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

Re: David P. Brown's and his boys' affirmative, on the table!

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... That s mighty longsuffering of you, Robert. ... I think you ve overlooked John West -- but other than that your list seems to be complete. I think it s
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
      >
      > (In the spirit of good faith and cooperation,
      > the July 2, 2007 deadline has been extended
      > indefinitely. It's just too important of a
      > public issue not to allow David P. Brown and
      > his boys a continuing opportunity to explicitly
      > express what they have implied as to their
      > position.)

      That's mighty longsuffering of you, Robert.

      > Following below is the proposition...
      >
      > > We, David P. Brown and
      > > the ContendingFTF boys,
      > > affirm:
      >
      > >> If some thing really
      > >> is more than a few
      > >> thousand years old,
      > >> then the God we believe
      > >> in, as represented in
      > >> the Bible, does not exist.
      >
      > > Affirmed: David P. Brown
      >
      > The Boys:
      >
      > > Affirmed: ...

      I think you've overlooked John West -- but
      other than that your list seems to be
      complete.

      I think it's quite gentlemanly of you to
      leave "the girls" out of it, by the way.
      They're probably embarrassed enough as it is.


      Rick
    • Robert Baty
      (I have been advised that the list omitted John West. This posting is to reflect the addition of the previously overlooked John West. As a courtesy to the
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        (I have been advised that the list omitted John West. This posting is to reflect the addition of the previously overlooked John West. As a courtesy to the women, they have not been considered as partipants in this study; the "girlie-men" described so aptly by Donald Canny, of the ContendingFTF list, are sufficient to represent the feminine side of things and they are properly included below.)

        In the spirit of good faith and cooperation, the July 2, 2007 deadline has been extended indefinitely. It's just too important of a public issue not to allow David P. Brown and his boys a continuing opportunity to explicitly express what they have implied as to their position.

        Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
        formal, in writing, for the record discussion.

        David P. Brown should also proceed to negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing or orally, and for the record.

        Here it is, the indicated affirmative position held by David P. Brown and his boys:

        > We, David P. Brown and
        > the ContendingFTF boys,
        > affirm:

        >> If some thing really
        >> is more than a few
        >> thousand years old,
        >> then the God we believe
        >> in, as represented in
        >> the Bible, does not exist.

        > Affirmed: David P. Brown

        The Boys:

        > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
        > Affirmed: Dub McClish
        > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

        > Affirmed: John West
        > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
        > Affirmed: Don DeLong
        > Affirmed: Doug Post
        > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
        > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
        > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
        > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
        > Affirmed: Robin Haley
        > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
        > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
        > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
        > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
        > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
        > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
        > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
        > Affirmed: Tim Smith
        > Affirmed: Donald Canny
        > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
        > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
        > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
        > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
        > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
        > Affirmed: Robert Collier
        > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
        > Affirmed: Roger Zink
        > Affirmed: Donald Mash
        > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
        > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
        > Affirmed: Richie Baker
        > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
        > Affirmed: John Miler
        > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
        > Affirmed: Justin Guess
        > Affirmed: David Hammer
        > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
        > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
        > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
        > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
        > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
        > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
        > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
        > Affirmed: Val Jamison
        > Affirmed: Robert Foster
        > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
        > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
        > Affirmed: Dale Miller
        > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
        > Affirmed: Cody Westbrook
        > Affirmed: "et al"

        If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should respond directly to this list and state
        explicitly their true position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

        They will then have their name removed from the above and placed appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

        In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to address their e-mail to:

        Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable references and they will be considered for purposes of determining which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!

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






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        (To date, there hasn t been any evidence shown that there is a man on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will come out and explicitly state
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          (To date, there hasn't been any evidence shown that there is a "man" on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will "come out" and explicitly state for the record whether or not they agree with the implicit position espoused by the owner and his boys on that list.)

          In the spirit of good faith and cooperation, the July 2, 2007 deadline has been extended indefinitely.

          It's just too important of a public issue not to allow David P. Brown and his boys a continuing opportunity to explicitly express what they have implied as to their position.

          David P. Brown, or his surrogate champion, should proceed to negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing or orally, and for the record.

          Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
          formal, in writing, for the record discussion:


          > We, David P. Brown and
          > the ContendingFTF boys,
          > affirm:

          >> If some thing really
          >> is more than a few
          >> thousand years old,
          >> then the God we believe
          >> in, as represented in
          >> the Bible, does not exist.

