bits now??? I see you have your picture posted as Russell
> Crowe for your old account: http://profiles.yahoo.com/kurt_streutker
>
> Ok - ok, I'll stick to the points at hand.
>
> Yes it's vr_junkie again - at least until whoever is moderating is
so
> fearful of an OEC opponent that he bans this account too!
> Incidentally - if this account stops posting - it's not because I'm
> lurking - it's because the YEC was so afraid - I was banned. Since
I
> was cited in this post - I have a right to respond.
>
> <<<
> Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
> means?
> >>>
>
> Why do you keep bringing this up? He doesn't have to pick one... he
> simply pointed out that it's a little more complicated than you
> implied! There is no "one" definition - hence all the various means
> of classification!
>
> When are you going to EVER answer post 157 (especially point # 3 in
> full) and requested again in messages # 408, # 650, and yet again
in
> 824!
>
> For your convenience (157 link):
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/157
>
> <<<
> * The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood
(1
> G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close since
1
> day = 86,400 sec).
> >>>
>
> Kurt, let's just look at 1 ramification... Do you know what a
tsunami
> is? You don't need to have something like 20G acting on the ark to
> have the ark completely destroyed by the effects of G force!
>
>
> <<<
> The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only
> 250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
> invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and
these
> are probably highly taxonomically "split").
> >>>
>
> I have long challenged you on these marine fossil statistics! They
do
> not begin to address the entire issue. One minor point you might
> consider... Do you think EVERY species to EVER exist is represented
> with a fossil???
>
> <<<
> * YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
> discussion board,
> >>>
>
> Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
> won't repeat him.
>
> <<<
> * Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of
> years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are a
> number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World
karstology
> expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how
anyone
> could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long
when
> there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically
> in the past.
> >>>
>
> I asked Kyle for details on this - I never saw them (not that he
> can't provide them). The bigger issues is while there may be unique
> locations and situations that can produce some formations quickly  -

> it is VERY hopeful at best to say that our largest world famous
> formations in the caves are just a few hundreds or thousands of
years
> old! Your "huge" is relative - to be kind. Most of these rare cases
> are the result of  artificial structures involving leaching out of
> porous Portland cement. Also many of these rare instances produce
> very delicate ash like formations not the VERY hard structures
found
> in caves through natural processes.
>
> <<<
> * planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
> needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped
> very quickly).
> >>>
>
> I don't know about this one... I do remember that Ross did cite a
> source (it wasn't just his assertion) - he cited the material, if
you
> are that concerned - go check it out!
>
> <<<
> * Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field
decay"
> argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who
overlook,
> or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID
reversals
> over 15 years ago.)
> >>>
>
> This is VERY disingenuous. YECs long disputed the reversals. Just
> because Russ publishes - does not make him right. He has many free
> parameters that could be adjusted to make any result desired come
> out. Also his work ignores the other component of the field - it
> looks at one component only.
>
> <<<
> * The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
> burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
> history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.
> >>>
>
> This is pure conjecture. Trees in the area are much more valuable
for
> their wood component than they would be for boiling into pitch! And
> the tree pitch is a more recent industry. Even your AIG articles
talk
> about the great English ship building industries using the process -

> this is just a little after Noah's time. Fact is there is natural
> occurring asphalt in the area! Around the Dead Sea you can still
find
> it - it was mined! It is over 90% pure black asphalt! There are
even
> ancient records of the Egyptians importing it.
>
> Regardless of how Noah pitched his ark or what materials he used -
> how do you explain there being asphalt thousands of years ago being
> mined before you even acknowledge the "pitch" (read asphalt) was
> formed - since you think it's all the result of the flood and
> subsequent processes playing out over time!
>
> -VR

So there will be no question: The following message is in response
to "Re: Founder of Sonlight Homeschool Curriculum Converts to OEC"
published by "kurtusmaximus" on 6/25/2002.

Kurt:

Clearly, if--and to whatever extent--I have spoken or done evil, I
deserve to be rebuked. Indeed, I desire to be rebuked. (Such a
desire, I believe, is a sign of a wise man, is it not? --Proverbs
3:11-12; 9:8; etc. But...) If--and to whatever extent--I have spoken
or done evil, people need to be warned against my false teaching
and/or my bad behavior. And if--and to whatever extent--you are
engaged in that kind of rebuking and warning ministry, I applaud you
for your behavior and I pray that those who might otherwise be
misled by my false teaching will be protected by the Lord to follow
His narrow paths.

With all that in mind as a foundational touchstone on which to
build, let me say that it distresses me greatly that, on the one
hand, you spoke with disdain concerning Fuz' "old news," but you
yourself not only REPEATED "old news," you also seemed to INTERPRET
that news in such a way as to damage my reputation. [Note: The only
reason I have mentioned your comments about Fuz--whom I don't know,
have never met, and have never heard of before seeing her (?) name
here--is because my implicit criticism, above, is based on the idea
that "in the same way judge others, you will be judged, and with the
measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2). If you
believe her comments are worthy of disdain, I hope you will judge
your comments in a similar fashion.]

You indicated you were quoting from a two-year-old catalog. At the
same time, you implied you are somewhat of an expert on the Sonlight
Curriculum website ("I've known about Holzmann's site for ages").

But if you would have had your heart set on presenting a fair and
accurate view of what Sonlight Curriculum is about with respect to
Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism, for example, you would have
noted that we carry, besides Hayward's book, a whole LOT of young
earth texts: Dr. Jay Wile's texts as our PRIMARY texts at the high
school level; The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible by Taylor;
Parker's Dry Bones and Other Fossils; etc.

...And if you were to look at our science Instructor's Guides, you
would find that, MANY TIMES when a non-YEC (young-earth creationist)
text states as "fact" what YECs question, we (I!) raise many of the
YEC objections...so our students can see both sides.

As to the matter of my/our bibliology and soteriology, if you would
have looked at either one of the TWO catalogs that have been
available on our website (let alone in print) in the intervening
years since the one from which you quoted, you would have seen that
the basis for your charges are without ground. As I/we have found
additional titles that deal with the specific matters under
discussion, I/we have added them to our list.

If you would like to question my/our TEACHING     ODS (in which we
seek to permit responsible spokespersons for all sides to speak for
themselves), I imagine you could make some legitimate points. But to
suggest that I seek to promote heresy: I will tell you outright: you
are speaking falsely.

Using the same "evidence" you used to determine what I supposedly
teach, consider the following titles and descriptions I downloaded
from our website just this morning--from the same area where you
might have acquired the descriptions from which you quoted:

Evangelical Answers #8E13
Svendsen. A forceful attempt to defend evangelical doctrine against
popular Roman Catholic apologists' attacks. (Among those most
commonly referenced: Keating, Madrid and Hahn.) Svendsen writes on a
fairly popular level, but pursues a strong, scholarly angle. He
sticks closely to the core arguments. Very clear and helpful at
laying out areas of agreement, disagreement, and still-necessary
clarification. Pb, 189 pp +56 pp. of detailed and argumentative
endnotes.

Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and
Unites Us #8E15
Armstrong, ed. If I were to choose one book on the subject of Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism (and I recommend you choose more); but
if I were to choose just one on the subject to help me understand
the issues, this is the book. It is the calmest, most dispassionate,
yet incisive and insightful book I have found on the topic. It is
definitely a Protestant work, but it presents the history, the
theology, and the primary biblical and scholarly arguments for both
sides. And it does so fairly and honestly (to the best of my ability
to determine). You must be willing to learn the vocabulary, but the
authors (of whom there are 13) are generally very clear in their
presentations. Excellent analytical work. Pb, 345 pp, including 12-
page glossary.

Faith Alone #8E16
Sproul. This is another excellent analytical work. It is also
passionate. Sproul seeks to argue the case for the traditional
Reformed views of such closely-related, yet wide-ranging doctrines
as justification, sanctification, grace, and merit. I agree with the
reviewer who said, "The book is not a light read, but it is
interesting and the author has taken care to provide plenty of helps
in hard places." Clearly written and insightful. Pb, 220 pp.

*******

May I encourage you: In your concern for accurate interpretations of
Genesis 1-11: please be careful not to ignore the rest of Scripture,
like Leviticus 19:16 (which says, "Do not go about spreading slander
among your people") or Psalm 15:3 (which describes the man who is
permitted to dwell in God's sanctuary: he "has no slander on his
tongue,...does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his
fellowman"). Of course there are many other passages that speak in
similar terms: Matthew 15:19 (which mentions false testimony and
slander), or 2 Corinthians 12:20....I'm sure you understand what I'm
talking about.]

I began this letter with a comment that if--and to whatever extent--
I have spoken or done evil, I deserve to be rebuked. Indeed, I
desire to be rebuked. I said that if--and to whatever extent--I have
spoken or done evil, I believe people need to be warned against my
false teaching and/or my bad behavior. And if--and
to whatever extent--you are engaged in that kind of rebuking and
warning ministry, I applaud you for your behavior and I pray that
those who might otherwise be misled by my false teaching will be
protected by the Lord to follow His narrow paths.

Let me add here, however: IF--and to whatever extent--you are
engaged in false testimony, slander or libel, may God deal with you
as He says He will, and may He protect His children from the
destructive venom of your words.

Sincerely,

John Holzmann, Co-Owner
Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd.

Please forgive me.

I dropped the word "you" from my quotation of Matthew 7:2. I should
have written, "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged"
rather than the phrase I typed.

Also, "TEACHING ODS" should have been "TEACHING METHODS."

I might also mention that, besides the YEC texts I mentioned that
were IN the copy of the catalog to which Kurt refers, there were
several others at that time (including Van Bebber and Taylor's anti-
Ross book and Humphreys' STARLIGHT AND TIME). But, further, SINCE
that catalog was published, we have added two or three other YEC
texts, including Sarfati's REFUTING EVOLUTION and Ham's THE LIE:
EVOLUTION. (For the purpose of full disclosure, I should mention
that in the intervening years we have ALSO added Forster & Marston's
REASON, SCIENCE & FAITH and Gray's THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE.)

As suggested in my initial post, I think the primary issue may have
to do with preferred teaching methods rather than content.

Some Christians (and, therefore, some homeschoolers) prefer to avoid
reading competent presentations of viewpoints other than their own.
If they are to be confronted with alternative perspectives, they
want those viewpoints to come to them "pre-digested" by a master-
teacher of their own persuasion.

Others like to deal directly with unvarnished presentations of "the
best" that "the opposition" has to offer.

Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd., has adopted the method that issues from
the latter preference and latter set of values.

Welcome back, the group may start getting interesting again!

God Bless
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: vr_junkie2
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:45 PM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Hugh Ross Predates AiG's 20 Arguments
Christians Shouldn't Use


   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurtusmaximus"
   <kurtusmaximus@y...> wrote:

   Now there's another account - Kurtus Maximus? Are you going to hack
   us all to bits now??? I see you have your picture posted as Russell
   Crowe for your old account: http://profiles.yahoo.com/kurt_streutker

   Ok - ok, I'll stick to the points at hand.

   Yes it's vr_junkie again - at least until whoever is moderating is so
   fearful of an OEC opponent that he bans this account too!
   Incidentally - if this account stops posting - it's not because I'm
   lurking - it's because the YEC was so afraid - I was banned. Since I
   was cited in this post - I have a right to respond.

   <<<
   Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
   means?
   >>>

   Why do you keep bringing this up? He doesn't have to pick one... he
   simply pointed out that it's a little more complicated than you
   implied! There is no "one" definition - hence all the various means
   of classification!

   When are you going to EVER answer post 157 (especially point # 3 in
   full) and requested again in messages # 408, # 650, and yet again in
   824!

   For your convenience (157 link):
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/157

   <<<
   * The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood (1
   G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close since 1
   day = 86,400 sec).
   >>>

   Kurt, let's just look at 1 ramification... Do you know what a tsunami
   is? You don't need to have something like 20G acting on the ark to
   have the ark completely destroyed by the effects of G force!


   <<<
   The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species (only
   250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
   invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and these
   are probably highly taxonomically "split").
   >>>

   I have long challenged you on these marine fossil statistics! They do
   not begin to address the entire issue. One minor point you might
   consider... Do you think EVERY species to EVER exist is represented
   with a fossil???

   <<<
   * YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
   discussion board,
   >>>

   Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
   won't repeat him.

   <<<
   * Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands of
   years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are a
   number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World karstology
   expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how anyone
   could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long when
   there is ample evidence that the water courses changed dramatically
   in the past.
   >>>

   I asked Kyle for details on this - I never saw them (not that he
   can't provide them). The bigger issues is while there may be unique
   locations and situations that can produce some formations quickly  -
   it is VERY hopeful at best to say that our largest world famous
   formations in the caves are just a few hundreds or thousands of years
   old! Your "huge" is relative - to be kind. Most of these rare cases
   are the result of  artificial structures involving leaching out of
   porous Portland cement. Also many of these rare instances produce
   very delicate ash like formations not the VERY hard structures found
   in caves through natural processes.

   <<<
   * planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood (Ross
   needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been damped
   very quickly).
   >>>

   I don't know about this one... I do remember that Ross did cite a
   source (it wasn't just his assertion) - he cited the material, if you
   are that concerned - go check it out!

   <<<
   * Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field decay"
   argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who overlook,
   or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID reversals
   over 15 years ago.)
   >>>

   This is VERY disingenuous. YECs long disputed the reversals. Just
   because Russ publishes - does not make him right. He has many free
   parameters that could be adjusted to make any result desired come
   out. Also his work ignores the other component of the field - it
   looks at one component only.

