Hi, members of the "creationism" and "BereanSpirit" lists.

[Someone, please copy this to the "BereanSpirit" list for me since
I'm not allowed to post to that list, and I want them to know the
truth, which is quite contrary to Gary's statements, that I have been
anything but silent.]

You know, I can take young earth creationists blowing a lot of smoke,
because generally that's all they usually do. But Gary Smith and I
both know that there's something seriously wrong with blatant lying.
Gary has written, oh so coyly, "I have recently responded to Todd and
it seems--maybe I am not correct--that Todd is unwilling to discuss
evolution, the flood or the age of the earth." Members of
the "creationism" list already know better, but I sincerely invite
members of the "BereanSpirit" list to take a look at the public post
archive of the "creationism" list at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages

where they can see for themselves what I have and have not discussed.
Those who will look will see that Gary has lied about me, that his
characterization of me is *exactly* the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, as one example of what has *really* been going on, I simply
reiterate what I pointed out in my previous post on this:

>> I think that the members of the BereanSpirit list should also
>> be referred to the following two posts here on the
>> "creationism" list:
>>
>> Gary Smith claims, without citing a single reference, that
>> Earth impact craters support YEC:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5008
>>
>> Todd Greene gives 27 online references giving information
>> showing unequivocally that Gary Smith's claim about Earth
>> impact craters is completely wrong:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5012
>>
>> BereanSpirit members should know that since my #5012 post,
>> which I presented on April 14th, I've been patiently waiting
>> for Gary Smith's acknowledgement of the falseness of his
>> argument, and as of May 1st Gary has been completely silent on
>> this. So you tell me, who's the "big talker," and why is he
>> talking about other people being "big talkers"? Something's not
>> right about this.

So let's get this straight. Gary makes a completely false and
unsubstantiated claim about impact craters on the earth, I discuss
the matter profusely with specific details showing why Gary's claim
is totally false, and then Gary starts lying on another discussion
list that I won't even discuss such things as impact craters, when
the truth of the matter is that *I* am the one who discussed the
issue and it has been *Gary* who I've been trying to get to address
this issue yet he has so far refused to acknowledge that I even made
this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5012

And now he's lying to people in another discussion forum that I won't
discuss the subject. This behavior is not right. It isn't right that
Gary has lied to people about me. Gary claims to be a Christian, but
oh, wait, that's right, he's one of those young earth creationists,
and as we've all seen a hundred times YECs think it's okay to behave
contrary to their own Christian morality. Typical YEC!

Everyone should also clearly take note of this: Gary admits that the
universe has been in existence far longer than just 6,000 years.

Gary complains that he doesn't even that the proposition I stated
about short-term comets ("Those who accept an old universe have no
explanation for the present existence of short-term comets.") is even
a good argument.

Obviously Marion Fox disagrees with Gary on this, since Marion
supports this argument (a COC preacher by the name of Darrell Broking
presented the argument; when I criticized the argument, Marion chose
to defend Darrell's argument):

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette8.html#a315m22
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette8.html#a320m6
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette10.html#a339m2
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette10.html#a339m12
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette10.html#a340m3
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/gazette10.html#a345m1

I happen to agree with Gary that the YEC argument about short-term
comets is a ridiculous argument, so Gary should be telling his YEC
brethren, like Darrell Broking and Marion Fox to give up this bad
argument, because when I pointed out the fallacies of the argument to
them they ignored me. Typical YECs!

Finally, I clearly recall having personally invited Marion to
the "creationism" list at least twice (the first time was shortly
after the YECs Gil Yoder and Ron Cosby booted me off the LUR list
after tearing up Marion's arguments). Feel free to confirm this with
Marion, should you think my sense of honesty is as slippery as
Gary's. Marion has refused to discuss these issues in
the "creationism" discussion group. (I have also been told that is
was Marion who voluntarily chose to leave the "BereanSpirit" list.
His critics did not leave the list.)

I also find it extremely funny that Gary complains about not having
access to information. Gee, in these discussion groups we're on the
internet, and we can access everything from Hubble Space Telescope
images to discussion and diagrams by real live professional
astronomers and geologists. (For example, look at my post on Earth
impact craters which I gave the link to above. I give you at least a
couple of dozen internet links to information about impact craters.
You could never as easily get to this information if you were not on
the internet.) But leave it to YECs - they would rather isolate us
from this direct access!