          > Affirmed: David P. Brown

          The Boys:

          > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
          > Affirmed: Dub McClish
          > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

          > Affirmed: John West
          > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
          > Affirmed: Don DeLong
          > Affirmed: Doug Post
          > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
          > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
          > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
          > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
          > Affirmed: Robin Haley
          > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
          > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
          > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
          > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
          > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
          > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
          > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
          > Affirmed: Tim Smith
          > Affirmed: Donald Canny
          > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
          > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
          > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
          > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
          > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
          > Affirmed: Robert Collier
          > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
          > Affirmed: Roger Zink
          > Affirmed: Donald Mash
          > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
          > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
          > Affirmed: Richie Baker
          > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
          > Affirmed: John Miler
          > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
          > Affirmed: Justin Guess
          > Affirmed: David Hammer
          > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
          > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
          > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
          > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
          > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
          > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
          > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
          > Affirmed: Val Jamison
          > Affirmed: Robert Foster
          > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
          > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
          > Affirmed: Dale Miller
          > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
          > Affirmed: Cody Westbrook
          > Affirmed: "et al"

          If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should respond directly to this list and state
          explicitly their true position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

          They will then have their name removed from the above and placed appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

          In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to address their e-mail to:

          Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable references and they will be considered for purposes of determining which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!

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



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • rlbaty50
          Daniel Denham is most recently suggesting that it would be immoral for David P. Brown and his boys, including Daniel Denham, to explicitly admit or deny the
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Daniel Denham is most recently suggesting that it would be immoral
            for David P. Brown and his boys, including Daniel Denham, to
            explicitly admit or deny the propriety of my representation of their
            position as shown below. Daniel Denham further is suggesting that,
            as for himself, he cannot be morally influenced to admit explicitly
            what his position is on this simple, yet important, public issue.

            That's good to know, but it is disappointing to see what are supposed
            to be grown men so clearly evade the issue and insist on remaining in
            hiding on the ContendingFTF list.

            To date, there hasn't been any evidence shown that there is a "man"
            on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will "come out"
            and explicitly state for the record whether or not they agree with
            the implicit position espoused by the owner and his boys on that list.

            In the spirit of good faith and cooperation, the July 2, 2007
            deadline has been extended indefinitely.

            It's just too important of a public issue not to allow David P. Brown
            and his boys a continuing opportunity to explicitly express what they
            have implied as to their position.

            David P. Brown, or his surrogate champion, should proceed to
            negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing
            or orally, and for the record.

            Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is
            still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
            formal, in writing, for the record discussion:

            > We, David P. Brown and
            > the ContendingFTF boys,
            > affirm:

            >> If some thing really
            >> is more than a few
            >> thousand years old,
            >> then the God we believe
            >> in, as represented in
            >> the Bible, does not exist.

            > Affirmed: David P. Brown

            The Boys:

            > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
            > Affirmed: Dub McClish
            > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

            > Affirmed: John West
            > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
            > Affirmed: Don DeLong
            > Affirmed: Doug Post
            > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
            > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
            > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
            > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
            > Affirmed: Robin Haley
            > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
            > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
            > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
            > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
            > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
            > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
            > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
            > Affirmed: Tim Smith
            > Affirmed: Donald Canny
            > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
            > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
            > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
            > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
            > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
            > Affirmed: Robert Collier
            > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
            > Affirmed: Roger Zink
            > Affirmed: Donald Mash
            > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
            > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
            > Affirmed: Richie Baker
            > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
            > Affirmed: John Miler
            > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
            > Affirmed: Justin Guess
            > Affirmed: David Hammer
            > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
            > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
            > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
            > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
            > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
            > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
            > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
            > Affirmed: Val Jamison
            > Affirmed: Robert Foster
            > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
            > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
            > Affirmed: Dale Miller
            > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
            > Affirmed: Cody Westbrook
            > Affirmed: "et al"

            If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the
            position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should
            respond directly to this list and state explicitly their true
            position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their
            position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

            They will then have their name removed from the above and placed
            appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by
            their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

            In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to
            address their e-mail to:

            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links)
            by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the
            above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable
            references and they will be considered for purposes of determining
            which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown
            and agree with me!

            -----------------------
            -----------------------
          • Robert Baty
            (Updated to remove Cody Westbrook s name from the list. While believing the earth is only a few thousand years old, Cody does not want to take a position on
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              (Updated to remove Cody Westbrook's name from the list. While believing the earth is only a few thousand years old, Cody does not want to take a position on what the consequence might be "IF" the earth were more than a few thousand years old. He specifically does not want to join with David P. Brown and his boys in affirming the following proposition/argument.)

              Daniel Denham is most recently suggesting that it would be immoral for David P. Brown and his boys, including Daniel Denham, to explicitly admit or deny the propriety of my representation of their
              position as shown below. Daniel Denham further is suggesting that, as for himself, he cannot be morally influenced to admit explicitly what his position is on this simple, yet important, public issue.

              That's good to know, but it is disappointing to see what are supposed to be grown men so clearly evade the issue and insist on remaining in hiding on the ContendingFTF list.

              To date, there hasn't been any evidence shown that there is a "man" on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will "come out" and explicitly state for the record whether or not they agree with
              the implicit position espoused by the owner and his boys on that list.

              David P. Brown, or his surrogate champion, should proceed to negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing
              or orally, and for the record.

              Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
              formal, in writing, for the record discussion:

              > We, David P. Brown and
              > the ContendingFTF boys,
              > affirm:

              >> If some thing really
              >> is more than a few
              >> thousand years old,
              >> then the God we believe
              >> in, as represented in
              >> the Bible, does not exist.

              > Affirmed: David P. Brown

              The Boys:

              > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
              > Affirmed: Dub McClish
              > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

              > Affirmed: John West
              > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
              > Affirmed: Don DeLong
              > Affirmed: Doug Post
              > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
              > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
              > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
              > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
              > Affirmed: Robin Haley
              > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
              > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
              > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
              > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
              > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
              > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
              > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
              > Affirmed: Tim Smith
              > Affirmed: Donald Canny
              > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
              > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
              > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
              > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
              > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
              > Affirmed: Robert Collier
              > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
              > Affirmed: Roger Zink
              > Affirmed: Donald Mash
              > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
              > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
              > Affirmed: Richie Baker
              > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
              > Affirmed: John Miler
              > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
              > Affirmed: Justin Guess
              > Affirmed: David Hammer
              > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
              > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
              > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
              > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
              > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
              > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
              > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
              > Affirmed: Val Jamison
              > Affirmed: Robert Foster
              > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
              > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
              > Affirmed: Dale Miller
              > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
              > Affirmed: "et al"

              If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should
              respond directly to this list and state explicitly their true position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their
              position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

              They will then have their name removed from the above and placed appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

              In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to address their e-mail to:

              Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable references and they will be considered for purposes of determining which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!

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



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Robert Baty
              (Daniel Denham is again making like he can t find the table over here. So, here it is again for reference and response in prepartation of the proposal formal,
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                (Daniel Denham is again making like he can't find the table over here. So, here it is again for reference and response in prepartation of the proposal formal, in writing or orally, for the record discussion.)

                To date, there hasn't been any evidence shown that there is a "man" on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will "come out" and explicitly state for the record whether or not they agree with
                the implicit position espoused by the owner and his boys on that list.

                David P. Brown, or his surrogate champion, should proceed to negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing
                or orally, and for the record.

                Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
                formal, in writing, for the record discussion:

                > We, David P. Brown and
                > the ContendingFTF boys,
                > affirm:

                >> If some thing really
                >> is more than a few
                >> thousand years old,
                >> then the God we believe
                >> in, as represented in
                >> the Bible, does not exist.

                > Affirmed: David P. Brown

                The Boys:

                > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
                > Affirmed: Dub McClish
                > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

                > Affirmed: John West
                > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
                > Affirmed: Don DeLong
                > Affirmed: Doug Post
                > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
                > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
                > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
                > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
                > Affirmed: Robin Haley
                > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
                > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
                > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
                > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
                > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
                > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
                > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
                > Affirmed: Tim Smith
                > Affirmed: Donald Canny
                > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
                > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
                > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
                > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
                > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
                > Affirmed: Robert Collier
                > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
                > Affirmed: Roger Zink
                > Affirmed: Donald Mash
                > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
                > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
                > Affirmed: Richie Baker
                > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
                > Affirmed: John Miler
                > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
                > Affirmed: Justin Guess
                > Affirmed: David Hammer
                > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
                > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
                > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
                > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
                > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
                > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
                > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
                > Affirmed: Val Jamison
                > Affirmed: Robert Foster
                > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
                > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
                > Affirmed: Dale Miller
                > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
                > Affirmed: "et al"

                If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should
                respond directly to this list and state explicitly their true position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their
                position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

                They will then have their name removed from the above and placed appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

                In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to address their e-mail to:

                Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable references and they will be considered for purposes of determining which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!

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





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • w_w_c_l
                To the ContendingFTF list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/7422 Daniel Denham writes: Challenge Still On The Table ... Why are Robert and
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  To the ContendingFTF list
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/7422

                  Daniel Denham writes:


                  Challenge Still On The Table


                  > List,
                  >
                  > It has been a few days since Robert Baty, Todd Greene,
                  > and/or Rick Hartzog popped out of their hidey-hole to
                  > approach the subject of debate on the existence of God.
                  >
                  > The challenge to Todd, who is the "champion" for Baty
                  > and Hartzog, is still on the table. Where are they?
                  > Wherever they're hiding, they obviously do not wish to
                  > deal with the most important issue or subject man has
                  > ever had to contemplate -- the question of the existence
                  > of God.
                  >
                  > If God does not exist, as Todd claims, then everything
                  > is academic. Nothing really matters, and there are no
                  > real, objective moral absolutes: for no real, objective
                  > moral standard would exist. But if God does exist, which
                  > is the truth, then the Three Stooges of Todd, Baty, and
                  > Hartzog are in real trouble.
                  >
                  > Daniel Denham


                  Why are Robert and Rick in trouble?

                  Let it be once again noted that the only reason David
                  P. Brown and his little amanuensis, Daniel Denham, want
                  to pretend they are interested in debating the existence
                  of God is because they are so ashamed of their inability
                  to defend their young-earth doctrine.

                  Todd is the "champion" for Robert and Rick on the following
                  proposition, of which Daniel Denham is fully aware:

                  > We, David P. Brown and
                  > the ContendingFTF boys,
                  > affirm:

                  >> If some thing really
                  >> is more than a few
                  >> thousand years old,
                  >> then the God we believe
                  >> in, as represented in
                  >> the Bible, does not exist.

                  > Affirm: David P. Brown??
                  > Affirm: "the boys"??

                  {> Deny: Robert Baty}
                  {> Deny: Rick Hartzog}


                  This proposition was last posted by Robert Baty on
                  July 4 at 6:17 am. It has been posted repeatedly,
                  not only here on the Maury_and_Baty list but now on
                  Daniel Coe's "Religious Debates" list as well.

                  Where is David P. Brown? Where are "the boys"?

                  Why have they not shown up over here on this wide
                  open, easily accessible "hidey-hole" to accept the
                  proposition and finalize the arrangements for a
                  public, written, for-the-record debate?

                  The proposition was again posted on July 5 at 6:28 am:


                  > We, David P. Brown and
                  > the ContendingFTF boys,
                  > affirm:

                  >> If some thing really
                  >> is more than a few
                  >> thousand years old,
                  >> then the God we believe
                  >> in, as represented in
                  >> the Bible, does not exist.

                  > Affirm: David P. Brown??
                  > Affirm: "the boys"??

                  {> Deny: Robert Baty}
                  {> Deny: Rick Hartzog}


                  Where is David P. Brown? Where are "the boys"?

                  What seems to be the big hold-up?

                  Is there something about the proposition they don't
                  like? That *is* their position, isn't it? Isn't
                  that exactly what they have been "implicitly" claiming
                  all along -- that if the Universe and everything in it,
                  including the Earth, is not less than a few thousand
                  years old then the whole thing is "academic"?

                  It sure is!

                  As David P. Brown, Daniel Denham, Donald Canny and
                  several others have asked, "Why will they not defend
                  what they profess so earnestly to believe?"

                  We wonder!

                  As Daniel Denham now writes:

                  > Wherever they're hiding, they obviously do not wish to
                  > deal with the most important issue or subject man has
                  > ever had to contemplate -- the question of the existence
                  > of God.

                  Come on out, David P. Brown! Come on out, "boys"!

                  You claim that yours, and yours alone, is the faith that
                  was once delivered to the saints. Now *contend* for it!


                  Earnestly,

                  Rick Hartzog
                  Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > (Daniel Denham is again making like he can't find the table over
                  here. So, here it is again for reference and response in
                  prepartation of the proposal formal, in writing or orally, for the
                  record discussion.)
                  >
                  > To date, there hasn't been any evidence shown that there is a "man"
                  on the ContendingFTF list, including its owner, who will "come out"
                  and explicitly state for the record whether or not they agree with
                  > the implicit position espoused by the owner and his boys on that
                  list.
                  >
                  > David P. Brown, or his surrogate champion, should proceed to
                  negotiate in good faith in order to "get it on", formally, in writing
                  > or orally, and for the record.
                  >
                  > Following below is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is
                  still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
                  > formal, in writing, for the record discussion:
                  >
                  > > We, David P. Brown and
                  > > the ContendingFTF boys,
                  > > affirm:
                  >
                  > >> If some thing really
                  > >> is more than a few
                  > >> thousand years old,
                  > >> then the God we believe
                  > >> in, as represented in
                  > >> the Bible, does not exist.
                  >
                  > > Affirmed: David P. Brown
                  >
                  > The Boys:
                  >
                  > > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
                  > > Affirmed: Dub McClish
                  > > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson
                  >
                  > > Affirmed: John West
                  > > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
                  > > Affirmed: Don DeLong
                  > > Affirmed: Doug Post
                  > > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
                  > > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
                  > > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
                  > > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
                  > > Affirmed: Robin Haley
                  > > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
                  > > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
                  > > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
                  > > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
                  > > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
                  > > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
                  > > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
                  > > Affirmed: Tim Smith
                  > > Affirmed: Donald Canny
                  > > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
                  > > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
                  > > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
                  > > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
                  > > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
                  > > Affirmed: Robert Collier
                  > > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
                  > > Affirmed: Roger Zink
                  > > Affirmed: Donald Mash
                  > > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
                  > > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
                  > > Affirmed: Richie Baker
                  > > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
                  > > Affirmed: John Miler
                  > > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
                  > > Affirmed: Justin Guess
                  > > Affirmed: David Hammer
                  > > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
                  > > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
                  > > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
                  > > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
                  > > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
                  > > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
                  > > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
                  > > Affirmed: Val Jamison
                  > > Affirmed: Robert Foster
                  > > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
                  > > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
                  > > Affirmed: Dale Miller
                  > > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
                  > > Affirmed: "et al"
                  >
                  > If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the
                  position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should
                  > respond directly to this list and state explicitly their true
                  position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their
                  > position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.
                  >
                  > They will then have their name removed from the above and placed
                  appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by
                  their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.
                  >
                  > In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to
                  address their e-mail to:
                  >
                  > Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Robert Baty
                  >
                  > P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet
                  links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny
                  the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable
                  references and they will be considered for purposes of determining
                  which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!
                  >
                  > -----------------------
                  > -----------------------
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Todd S. Greene
                  ... That s Lie #1 by Daniel. All you have to do is look at the Maury_and_Baty discussion group to see that this is not just a lie by Daniel, but it s
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7422):
                    > It has been a few days

                    That's Lie #1 by Daniel.

                    All you have to do is look at the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group
                    to see that this is not just a lie by Daniel, but it's extremely
                    blatant.

                    > since Robert Baty,
                    > Todd Greene, and/or Rick Hartzog popped out of their
                    > hidey-hole

                    It isn't a hidey-hole. It is the Contending For Tendentious Fallacies
                    guys who have discussion groups that are purposely closed, because
                    they have the three monkeys syndrome (self-imposed blindness,
                    deafness, and dumbness). They NEED their little self-created insular
                    world to try to minimize the cognitive dissonance. Quite contrary to
                    that, the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group is an open discussion
                    group.

                    So that's Lie #2 by Daniel.

                    > to approach the
                    > subject of debate on the existence of God.

                    While Robert and Rick have both made tangential comments about
                    atheism, neither one of them are involved in discussing the subject
                    of atheism, but are discussing other topics. I'm the only one
                    discussing the subject of atheism, and the only reason this subject
                    was brought up in the first place is because Daniel Denham and some
                    of the other Contending For Tendentious Fallacies deliberately used
                    bluffing blustering comments about atheism debate as a diversionary
                    rhetorical tactic to CHANGE THE SUBJECT because they are so
                    embarassed about their own belief in young earth creationism they
                    wanted to run away from discussing it. (And don't think Don DeLong
                    has done anything of the sort, because he has not in any way
                    discussed the scientific failures of young earth creationism either.)

                    So Daniel's comment tying Robert and Rick to discussion of atheism is
                    Lie #3.

                    > The challenge to
                    > Todd, who is the "champion" for Baty and Hartzog,

                    I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Going by his
                    record, I strongly suspect this is lie #4 but I'm just not sure yet,
                    so we'll call this one Lie #4(alpha).

                    > is still on the table. Where are they?

                    There is no "they." Robert and Rick are not discussing the subject of
                    atheism. So this is Lie #4.

                    > Wherever they're hiding,

                    This is Lie #5.

                    I'm not hiding anywhere. Indeed, I'm the one who made the last
                    contributions to the discussion of atheism,

                    Re: The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                    by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10935

                    pointing out numerous errors and fallacies (and lies) made by Daniel
                    Denham, and we've been waiting patiently for Daniel to return with
                    some kind of response attempting to deal with the many problems
                    pointed out, but he has failed to respond to that post of mine.

                    So now we see that Daniel's "response" is to RUN AWAY from the
                    discussion by simply lying to everyone to pretend that I'm the one
                    who ran away from the discussion.

                    Oh, yes, Daniel seriously loves this particular lie. He uses it all
                    the time. Rather than even try to deal with the arguments and
                    criticisms presented to him, he runs from them by deceitfully
                    pretending they don't exist. We seriously do not think Daniel has
                    Alzheimer's disease or is quite this incredibly stupid, it's just
                    that his lies make it appear this way.

                    Note that I also wrote this related post

                    Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                    by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                    that no one in the Contending For Tendentious Fallacies group has
                    acknowledged the existence of either.

                    > they obviously do
                    > not wish to deal with the most important issue or subject
                    > man has ever had to contemplate -- the question of the
                    > existence of God.

                    A deceitful statement based on the lie just pointed out.

                    Again, I've been discussing the subject. The ball is in Daniel's
                    court. But rather than deal with it we see he has now chosen to
                    ignore my discussion and then lie to everyone by pretending I haven't
                    been discussing it.

                    > If God does not
                    > exist, as Todd claims, then everything is academic.

                    This is just a stupid statement. Actions have consequences,
                    regardless of a person's religious beliefs. If you eat food, you
                    live. If you don't eat food, after awhile you die. If you drink
                    poison, it will kill you. If you jump off a cliff, gravity works the
                    same for EVERYONE, regardless of a person's religious beliefs or lack
                    of them.

                    This point has been made to Daniel previously, numerous times. But we
                    see here that he has chosen to deliberately ignore this point. This
                    is because he is incapable of dealing with reality in his rhetoric.
                    His position is a fantasy, which is why adherence to his fantasy
                    requires him to make stuff up all the time.

                    > Nothing really matters,

                    As just pointed out, this is a false statement.

                    > and there are
                    > no real, objective moral absolutes: for no real, objective
                    > moral standard would exist.

                    Morality is only as objective as the objective consequences of
                    actions in the real world.

                    Notice that Daniel himself is demonstrating for us HIS so-
                    called "objective" morality, which consists in lying to people and
                    making up his own human-imposed rules based on his unjustified (and
                    false) fantasies and his head.

                    > But if God
                    > does exist, which is the truth, then the Three Stooges of
                    > Todd, Baty, and Hartzog are in real trouble.

                    Here we see Daniel again stating one lie based on his previous lie of
                    tying Robert and Rick into atheism. Robert and Rick are not atheists,
                    pure and simple. Every single time Daniel pretends otherwise he is
                    lying.

                    So this is lie #6.

                    In regard to the relevance of belief in God to empirical facts,
                    everyone knows that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON BELIEVES ABOUT ANY GOD(S)
                    THE EMPIRICAL FACTS ARE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. The Earth orbits the
                    Sun, not the other way around. The facts of geological science (such
                    as, for example, the specific physical geologic features observed at
                    the Grand Canyon) are what they are FOR EVERYONE, and whether they
                    like strawberry ice cream or hate it IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE
                    FACTS. Whether a person believes in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, or Ra
                    and Isis, or Allah, or Yahweh DOES NOT MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE.

                    This specific point has been explicitly pointed out to Daniel
                    NUMEROUS TIMES, yet he completely ignores this point, and then states
                    lies based on his deliberately ignoring the facts.

                    So this makes Lie #7.

                    Daniel Denham is seriously afflicted with the three monkeys syndrome,
                    in which he himself covers his eyes, stops up his ears, and refuses
                    to tell the truth. This is how he demonstrates for everyone how his
                    position is completely incapable of dealing rationally with reality.

                    - Todd Greene
                  • Robert Baty
                    ... So ashamed are they of their position and their behavior, they won t even show up on their own Daniel Coe s ReligiousDebates list where my Goliath of
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Rick, you properly provided the context for your post with the following:

                      > Let it be once again noted
                      > that the only reason David
                      > P. Brown and his little
                      > amanuensis, Daniel Denham,
                      > want to pretend they are
                      > interested in debating the
                      > existence of God is because
                      > they are so ashamed of their
                      > inability to defend their
                      > young-earth doctrine.

                      We might add to that some specifics:

                      > Equivocation fallacy

                      > Seeing through the
                      > rungs of a ladder

                      > Genuine hypothetical syllogisms

                      > Donald Canny's Baty claim

                      > Fools

                      > "Goliath of GRAS"

                      > etc., etc., etc.,

                      So ashamed are they of their position and their behavior, they won't even show up on their own Daniel Coe's ReligiousDebates list where my "Goliath of GRAS" has been patiently awaiting the arrival of "one" of them!

                      I'll also repeat here, Rick, the following "on the table" proposal that David P. Brown has championed for his boys; which proposal Todd S. Greene has volunteered to take up in a formal, in writing or orally, for the record discussion:

                      > We, David P. Brown and
                      > the ContendingFTF boys,
                      > affirm:

                      >> If some thing really
                      >> is more than a few
                      >> thousand years old,
                      >> then the God we believe
                      >> in, as represented in
                      >> the Bible, does not exist.

                      > Affirm: David P. Brown
                      > Affirm: "Brown's boys" (see list)

                      > Deny: Robert Baty
                      > Deny: Rick Hartzog

                      Yep, David P. Brown and his boys are still under the table. We "plead" with them to "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER".

                      Here's how I see the proposed discussion developing.

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

                      Todd S. Greene's argument as accepted by David P. Brown and his boys:

                      Major Premise:

                      > If some thing really is more
                      > than a few thousand years
                      > old, then the God David P.
                      > Brown and his boys believe
                      > in, as represented in the
                      > Bible, does not exist.

                      Minor Premise:

                      > Some thing really
                      > is more than a few
                      > thousand years old.

                      Conclusion:

                      > Therefore, the God David
                      > P. Brown and his boys
                      > believe in, as represented
                      > in the Bible, does not exist.

                      David P. Brown's argument as accepted by Todd S. Greene:

                      Major Premise:

                      > If some thing really is more
                      > than a few thousand years
                      > old, then the God we believe
                      > in, as represented in the
                      > Bible, does not exist.

                      Minor Premise:

                      > The God we believe in,
                      > as represented in the
                      > Bible, does exist.

                      Conclusion:

                      > Therefore, nothing is
                      > more than a few
                      > thousand years old.

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

                      My further comments:

                      It couldn't get any better than that, could it!

                      Todd gets to deal with the evidence of age, and Brown gets his evidence of God issue to discuss (see minor premise of each argument).

                      Isn't that what they both wanted?

                      You are welcome! :o)

                      David P. Brown complained about his boys, and by implication his, inability to make an argument and/or deal with one when coming face to face with one.

                      We are inclined to agree as these discussions have shown.

                      I have, as the really good debaters have said, done half the work for them!

                      I've set forth the arguments for both sides!

                      You are welcome! :o)

                      Todd is prepared to proceed in negotiating the logistics for presenting the actual defense and rebuttal as to both sides; preferably in writing in order to insure the best presentations and the widest possible distribution of this "landmark" discussion.

                      Why do Daniel Denham, David P. Brown and the boys remain under the table?

                      Besides their inability to openly and honestly deal with their Dr. Fox position and inability to openly and honestly admit their real position regarding "young-earth, creation-science", it is because they know they are wrong!

                      David P. Brown was right in making a point to preach that, in such cases, neither he nor his boys are likely to be able to quit themselves like men and admit, explain and correct themselves.

                      (If that's not why Brown and the boys remain in hiding, then let them bring Brown out to champion their cause as has been represented here without a dissenting voice being heard.)

                      We "plead" with them still to "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER".

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      P.S. I understand that I am only a facilitator in these unofficial discussions as to the proposed discussion between Todd S. Greene and David P. Brown. They are free to work out their own mutually agreeable propositions and logistics for any such discussion as might "evolve" from my feeble efforts.

                      For myself, and quite independent of Greene's position and Brown's position , I'm sticking with my "Goliath of GRAS", as I think Rick Hartzog is as well.

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



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • rlbaty50
                      Todd, Our posts just crossed in cyberspace. So, when you get a chance, you might want to comment on my latest proposals regarding arguments and propositions
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Todd,

                        Our posts just crossed in cyberspace.

                        So, when you get a chance, you might want to comment on my latest
                        proposals regarding arguments and propositions for that discussion
                        with David P. Brown and my representation of you as related thereto.

                        Here's the link:

                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11000


                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty



                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7422):
                        > > It has been a few days
                        >
                        > That's Lie #1 by Daniel.
                        >
                        > All you have to do is look at the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group
                        > to see that this is not just a lie by Daniel, but it's extremely
                        > blatant.
                        >
                        > > since Robert Baty,
                        > > Todd Greene, and/or Rick Hartzog popped out of their
                        > > hidey-hole
                        >
                        > It isn't a hidey-hole. It is the Contending For Tendentious
                        Fallacies
                        > guys who have discussion groups that are purposely closed, because
                        > they have the three monkeys syndrome (self-imposed blindness,
                        > deafness, and dumbness). They NEED their little self-created insular
                        > world to try to minimize the cognitive dissonance. Quite contrary to
                        > that, the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group is an open discussion
                        > group.
                        >
                        > So that's Lie #2 by Daniel.
                        >
                        > > to approach the
                        > > subject of debate on the existence of God.
                        >
                        > While Robert and Rick have both made tangential comments about
                        > atheism, neither one of them are involved in discussing the subject
                        > of atheism, but are discussing other topics. I'm the only one
                        > discussing the subject of atheism, and the only reason this subject
                        > was brought up in the first place is because Daniel Denham and some
                        > of the other Contending For Tendentious Fallacies deliberately used
                        > bluffing blustering comments about atheism debate as a diversionary
                        > rhetorical tactic to CHANGE THE SUBJECT because they are so
                        > embarassed about their own belief in young earth creationism they
                        > wanted to run away from discussing it. (And don't think Don DeLong
                        > has done anything of the sort, because he has not in any way
                        > discussed the scientific failures of young earth creationism either.)
                        >
                        > So Daniel's comment tying Robert and Rick to discussion of atheism
                        is
                        > Lie #3.
                        >
                        > > The challenge to
                        > > Todd, who is the "champion" for Baty and Hartzog,
                        >
                        > I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. Going by his
                        > record, I strongly suspect this is lie #4 but I'm just not sure yet,
                        > so we'll call this one Lie #4(alpha).
                        >
                        > > is still on the table. Where are they?
                        >
                        > There is no "they." Robert and Rick are not discussing the subject
                        of
                        > atheism. So this is Lie #4.
                        >
                        > > Wherever they're hiding,
                        >
                        > This is Lie #5.
                        >
                        > I'm not hiding anywhere. Indeed, I'm the one who made the last
                        > contributions to the discussion of atheism,
                        >
                        > Re: The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                        > by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10935
                        >
                        > pointing out numerous errors and fallacies (and lies) made by Daniel
                        > Denham, and we've been waiting patiently for Daniel to return with
                        > some kind of response attempting to deal with the many problems
                        > pointed out, but he has failed to respond to that post of mine.
                        >
                        > So now we see that Daniel's "response" is to RUN AWAY from the
                        > discussion by simply lying to everyone to pretend that I'm the one
                        > who ran away from the discussion.
                        >
                        > Oh, yes, Daniel seriously loves this particular lie. He uses it all
                        > the time. Rather than even try to deal with the arguments and
                        > criticisms presented to him, he runs from them by deceitfully
                        > pretending they don't exist. We seriously do not think Daniel has
                        > Alzheimer's disease or is quite this incredibly stupid, it's just
                        > that his lies make it appear this way.
                        >
                        > Note that I also wrote this related post
                        >
                        > Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                        > by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
                        >
                        > that no one in the Contending For Tendentious Fallacies group has
                        > acknowledged the existence of either.
                        >
                        > > they obviously do
                        > > not wish to deal with the most important issue or subject
                        > > man has ever had to contemplate -- the question of the
                        > > existence of God.
                        >
                        > A deceitful statement based on the lie just pointed out.
                        >
                        > Again, I've been discussing the subject. The ball is in Daniel's
                        > court. But rather than deal with it we see he has now chosen to
                        > ignore my discussion and then lie to everyone by pretending I
                        haven't
                        > been discussing it.
                        >
                        > > If God does not
                        > > exist, as Todd claims, then everything is academic.
                        >
                        > This is just a stupid statement. Actions have consequences,
                        > regardless of a person's religious beliefs. If you eat food, you
                        > live. If you don't eat food, after awhile you die. If you drink
                        > poison, it will kill you. If you jump off a cliff, gravity works the
                        > same for EVERYONE, regardless of a person's religious beliefs or
                        lack
                        > of them.
                        >
                        > This point has been made to Daniel previously, numerous times. But
                        we
                        > see here that he has chosen to deliberately ignore this point. This
                        > is because he is incapable of dealing with reality in his rhetoric.
                        > His position is a fantasy, which is why adherence to his fantasy
                        > requires him to make stuff up all the time.
                        >
                        > > Nothing really matters,
                        >
                        > As just pointed out, this is a false statement.
                        >
                        > > and there are
                        > > no real, objective moral absolutes: for no real, objective
                        > > moral standard would exist.
                        >
                        > Morality is only as objective as the objective consequences of
                        > actions in the real world.
                        >
                        > Notice that Daniel himself is demonstrating for us HIS so-
                        > called "objective" morality, which consists in lying to people and
                        > making up his own human-imposed rules based on his unjustified (and
                        > false) fantasies and his head.
                        >
                        > > But if God
                        > > does exist, which is the truth, then the Three Stooges of
                        > > