Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5996Re: Fishing or cutting bait with Jason Fox

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    May 1 7:47 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In this CFTF post
      Jason Fox wrote the following:

      > Rick wrote:
      >> What is disputed is that the rock formed within the last
      >> hundred years, as is claimed by unrepentant sources, namely
      >> AP.
      > Correct.
      > Rick wrote:
      >> The UTC geology faculty have also independently established
      >> that the temperature and pressure required to form phyllite
      >> would have smushed the reel to pieces,
      > How do you come to this conclusion, the article mentions
      > nothing about this.

      Hi, everyone.

      Demonstrating his troubles with reading plain English, the young
      earth creationist Jason Fox shows that he doesn't understand the
      meaning of the words "independently established." Rick apparently
      knows at least a little more about geology than Jason does, which
      certainly comes as no surprise. Jason seems to imply that we're
      supposed to learn geology from the speculative musings of a bunch of
      young earth creationists at Apologetics Press who don't know anything
      at all about geology, and that no one can know anything about geology
      apart from such ignorant musings.

      > Evolutionists make the
      > assumption that phyllite requires temperature and pressure
      > (and time) to form, but the formation of phyllite has not been
      > observed, so no one really knows.

      Ah yes, Jason Fox the young earth creationist makes the (incorrect)
      assumption that geologists know as little about geology as he does.
      Jason apparently doesn't know that certain specialties in geology
      involve research in laboratories where the geologists who engage in
      this research study the effects of pressure and temperature (among
      other things) on the physical structure and chemical state of various
      kind of rock, right down to the molecular level. In his statement
      here, Jason admits that he doesn't know anything about this research.
      We're glad that he's honest enough to admit this here, but we're not
      very pleased with his false assumption and assertion that just
      because he doesn't know anything about geology, this must mean that
      geologists who actually conduct research in these areas are just like
      him. Does Jason even know the difference between igneous,
      sedimentary, and metamorphic rock forms? Which is something any
      GEO101 student could tell you. The sheer audacity of young earth
      creationists is ever amazing to behold, at how they hold forth on all
      manner of scientific subjects about which they know virtually nothing.

      > Coal and oil need pressure and temperature to form, but not
      > time, this has been proven.

      Yes, we can make diamonds in the lab too, but at there structures at
      the molecular level are observed to be different. And besides the
      molecular structure, there's also the fact of the geological context
      (landforms and rocks types that the rock/minerals in question are
      found in association with) in which such things are found. Golly,
      would Jason Fox the young earth creationist who knows nothing about
      geology be asking us to ignore such context? Of course!

      > Evolutionists

      Uh... We're talking about geology and geologists, not evolution, and
      this has been explicitly pointed out to Jason a number of times, but
      he continues to display his steadfast confusion on this.

      > also thought petrified
      > wood took time, pressure, and heat to form.

      They did? Was this within the last hundred years? Can Jason produce a
      citation from the geological literature to back up this claim? I
      doubt it.

      > However it has
      > been shown that petrified wood requires none of the above to
      > form. So how can you be so sure of a process that has never
      > been observed?

      In fact, geologists think that petrified wood is produced by a
      chemical/mineral replacement of the wood over time, which is why it
      is also referred to as "silicified wood." If you don't believe me,
      just do a Google search on:

      geology "petrified wood"

      Does Jason have a clue what he's talking about? I seriously doubt it.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> that there are channelways that show the path the reel had to
      >> follow to get into the rock, and that these channelways
      >> revealed saw marks, and that it looked like a drill was used
      >> to get the one leg inserted.
      > Again, pure speculation, if not total fabrication on your
      > part. The Article mentions nothing of the sort. And on a quick
      > look one can see for themselves that there are no marks on the
      > rock that you describe. It is plain to see, that the rock has
      > actually formed around the reel.

      That's pretty funny, seeing a young earth creationist complaining
      about anyone using pure speculation! Since that's almost all that
      young earth creationists ever do!

      It's also plain to see that no layers of phyllite rock (or any other
      kind of rock) have formed at the Tellico River within the last 100
      years, and I have pointed this out to Jason a number of time, but
      it's plain to see that Jason is ignoring this fact and has chosen to
      refuse to address it.