Regards,
Todd S. Greene
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From: Gary Smith
Date: 5/1/02
Subject: [creat] Re: Cross Post for Relevance!
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5239

> To Robert and Todd:
>
> Marion would be willing to debate some of these issues, but
> somehow the basic subject matter seems to change. I do not
> believe that Marion or myself have that much problem with
> other's theories concerning the age of the universe. I consider
> this a complex subject and though I disagree with some theories,
> I am not strongly persuaded one way or the other. I doubt that
> Marion is. But I think that He would be much open to discussing
> the age of the earth, the flood and evolution. Neither of us are
> that adamant in affirming much about the universe but would love
> to have a discussion on earth age, the flood, and evolution.
> Now, I suggest that you solidify a position on thes things and
> let us discuss.

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

From: Gary Smith
Date: 5/2/02
Subject: [BereanSpirit] Re: Keith hired Gary Smith, Coelacanth
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/53412

> Dear Robert:
>
> There is something here not making much sense to me. I have
> recently responded to Todd and it seems--maybe I am not correct
> --that Todd is unwilling to discuss evolution, the flood or the
> age of the earth. He conveniently desires to talk about the
> theoretical age of the universe which I deem to be unproductive
> since the subject is obviously more complex than the flood or
> the age of the earth. When it comes to the earth we have
> empirical evidence to work with---certain observations by which
> we may either extrapolate or draw conclusions by implication.
>
> This to me is an obvious dodge of the pressing issues. Todd
> seems to me to be fearful to set forth a proposition on the age
> of the earth and the flood. Evidently he recognizes that Marion
> is familiar with what he has written and therefore is unwilling
> to set forth a proposition on these matters. These are the
> issues that Marion has predominantly set forth in his book.

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

From: Gary Smith
Date: 5/2/02
Subject: [BereanSpirit] Re: Keith hired Gary Smith, Coelacanth
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/53435

> Dear Todd---First, these are not the issues about which we have
> been disagreeing. Your first proposition I would not contest so
> why would we debate it???
>
> Your second proposition is not a precise proposition at all. The
> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Todd--your
> second proposition you loose before you begin. If you understood
> the nature of propositional logic you would recognize this.
>
> Your third proposition is indeed a proposition and I suggest
> that you and Marion debate this as well as the flood and the age
> ot the earth.
>
> Again, as before--I am informing everybody that I do not deny a
> very old universe.Neither do I affirm one. I am open to many
> possibilites here. I may be mistaken, but I think that Marion
> feels the same. I keep having to repeat this. So please soak it
> in. It is no wonder that so many say so much and never reach a
> conclusion. You don't seem to keep up with the views of the
> opposition at all.
>
> Affirm----The earth is younger than 10,000 years.
>
> deny--The geological features of earth impact craters prove that
> the earth has been here for millions of years.
>
> Affirm---here I suggest that Todd debate Marion on the flood
> being responsible for the geological features of he earth. But
> they can agree on how to word it.------Now watch Todd. All Todd
> really wants to debate is the age of the universe. He is fearful
> of the Flood, the age of the earth. He needs room to theorize
> because he cannot reason properly, thus he is fearful of the
> flood and the age of the earth.

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

From: Gary Smith
Date: 5/2/02
Subject: [creat] Re: Cross Post for Relevance!
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/5260

> Dear Robert:
>
> Marion has never been reluctant to discuss the flood or earth
> age. It should be obvious to those not following all this what
> is happeining. The subject matter is deliberately being
> restricted to something other than the flood or earth age.
> Marion's Book is not about the age of the universe but the flood
> and it's geological impact. So what do we do since we cannot
> refute him. We try to allure and badger him inot a discussion
> that is so broad that it is difficult to pen one down--to
> isolate. But if we can allure him to debate the flood --presto--
> we can at least tuck tail and run if we can't disprove him.
> Interesting how sure everone was that his views on the flood and
> flood geology were incorrect but none will actually engage in a
> public debate where charts can be used to teach an inquiring
> audience.---Silence as usual. Oh--I know what we can do--we can
> debate him on the age of the universe!!!