   <<<
   * The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
   burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
   history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.
   >>>

   This is pure conjecture. Trees in the area are much more valuable for
   their wood component than they would be for boiling into pitch! And
   the tree pitch is a more recent industry. Even your AIG articles talk
   about the great English ship building industries using the process -
   this is just a little after Noah's time. Fact is there is natural
   occurring asphalt in the area! Around the Dead Sea you can still find
   it - it was mined! It is over 90% pure black asphalt! There are even
   ancient records of the Egyptians importing it.

   Regardless of how Noah pitched his ark or what materials he used -
   how do you explain there being asphalt thousands of years ago being
   mined before you even acknowledge the "pitch" (read asphalt) was
   formed - since you think it's all the result of the flood and
   subsequent processes playing out over time!

   -VR


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

VR whinged that I haven't responded to post 157.  However, the bald
assertions of this non-geologists have little relevance to what
modern creationists believe, and Virtual Reality has shown that he
thinks it's OK for Ross to set up straw men.  It just shows that VR
is not interested in learning the truth when it conflicts with his
old earth dogma.  Also, all his "points" illustrated Ross's
underlying philosophy of Scripture sub Scientia, i.e. making
Scripture subject to "science" (or at least the uniformitarian
interpretations of science as VR2 (mis)understands it).

Others are just tired old canards long ago refuted in AiG articles.
E.g. creationists have shown that massive chalk deposits could be
formed by coccolithophore blooms, and that footprints are a problem
for the long ages view because they could not be preserved on the
surface for millions of years.  Also, his precious #3 ignores the
major creationist explanation that the fossil sequence largely
reflects the sequence of burial of different ecological zones,
although he pretends to have dealt with that elsewhere although one
example is clearly of a whale buried with land creatures in Tasmania,
Australia, consistent with a Flood washing these creatures together.
Also, creationists teach that human fossils and artefacts are post
Babel.




--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
> Welcome back, the group may start getting interesting again!
>
> God Bless
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: vr_junkie2
>   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
>   Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:45 PM
>   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Hugh Ross Predates AiG's 20
Arguments Christians Shouldn't Use
>
>
>   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurtusmaximus"
>   <kurtusmaximus@y...> wrote:
>
>   Now there's another account - Kurtus Maximus? Are you going to
hack
>   us all to bits now??? I see you have your picture posted as
Russell
>   Crowe for your old account:
http://profiles.yahoo.com/kurt_streutker
>
>   Ok - ok, I'll stick to the points at hand.
>
>   Yes it's vr_junkie again - at least until whoever is moderating
is so
>   fearful of an OEC opponent that he bans this account too!
>   Incidentally - if this account stops posting - it's not because
I'm
>   lurking - it's because the YEC was so afraid - I was banned.
Since I
>   was cited in this post - I have a right to respond.
>
>   <<<
>   Hey, when is Rana going to tell us which species definition Ross
>   means?
>   >>>
>
>   Why do you keep bringing this up? He doesn't have to pick one...
he
>   simply pointed out that it's a little more complicated than you
>   implied! There is no "one" definition - hence all the various
means
>   of classification!
>
>   When are you going to EVER answer post 157 (especially point # 3
in
>   full) and requested again in messages # 408, # 650, and yet again
in
>   824!
>
>   For your convenience (157 link):
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/157
>
>   <<<
>   * The Ark would have been destroyed by G-forces in a global Flood
(1
>   G ~10 m/s^2, so movements of meters/day don't even come close
since 1
>   day = 86,400 sec).
>   >>>
>
>   Kurt, let's just look at 1 ramification... Do you know what a
tsunami
>   is? You don't need to have something like 20G acting on the ark
to
>   have the ark completely destroyed by the effects of G force!
>
>
>   <<<
>   The Ark would have needed to carry billions of fossil species
(only
>   250,000 fossil species are known, 95% of which are marine
>   invertebrates, and only about 10,000 vertebrate "species", and
these
>   are probably highly taxonomically "split").
>   >>>
>
>   I have long challenged you on these marine fossil statistics!
They do
>   not begin to address the entire issue. One minor point you might
>   consider... Do you think EVERY species to EVER exist is
represented
>   with a fossil???
>
>   <<<
>   * YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
>   discussion board,
>   >>>
>
>   Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
>   won't repeat him.
>
>   <<<
>   * Speleothems (stalactites and stalagmites) take many thousands
of
>   years to form. Even Kyle agrees this is fallacious, and there are
a
>   number of cases of huge speleothems in mine shafts. World
karstology
>   expert Emil Silvestru points out that it boggles the mind how
anyone
>   could believe that the water dropped out of one spot for so long
when
>   there is ample evidence that the water courses changed
dramatically
>   in the past.
>   >>>
>
>   I asked Kyle for details on this - I never saw them (not that he
>   can't provide them). The bigger issues is while there may be
unique
>   locations and situations that can produce some formations
quickly  -
>   it is VERY hopeful at best to say that our largest world famous
>   formations in the caves are just a few hundreds or thousands of
years
>   old! Your "huge" is relative - to be kind. Most of these rare
cases
>   are the result of  artificial structures involving leaching out
of
>   porous Portland cement. Also many of these rare instances produce
>   very delicate ash like formations not the VERY hard structures
found
>   in caves through natural processes.
>
>   <<<
>   * planet Earth should still be `ringing' from a global Flood
(Ross
>   needs to provide proof that the vibration wouldn't have been
damped
>   very quickly).
>   >>>
>
>   I don't know about this one... I do remember that Ross did cite a
>   source (it wasn't just his assertion) - he cited the material, if
you
>   are that concerned - go check it out!
>
>   <<<
>   * Field reversals are enough to refute the creationist "field
decay"
>   argument for a "young earth". (Rather it is Ross and VR who
overlook,
>   or rather won't admit, that Dr Humphreys published on RAPID
reversals
>   over 15 years ago.)
>   >>>
>
>   This is VERY disingenuous. YECs long disputed the reversals. Just
>   because Russ publishes - does not make him right. He has many
free
>   parameters that could be adjusted to make any result desired come
>   out. Also his work ignores the other component of the field - it
>   looks at one component only.
>
>   <<<
>   * The Ark required petroleum to make pitch, which required prior
>   burial of plant matter and millions of years. Fact, for most of
>   history, pitch was made from boiling tree resin and charcoal.
>   >>>
>
>   This is pure conjecture. Trees in the area are much more valuable
for
>   their wood component than they would be for boiling into pitch!
And
>   the tree pitch is a more recent industry. Even your AIG articles
talk
>   about the great English ship building industries using the
process -
>   this is just a little after Noah's time. Fact is there is natural
>   occurring asphalt in the area! Around the Dead Sea you can still
find
>   it - it was mined! It is over 90% pure black asphalt! There are
even
>   ancient records of the Egyptians importing it.
>
>   Regardless of how Noah pitched his ark or what materials he used -

>   how do you explain there being asphalt thousands of years ago
being
>   mined before you even acknowledge the "pitch" (read asphalt) was
>   formed - since you think it's all the result of the flood and
>   subsequent processes playing out over time!
>
>   -VR
>
>
>   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
>   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

PC might be willing to learn from it, but I doubt the same of VR,
since he hates anything produced by YECs even more than he hates the
outright heresy of the likes of Gromit.