      Regarding the article, there is more than one article. Rick is also
      referencing the original article in the Chattanooga Times FreePress
      (10/2/2003). This article refers to Dr. John Mies, one of the UTC

      | By closely observing what he thought were travel marks
      | eroded into the stone, Mies was convinced the reel had
      | somehow worn its way into the rock.
      | "It started at one angle and then changed its track on
      | the way in," he said.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> I'm guessing Todd was just being non-accusatory with his
      >> scenario. Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the
      >> suggestions of the UTC faculty that the reel was
      >> intentionally put into the rock by human devices.

      To Rick: No, actually with what little detailed information I have
      I'm guessing that it could have been something as simple as a kid
      playing around with an old broken fishing reel he found, and he
      jammed it into cracks in a rock, and thus it wouldn't represent the
      deceitful act of being a hoax. But I may be wrong about this. I know
      that I'm guessing based on the limited information available.

      > Again, no such "scenario" is ever mentioned in the article and
      > is only a fabrication on your part. A.P. even quoted an
      > independent source that shows no such claim was made by the
      > UTC. The only thing the UTC claims is that it (the rock) does
      > not exist, which is typical of evolutionists when it comes to
      > evidence which they can not explain.

      When I read the article it was obvious to me that the professor was
      JOKING. Furthermore, the professor in question has later written
      about this and explicitly told us he was JOKING. Leave it to Jason to
      take a joke out of context.

      And Jason the young earth creationist using the phrase "which is
      typical of evolutionists when it comes to evidence which they can not
      explain" is itself a good joke! A young earth creationist, who
      doesn't even know the difference between geology and evolution, and
      who doesn't even know that geologists actually study rocks and
      minerals in the laboratory and conduct experiments on them, and who
      purposely ignores most of geology and astronomy, complaining about
      people pretending that evidence doesn't exist! That's a real crack up!

      And, anyway, the ORIGINAL newspaper article DOES state that some of
      the UTC faculty thought that the reel was intentionally put into the
      rock. This is what Rick is referring to.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> Jason, there are whole mountains of solid phyllite in that
      >> area. They have been there well over a hundred years, we are
      >> sure. The small chunks of phyllite are weathered-away parts
      >> of the solid layer of parent material of which those
      >> mountains are made.
      > No one is disputing this point.

      Is Jason now starting to run away from the YEC argument from AP that
      he latched himself onto? The claim by (some of) you young earth
      creationists is that these layers of phyllite rock formed within the
      last 100 years. Rick's point that "They have been there well over a
      hundred years" is exactly what Jason has been disputing.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> Through various natural processes, mainly gravity, they wind
      >> up in streambeds, where they are washed smooth by the action
      >> of flowing water. That water does indeed move, smooth,
      >> tumble and polish rocks can be readily shown. All of these
      >> things had already happened to the chunk of phyllite that has
      >> the reel in it. If rocks were outgrowing the erosive forces
      >> of water, indeed, if phyllite "grew" at all, we would know
      >> about it.
      > Again, you make many assumptions in this statement.

      Rick is probably assuming that Jason is supporting the YEC argument
      made by YEC advocates Tarpley, Cortez, and Harrub, that Jason has
      been writing in support of the last few weeks. But with his words
      here Jason now appears to be starting to run away from the very
      argument that he had latched onto. Since Jason's Alzheimers appears
      to be kicking in, I quote directly from the AP article (for, what,
      the 6th time?) the argument he has been supporting:

      A Young Earth: "Fishing for Proof"
      by Thomas Tarpley, B.S., G.C., Michael Cortez, B.A., and Brad Harrub,
      [note line-wrapping of link]

      | "We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old,
      | as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently,
      | allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded
      | during the process."

      Rick writes that if the rock was growing at the Tellico River within
      the past 100 years as these young earth creationists say it was then
      we would already know about it. We would observe. And Jason Fox
      responds by now pretending that Rick is assuming that Jason supports
      that argument. Well, Jason HAS BEEN supporting that argument, as made
      by Tarpley, Cortez, and Harrub. That is exactly the argument that
      Jason has been supporting. And yet here we have Jason now pretending
      that Rick is incorrectly assuming that Jason supports that argument.
      Can Jason make up his mind?

      By the way, let's keep in mind that so far Jason Fox is the SOLE
      supporter of this particular argument in the CFTF discussion group.
      Not even his fellow young earth creationists there agree with him on

      Todd Greene
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic