5996Re: Fishing or cutting bait with Jason Fox
- May 1 7:47 AMIn this CFTF post
Jason Fox wrote the following:
> Rick wrote:Hi, everyone.
>> What is disputed is that the rock formed within the last
>> hundred years, as is claimed by unrepentant sources, namely
> 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.
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 theAh yes, Jason Fox the young earth creationist makes the (incorrect)
> 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.
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 notYes, we can make diamonds in the lab too, but at there structures at
> time, this has been proven.
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!
> EvolutionistsUh... 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 petrifiedThey did? Was this within the last hundred years? Can Jason produce a
> wood took time, pressure, and heat to form.
citation from the geological literature to back up this claim? I
> However it hasIn fact, geologists think that petrified wood is produced by a
> 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?
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's pretty funny, seeing a young earth creationist complaining
>> 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.
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:To Rick: No, actually with what little detailed information I have
>> 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.
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 andWhen I read the article it was obvious to me that the professor was
> 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.
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:Is Jason now starting to run away from the YEC argument from AP that
>> 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.
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:[snip]
>> 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>