This emotional response by Holzmann is also typical.  Fact remains,
he said what he said!  This not only includes grossly misinformed
views on YEC (e.g. hardlay having read any AiG material and
uncritically accepting the words of theistic evolutionist Morton and
Christadephian heretic Hayward) and the pro-Romanist comments on both
Protestant and Catholic books.

But don't let it be said that we don't acknowledge improvement when
true.  I wholeheartedly commend Holzmann for including those
excellent Sola Fide books and rebuttals of those Popish books, as
well as the first-rate AiG books like Refuting Evolution (despite
being trashed by that supposedly moderate OEC Kyle Witten on Amazon),
and that book refuting Ross by Bebber and Taylor (whose actual
*arguments* remain mostly unanswered).

But it's still grossly irresponsible to stock that mendacious Hayward
book, and that distorting Forster and Marston book.  For example,
this book repeats the slander that YEC comes from SDA beliefs (and
distorting the historical evidence that it was the almost universal
view of the Church), claiming that YECs deny plate tectonics
(ignoring Dr Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics theory
endorsed by AiG), attacking the moon dust argument (which
creationists themselves refuted long ago), invoking magnetic field
reversals to attack the thirty-year old work by Thomas Barnes (with
no mention of the more up-to-date research by Russell Humphreys that
*predicted* rapid field reversals which were later confirmed).

Frankly, responsible Christian book distributors (who don't have an
old-earth axe to grind) could exercise considerable quality control
on books. They could insist that they won't stop books by authors who
misrepresent the other side, e.g. any OECs who use such misleading
examples as above, and for that matter any YECs who promote the
arguments that AiG has said are unsound
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp>.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "johnatsonlight" <john@s...> wrote:
> So there will be no question: The following message is in response
> to "Re: Founder of Sonlight Homeschool Curriculum Converts to OEC"
> published by "kurtusmaximus" on 6/25/2002.
>
> Kurt:
>
> Clearly, if--and to whatever extent--I have spoken or done evil, I
> deserve to be rebuked. Indeed, I desire to be rebuked. (Such a
> desire, I believe, is a sign of a wise man, is it not? --Proverbs
> 3:11-12; 9:8; etc. But...) If--and to whatever extent--I have
spoken
> or done evil, people need to be warned against my false teaching
> and/or my bad behavior. And if--and to whatever extent--you are
> engaged in that kind of rebuking and warning ministry, I applaud
you
> for your behavior and I pray that those who might otherwise be
> misled by my false teaching will be protected by the Lord to follow
> His narrow paths.
>
> With all that in mind as a foundational touchstone on which to
> build, let me say that it distresses me greatly that, on the one
> hand, you spoke with disdain concerning Fuz' "old news," but you
> yourself not only REPEATED "old news," you also seemed to INTERPRET
> that news in such a way as to damage my reputation. [Note: The only
> reason I have mentioned your comments about Fuz--whom I don't know,
> have never met, and have never heard of before seeing her (?) name
> here--is because my implicit criticism, above, is based on the idea
> that "in the same way judge others, you will be judged, and with
the
> measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2). If you
> believe her comments are worthy of disdain, I hope you will judge
> your comments in a similar fashion.]
>
> You indicated you were quoting from a two-year-old catalog. At the
> same time, you implied you are somewhat of an expert on the
Sonlight
> Curriculum website ("I've known about Holzmann's site for ages").
>
> But if you would have had your heart set on presenting a fair and
> accurate view of what Sonlight Curriculum is about with respect to
> Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism, for example, you would have
> noted that we carry, besides Hayward's book, a whole LOT of young
> earth texts: Dr. Jay Wile's texts as our PRIMARY texts at the high
> school level; The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible by Taylor;
> Parker's Dry Bones and Other Fossils; etc.
>
> ...And if you were to look at our science Instructor's Guides, you
> would find that, MANY TIMES when a non-YEC (young-earth
creationist)
> text states as "fact" what YECs question, we (I!) raise many of the
> YEC objections...so our students can see both sides.
>
> As to the matter of my/our bibliology and soteriology, if you would
> have looked at either one of the TWO catalogs that have been
> available on our website (let alone in print) in the intervening
> years since the one from which you quoted, you would have seen that
> the basis for your charges are without ground. As I/we have found
> additional titles that deal with the specific matters under
> discussion, I/we have added them to our list.
>
> If you would like to question my/our TEACHING     ODS (in which we
> seek to permit responsible spokespersons for all sides to speak for
> themselves), I imagine you could make some legitimate points. But
to
> suggest that I seek to promote heresy: I will tell you outright:
you
> are speaking falsely.
>
> Using the same "evidence" you used to determine what I supposedly
> teach, consider the following titles and descriptions I downloaded
> from our website just this morning--from the same area where you
> might have acquired the descriptions from which you quoted:
>
> Evangelical Answers #8E13
> Svendsen. A forceful attempt to defend evangelical doctrine against
> popular Roman Catholic apologists' attacks. (Among those most
> commonly referenced: Keating, Madrid and Hahn.) Svendsen writes on
a
> fairly popular level, but pursues a strong, scholarly angle. He
> sticks closely to the core arguments. Very clear and helpful at
> laying out areas of agreement, disagreement, and still-necessary
> clarification. Pb, 189 pp +56 pp. of detailed and argumentative
> endnotes.
>
> Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and
> Unites Us #8E15
> Armstrong, ed. If I were to choose one book on the subject of Roman
> Catholicism and Protestantism (and I recommend you choose more);
but
> if I were to choose just one on the subject to help me understand
> the issues, this is the book. It is the calmest, most
dispassionate,
> yet incisive and insightful book I have found on the topic. It is
> definitely a Protestant work, but it presents the history, the
> theology, and the primary biblical and scholarly arguments for both
> sides. And it does so fairly and honestly (to the best of my
ability
> to determine). You must be willing to learn the vocabulary, but the
> authors (of whom there are 13) are generally very clear in their
> presentations. Excellent analytical work. Pb, 345 pp, including 12-
> page glossary.
>
> Faith Alone #8E16
> Sproul. This is another excellent analytical work. It is also
> passionate. Sproul seeks to argue the case for the traditional
> Reformed views of such closely-related, yet wide-ranging doctrines
> as justification, sanctification, grace, and merit. I agree with
the
> reviewer who said, "The book is not a light read, but it is
> interesting and the author has taken care to provide plenty of
helps
> in hard places." Clearly written and insightful. Pb, 220 pp.
>
> *******
>
> May I encourage you: In your concern for accurate interpretations
of
> Genesis 1-11: please be careful not to ignore the rest of
Scripture,
> like Leviticus 19:16 (which says, "Do not go about spreading
slander
> among your people") or Psalm 15:3 (which describes the man who is
> permitted to dwell in God's sanctuary: he "has no slander on his
> tongue,...does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his
> fellowman"). Of course there are many other passages that speak in
> similar terms: Matthew 15:19 (which mentions false testimony and
> slander), or 2 Corinthians 12:20....I'm sure you understand what
I'm
> talking about.]
>
> I began this letter with a comment that if--and to whatever extent--
> I have spoken or done evil, I deserve to be rebuked. Indeed, I
> desire to be rebuked. I said that if--and to whatever extent--I
have
> spoken or done evil, I believe people need to be warned against my
> false teaching and/or my bad behavior. And if--and
> to whatever extent--you are engaged in that kind of rebuking and
> warning ministry, I applaud you for your behavior and I pray that
> those who might otherwise be misled by my false teaching will be
> protected by the Lord to follow His narrow paths.
>
> Let me add here, however: IF--and to whatever extent--you are
> engaged in false testimony, slander or libel, may God deal with you
> as He says He will, and may He protect His children from the
> destructive venom of your words.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Holzmann, Co-Owner
> Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd.

Hi,

I read the article. Quite frankly I did not enjoy it at all. More time was spent
on statements such as "who refused to print a response by AiG to a defamatory
and scientifically incompetent attack on creationists by a proven promoter of
fallacies and fabrications" than actually education.

A strange tactic that seems to be used very often by AiG is to attack the
persons qualifications. Thus statements such as "and he has only a bachelor's
degree in science, so is far less qualified than the leading creationist
scientists at AiG" are used as often as possible.

[I know that Kurt loves this tactic very much...yet he has not once demonstrated
his qualifications.]

Yet I also know some *very* qualified, spirit filled, born-again Christians who
are OEC's. Therefore let us not artificially drag qualifications into the
argument.

What did concern me very much was the move from Bible Based to anti Christian
values of the journal. The promoting of Abortion (which cannot be condoned by
Christians) disgusts me.

God Bless
Peter




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kurt_streutker
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:01 PM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:


   http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

   PC might be willing to learn from it, but I doubt the same of VR,
   since he hates anything produced by YECs even more than he hates the
   outright heresy of the likes of Gromit.



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Hi,

I have done a 'cut 'n paste' once again because it seems that the relevant
portion was ignored...

Kurt, I actually believe that Gromit behaved in a *far* more Christian way than
you. The many revelations that were made to the group show that as well as you
ignoring the well placed warning I have highlighted.

May I encourage you: In your concern for accurate interpretations
of Genesis 1-11: please be careful not to ignore the rest of
Scripture, like Leviticus 19:16 (which says, "Do not go about spreading
slander among your people") or Psalm 15:3 (which describes the man who is
permitted to dwell in God's sanctuary: he "has no slander on his
tongue,...does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his
  fellowman"). Of course there are many other passages that speak in
  similar terms: Matthew 15:19 (which mentions false testimony and
  slander), or 2 Corinthians 12:20....I'm sure you understand what
I'm > talking about.]

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kurt_streutker
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:04 PM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Are you publishing false testimony in an
attempt to damage someone's reputation?


   This emotional response by Holzmann is also typical.  Fact remains,
   he said what he said!  This not only includes grossly misinformed
   views on YEC (e.g. hardlay having read any AiG material and
   uncritically accepting the words of theistic evolutionist Morton and
   Christadephian heretic Hayward) and the pro-Romanist comments on both
   Protestant and Catholic books.


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

--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurt_streutker"
<kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
>
> PC might be willing to learn from it, but I doubt the same of VR,
> since he hates anything produced by YECs even more than he hates
the
> outright heresy of the likes of Gromit.

You are so funny Kurt.

See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=127ccf2e.0207051827.699d9c84%
40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

for some of the errors found in Sarfati's 'rebuttal'. Has he ever
corrected his errors about the Helium for instance?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9fb0e3b1.0207020539.5b6dbd71%
40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

In Christ my dear friend

--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "gromit54609" <gromit54609@y...>
wrote:
Some random rebuttals, there are too many to deal with them in the
time I have available

[quote]
More recently, Gould said:

`The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology.'14

[/quote]

versus

[quote]
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it
	 is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
	 whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admit-
	 ting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
	 Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level,
	 but they are abundant between larger groups.

-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and
	 Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.
[/quote]

Quote mining which represents an erroneous view of the author should
be frowned upon would you not agree Kurt?

PC whinged: "I read the article. Quite frankly I did not enjoy it at
all."

Quite frankly, I think PC would have loved it if it had been written
by one of his old-earth buddies, but because it's from a YEC he must
find excuses to whinge about it even though it hardly attacks PC's
precious OE faith at all.

PC: "More time was spent on statements such as "who refused to print
a response by AiG to a defamatory and scientifically incompetent
attack on creationists by a proven promoter of fallacies and
fabrications" than actually education."

First, one must wonder whether PC read a heavily truncated version of
this article, because by far most of it directly refuted the
fallacious evolutionary arguments presented in Sci. Am.

Second, this comment was perfectly reasonable in the context of the
entrenched censorship of anti-evolutionary views by Sci. Am.

Third, the article in question was by a well-known vicious atheistic
anti-creationist in Australia who has even resorted to accusing a
leading creationist of pederasty.

PC: "A strange tactic that seems to be used very often by AiG is to
attack the persons qualifications. Thus statements such as "and he
has only a bachelor's degree in science, so is far less qualified
than the leading creationist scientists at AiG" are used as often as
possible."

Care actually to COUNT them in the article?  And PC ignores the fact
that the whole pro-evolutionary piece was arguing from authority,
contrasting "creation" and "science".  So it was perfectly reasonable
for a highly qualified creationist to point out that he was far more
highly qualified than this evolutionist.

PC: Yet I also know some *very* qualified, spirit filled, born-again
Christians who are OEC's. Therefore let us not artificially drag
qualifications into the argument.

Explained above.  And when PC can find one of these supposedly *very*
qualified, spirit filled, born-again Christians (coming from someone
who regarded bodily-resurrection-denying Gromit as a Christian, this
judgment must be regarded with extreme skepticism!) who believes in
OEC because of the BIBLE and not because he's added man's fallible
dating methods to it, please tell us all.

PC: "What did concern me very much was the move from Bible Based to
anti Christian values of the journal. The promoting of Abortion
(which cannot be condoned by Christians) disgusts me."

As it does me.  So PC DID learn something from the article (even if
he read only 5% of it).



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read the article. Quite frankly I did not enjoy it at all. More
time was spent on statements such as "who refused to print a response
by AiG to a defamatory and scientifically incompetent attack on
creationists by a proven promoter of fallacies and fabrications" than
actually education.
>
> A strange tactic that seems to be used very often by AiG is to
attack the persons qualifications. Thus statements such as "and he
has only a bachelor's degree in science, so is far less qualified
than the leading creationist scientists at AiG" are used as often as
possible.
>
> [I know that Kurt loves this tactic very much...yet he has not once
demonstrated his qualifications.]
>
> Yet I also know some *very* qualified, spirit filled, born-again
Christians who are OEC's. Therefore let us not artificially drag
qualifications into the argument.
>
> What did concern me very much was the move from Bible Based to anti
Christian values of the journal. The promoting of Abortion (which
cannot be condoned by Christians) disgusts me.
>
> God Bless
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: kurt_streutker
>   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
>   Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:01 PM
>   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] 15 ways to refute materialistic
bigotry:
>
>
>   http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
>
>   PC might be willing to learn from it, but I doubt the same of VR,
>   since he hates anything produced by YECs even more than he hates
the
>   outright heresy of the likes of Gromit.
>
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
>   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

PC: "I have done a 'cut 'n paste' once again because it seems that
the relevant portion was ignored..."

More likely, it was a passage more of a warning to the anti-YECs
around here.

PC: "Kurt, I actually believe that Gromit behaved in a *far* more
Christian way than you."

Oh right, attacking the inerrancy of Scripture was REALLY Christ-like
wasn't it, never ming John 10:35.  And I wouldn't even make vile
comments about ANYONE's Mom that this perverted heretic made about
Christ's Mom.

PC: "The many revelations that were made to the group show that as
well as you ignoring the well placed warning I have highlighted."

The many revelations that were made to the group show that VR-Stalkie
has been guilty of bearing false witness and slander and finding
excuses to smear that have nothing to do with OEC v YEC, which is why
he was booted off.  And PC shows that he is only too willing to
believe this nonsense, as well as the nonsensical idea that the
virginal-conception-denying Gromit was a genuine Christian.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have done a 'cut 'n paste' once again because it seems that the
relevant portion was ignored...
>
> Kurt, I actually believe that Gromit behaved in a *far* more
Christian way than you. The many revelations that were made to the
group show that as well as you ignoring the well placed warning I
have highlighted.
>
> May I encourage you: In your concern for accurate interpretations
> of Genesis 1-11: please be careful not to ignore the rest of
> Scripture, like Leviticus 19:16 (which says, "Do not go about
spreading
> slander among your people") or Psalm 15:3 (which describes the man
who is permitted to dwell in God's sanctuary: he "has no slander on
his
> tongue,...does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his
>  fellowman"). Of course there are many other passages that speak in
>  similar terms: Matthew 15:19 (which mentions false testimony and
>  slander), or 2 Corinthians 12:20....I'm sure you understand what
> I'm > talking about.]
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: kurt_streutker
>   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
>   Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:04 PM
>   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Are you publishing false
testimony in an attempt to damage someone's reputation?
>
>
>   This emotional response by Holzmann is also typical.  Fact
remains,
>   he said what he said!  This not only includes grossly misinformed
>   views on YEC (e.g. hardlay having read any AiG material and
>   uncritically accepting the words of theistic evolutionist Morton
and
>   Christadephian heretic Hayward) and the pro-Romanist comments on
both
>   Protestant and Catholic books.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

With all due respect to VR, I think that he has misstated the case I was trying
to make.  I have never claimed that YEC began with Price.  Rather, what I have
mainained was that the modern YEC movement began with Price.  I freely and
readily conceid that Price was not the first YECer.  What I have tried to point
out was that there was a period of apx. 100 years during which YEC was virtually
a dead issue, and that in the early-mid 1920s a YEC revival began, a revival
that had its genesis with Price.  It is for this reason that I submit that Price
was the father of the MODERN YEC movement.

If Kurt wishes to challange this point, perhaps he could give us an brief
introduction to the major players in the YEC movement from say 1900-1920 [the
time period immediatly prior to Price] or perhaps from 1880-1900.

I would further submit that the fact that the fact that some of the leading
Austrailian YECers had never heard of Price is not a relevant consideration. 
Perhaps Kurt would be kind enough to discuss the Australian YEC movement during
the 1920s.  Anything post 1920s is irrelevant to the issue since the YEC revival
had already begun, and we are talking about who is properly credited with
starting the YEC resurgance we saw begin in the mid-20s.

The issue is one of strict cronology.  Since we are talking about who is
responsible for starting the modern YEC movement, the only question is that of
time.  Of all the major players in the current movement, who was there first.

Kyle

P.S.  I would also like to reitterate that I consider Price's
religious/denominational affiliation to be largely inmaterial to the discussion
at hand.  It is not my intent to discredit YEC

-----Original Message-----
From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@...]

* YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
discussion board,
>>>

VR:
"Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
won't repeat him."

Most wise, since it is completely fallacious (including the genetic
fallacy), esp. given the fact that leading Australian creationists
had never even heard of Price when they became creationists, and were
merely adopting the same interpretation as Basil, Luther and Calvin
and many others.



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

KW: "With all due respect to VR, I think that he has misstated the
case I was trying to make."

Par for the course with Virtual Reality.

KW: "I have never claimed that YEC began with Price. Rather, what I
have mainained was that the modern YEC movement began with Price. I
freely and readily conceid that Price was not the first YECer."

That's the main thing.  OTOH Ross OFTEN implies just that, backed up
by mendacious comments about what the Church fathers believe, as I've
shown in replies to the parroting of Ross by VR_Stalkie and PC.

KW:
"What I have tried to point out was that there was a period of apx.
100 years during which YEC was virtually a dead issue, and that in
the early-mid 1920s a YEC revival began, a revival that had its
genesis with Price. It is for this reason that I submit that Price
was the father of the MODERN YEC movement."

How modern is modern?  How long is a piece of string?  What about the
19th-C Scriptural geologists.

KW:
"....

I would further submit that the fact that the fact that some of the
leading Austrailian YECers had never heard of Price is not a relevant
consideration. "

Of course it is!  If it's clear that the Aussies largely went their
own way, apart from relying on complelely non-Pricist points by
Morris and Gish, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that Price
can't be credited/blamed for the Aussie creationist movement.  Same
goes for Americans influenced by Aussies like Ken Ham.

KW:
....

"The issue is one of strict cronology. Since we are talking about who
is
responsible for starting the modern YEC movement, the only question
is that of time. Of all the major players in the current movement,
who was there first."

What matters is: where did the DOCTRINE come from?

Kyle

KW:
"P.S. I would also like to reitterate that I consider Price's
religious/denominational affiliation to be largely inmaterial to the
discussion at hand."

Amen!  Pity people like Numbers, Ross, Morster/Farston etc. make a
huge amount of noise about the alleged SDA roots of modern YEC.

KW: "It is not my intent to discredit YEC."

Oh, that must be why KW trashed an anti-evolution book on Amazon for
no other reason than the fact that it was YEC.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
wrote:
> With all due respect to VR, I think that he has misstated the case
I was trying to make.  I have never claimed that YEC began with
Price.  Rather, what I have mainained was that the modern YEC
movement began with Price.  I freely and readily conceid that Price
was not the first YECer.  What I have tried to point out was that
there was a period of apx. 100 years during which YEC was virtually a
dead issue, and that in the early-mid 1920s a YEC revival began, a
revival that had its genesis with Price.  It is for this reason that
I submit that Price was the father of the MODERN YEC movement.
>
> If Kurt wishes to challange this point, perhaps he could give us an
brief introduction to the major players in the YEC movement from say
1900-1920 [the time period immediatly prior to Price] or perhaps from
1880-1900.
>
> I would further submit that the fact that the fact that some of the
leading Austrailian YECers had never heard of Price is not a relevant
consideration.  Perhaps Kurt would be kind enough to discuss the
Australian YEC movement during the 1920s.  Anything post 1920s is
irrelevant to the issue since the YEC revival had already begun, and
we are talking about who is properly credited with starting the YEC
resurgance we saw begin in the mid-20s.
>
> The issue is one of strict cronology.  Since we are talking about
who is responsible for starting the modern YEC movement, the only
question is that of time.  Of all the major players in the current
movement, who was there first.
>
> Kyle
>
> P.S.  I would also like to reitterate that I consider Price's
religious/denominational affiliation to be largely inmaterial to the
discussion at hand.  It is not my intent to discredit YEC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
>
> * YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
> discussion board,
> >>>
>
> VR:
> "Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
> won't repeat him."
>
> Most wise, since it is completely fallacious (including the genetic
> fallacy), esp. given the fact that leading Australian creationists
> had never even heard of Price when they became creationists, and
were
> merely adopting the same interpretation as Basil, Luther and Calvin
> and many others.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurt_streutker"
<kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
> PC whinged: "I read the article. Quite frankly I did not enjoy it >
First, one must wonder whether PC read a heavily truncated version of
> this article, because by far most of it directly refuted the
> fallacious evolutionary arguments presented in Sci. Am.
>


Really? Where? I have seen little evidence of any refutation.

> Second, this comment was perfectly reasonable in the context of the
> entrenched censorship of anti-evolutionary views by Sci. Am.

Unsupported assertion

> Third, the article in question was by a well-known vicious
atheistic
> anti-creationist in Australia who has even resorted to accusing a
> leading creationist of pederasty.

And the response was by a 'well known' YEC creationist...

I don't think that VR was intentionally trying to misstate the point I was
trying to make, but I did want to clarify it nonetheless.

Kurt, I think that one factor that you have thus far [to the best of my
recollection, at least] not addressed is that of the time period IMMEDIATLY
prior to Price.  The whole issue is one of chronological continuity.  I am
alleging a break in continuity, a period during which for all practical intents
and purposes YEC theology was dead in the water.  Specifically I am alleging
that this was a period of 80-100 years that concluded in the mid 1920s when
Price came on the scene.

The whole issue comes down to two questions.:

1)  Did such a break in continuity occur; and,
2)  Who was the first major player to bring the YEC movement back into the
mainstream?

Obviously the first question is a yes or no question.  If the answer is no,
then, Kurt, then your counter-argument to my position would be correct, and I
would be in error.  However, if such a break in continuity did if fact occur,
then your position is in error, and we need to look at the historical cronology
of the most recent YEC movement to determine who the first major player was.  I
would submit that Price is most deserving of the credit as being the first on
scene.

As to whether or not the major Australian YECers were familiar with Price, I
stand corrected as to the fact that this is in fact quite relevant because it
says a lot about them as individuals.  I think that we could all agree that "The
Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris was perhaps the single most important book
in modern YECism.  If the major Australian YECers [or any other major YEC
player] had never heard of Price, this would demonstrate a severe lack of
discernment on their part.  I say a severe lack of discernment, because it would
be a clear indicator that they had accepted "The Genesis Flood" uncritically and
had failed to check the source materials for themselves to see if Morris and
Whitcomb had accuratly reported the facts as they were presented in their source
documentation.  This is behavior that one would expect out of a layman, not a
supposed leader in the field of YEC.

Kyle

-----Original Message-----
From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@...]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 2:15 PM
To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Hugh Ross Predates AiG's 20 Arguments
Christians Shouldn't Use


KW: "With all due respect to VR, I think that he has misstated the
case I was trying to make."

Par for the course with Virtual Reality.

KW: "I have never claimed that YEC began with Price. Rather, what I
have mainained was that the modern YEC movement began with Price. I
freely and readily conceid that Price was not the first YECer."

That's the main thing.  OTOH Ross OFTEN implies just that, backed up
by mendacious comments about what the Church fathers believe, as I've
shown in replies to the parroting of Ross by VR_Stalkie and PC.

KW:
"What I have tried to point out was that there was a period of apx.
100 years during which YEC was virtually a dead issue, and that in
the early-mid 1920s a YEC revival began, a revival that had its
genesis with Price. It is for this reason that I submit that Price
was the father of the MODERN YEC movement."

How modern is modern?  How long is a piece of string?  What about the
19th-C Scriptural geologists.

KW:
"....

I would further submit that the fact that the fact that some of the
leading Austrailian YECers had never heard of Price is not a relevant
consideration. "

Of course it is!  If it's clear that the Aussies largely went their
own way, apart from relying on complelely non-Pricist points by
Morris and Gish, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that Price
can't be credited/blamed for the Aussie creationist movement.  Same
goes for Americans influenced by Aussies like Ken Ham.

KW:
....

"The issue is one of strict cronology. Since we are talking about who
is
responsible for starting the modern YEC movement, the only question
is that of time. Of all the major players in the current movement,
who was there first."

What matters is: where did the DOCTRINE come from?

Kyle

KW:
"P.S. I would also like to reitterate that I consider Price's
religious/denominational affiliation to be largely inmaterial to the
discussion at hand."

Amen!  Pity people like Numbers, Ross, Morster/Farston etc. make a
huge amount of noise about the alleged SDA roots of modern YEC.

KW: "It is not my intent to discredit YEC."

Oh, that must be why KW trashed an anti-evolution book on Amazon for
no other reason than the fact that it was YEC.



--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
wrote:
> With all due respect to VR, I think that he has misstated the case
I was trying to make.  I have never claimed that YEC began with
Price.  Rather, what I have mainained was that the modern YEC
movement began with Price.  I freely and readily conceid that Price
was not the first YECer.  What I have tried to point out was that
there was a period of apx. 100 years during which YEC was virtually a
dead issue, and that in the early-mid 1920s a YEC revival began, a
revival that had its genesis with Price.  It is for this reason that
I submit that Price was the father of the MODERN YEC movement.
>
> If Kurt wishes to challange this point, perhaps he could give us an
brief introduction to the major players in the YEC movement from say
1900-1920 [the time period immediatly prior to Price] or perhaps from
1880-1900.
>
> I would further submit that the fact that the fact that some of the
leading Austrailian YECers had never heard of Price is not a relevant
consideration.  Perhaps Kurt would be kind enough to discuss the
Australian YEC movement during the 1920s.  Anything post 1920s is
irrelevant to the issue since the YEC revival had already begun, and
we are talking about who is properly credited with starting the YEC
resurgance we saw begin in the mid-20s.
>
> The issue is one of strict cronology.  Since we are talking about
who is responsible for starting the modern YEC movement, the only
question is that of time.  Of all the major players in the current
movement, who was there first.
>
> Kyle
>
> P.S.  I would also like to reitterate that I consider Price's
religious/denominational affiliation to be largely inmaterial to the
discussion at hand.  It is not my intent to discredit YEC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
>
> * YEC began with George McCready Price (as amply shown on this
> discussion board,
> >>>
>
> VR:
> "Kyle has done a fine job of showing the lineage/linkage here - I
> won't repeat him."
>
> Most wise, since it is completely fallacious (including the genetic
> fallacy), esp. given the fact that leading Australian creationists
> had never even heard of Price when they became creationists, and
were
> merely adopting the same interpretation as Basil, Luther and Calvin
> and many others.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Hi Gromit,

Glad to see that you are still around...gives the group something to discuss. 
;-)

Here are some of the questions I would love to see your answer on.

Hi Gromit,

This may be a good time to re-ask some of my questions.

First: I believe that you are going to heaven, because the sinner on the cross
next to Jesus just accepted Him without knowing about the resurrection OEC YEC
or anything else.

Second, in many of them the question is not obvious, I am merely stating a
position and asking where you stand in relation to it.

BUT:
Regarding the accuracy of the Gospels...
- Although you keep making the statement "begging the question" you surely agree
that internal evidence is important?
- The few discrepancies that are in the Gospels
   + Most can be explained
   + Some are a result of the writers not making a biography of Christ, therefore
strict chronology was not important to them
   + Some of them are discrepancies...this you would expect from 4 different
descriptions and if you did not find them would have reason to doubt.
- although I do not believe that the versions of the Bible that we have today
are without any error, I do believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, and
the truths in it have been demonstrated time an time again.

Regarding the Virgin Birth:
- If God is a personal God who is involved with His creation, why should this be
difficult?
- Both Joseph, and Mary were descended from David, but Joseph's ancestry went
via Jehioacim, who was cursed, God said that no-one from his seed would ever
hold the throne of David. (I may have the name wrong, but the idea is correct)
This means that Jesus could not be of the line of Joseph.

If Jesus was not raised physically why.....
- Did he ask Thomas to touch his wounds.
- What happened to his body?
  + The priests hid it? Why did they not declare it?
  + The Disciples hid it? Why did none of them admit to the fake under
persecution?
- Who rolled away the stone?
- How did they get past the Roman guard?
  + The Romans fell asleep? What about the punishment of death? All 16 of them?
- How do you explain the disciples?
  + Self-Centred cowards, they flee in fear and disorganization, then after
meeting a Jesus who tells them he rose from the dead get full of courage?
  + These people are prepared to take persecution, torture, isolation, just to
maintain a lie? How can that make sense?

Nope, and these are just the tip of the points that show a risen Saviour! If you
go through all the evidence, some of which is shown in books by such as Josh
McDowell, (who before writing the book believed as you do) some in Frank
Morison's books, (he also changed his mind after going through the evidence)

I feel very strongly that anyone who claims that the Physical Resurrection of
Christ is not a fact either has not checked out the evidence......or has a
hidden agenda.

God Bless




----- Original Message -----
From: gromit54609
To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:03 AM
Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Where did Gromit make the claim about "heavy
petting?"


--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Danny Faulkner" <faulkner@g...>
wrote:
> Gromit, you said:
>
> >>>>>>
> The Lord of the Bible, the Creator of our Universe who sent his
only
> son to die for our sins. Are there other ones?
> >>>>>>

> Apparently, yes, because your lord appears to still be in the tomb -
> did you intentionally end your description of Jesus with His death
> or was that just an oversight?

Is it still confusing to you to whom I am refering? Could you perhaps
explain to me if there are other such Saviors?





Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
             ADVERTISEMENT




Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: gromit54609
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 12:42 AM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:


   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "kurt_streutker"
   <kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
   > http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
   >
   > PC might be willing to learn from it, but I doubt the same of VR,
   > since he hates anything produced by YECs even more than he hates
   the
   > outright heresy of the likes of Gromit.

   You are so funny Kurt.

   See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=127ccf2e.0207051827.699d9c84%
   40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

   for some of the errors found in Sarfati's 'rebuttal'. Has he ever
   corrected his errors about the Helium for instance?

   http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9fb0e3b1.0207020539.5b6dbd71%
   40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

   In Christ my dear friend


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Kurt,

As usual you are avoiding the problem which is your attitude... NOT... anyone
else's. Your tactics are in question as is your integrity. The way you attack
fellow Christians is what the post referred to.

God Bless
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kurt_streutker
   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 4:38 AM
   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Are you publishing false testimony in an
attempt to damage someone's reputation?


   PC: "I have done a 'cut 'n paste' once again because it seems that
   the relevant portion was ignored..."

   More likely, it was a passage more of a warning to the anti-YECs
   around here.

   PC: "Kurt, I actually believe that Gromit behaved in a *far* more
   Christian way than you."

   Oh right, attacking the inerrancy of Scripture was REALLY Christ-like
   wasn't it, never ming John 10:35.  And I wouldn't even make vile
   comments about ANYONE's Mom that this perverted heretic made about
   Christ's Mom.

   PC: "The many revelations that were made to the group show that as
   well as you ignoring the well placed warning I have highlighted."

   The many revelations that were made to the group show that VR-Stalkie
   has been guilty of bearing false witness and slander and finding
   excuses to smear that have nothing to do with OEC v YEC, which is why
   he was booted off.  And PC shows that he is only too willing to
   believe this nonsense, as well as the nonsensical idea that the
   virginal-conception-denying Gromit was a genuine Christian.



   --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
   > Hi,
   >
   > I have done a 'cut 'n paste' once again because it seems that the
   relevant portion was ignored...
   >
   > Kurt, I actually believe that Gromit behaved in a *far* more
   Christian way than you. The many revelations that were made to the
   group show that as well as you ignoring the well placed warning I
   have highlighted.
   >
   > May I encourage you: In your concern for accurate interpretations
   > of Genesis 1-11: please be careful not to ignore the rest of
   > Scripture, like Leviticus 19:16 (which says, "Do not go about
   spreading
   > slander among your people") or Psalm 15:3 (which describes the man
   who is permitted to dwell in God's sanctuary: he "has no slander on
   his
   > tongue,...does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his
   >  fellowman"). Of course there are many other passages that speak in
   >  similar terms: Matthew 15:19 (which mentions false testimony and
   >  slander), or 2 Corinthians 12:20....I'm sure you understand what
   > I'm > talking about.]
   >
   >   ----- Original Message -----
   >   From: kurt_streutker
   >   To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
   >   Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 11:04 PM
   >   Subject: [RTB Discussion Group] Re: Are you publishing false
   testimony in an attempt to damage someone's reputation?
   >
   >
   >   This emotional response by Holzmann is also typical.  Fact
   remains,
   >   he said what he said!  This not only includes grossly misinformed
   >   views on YEC (e.g. hardlay having read any AiG material and
   >   uncritically accepting the words of theistic evolutionist Morton
   and
   >   Christadephian heretic Hayward) and the pro-Romanist comments on
   both
   >   Protestant and Catholic books.
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


   Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
   to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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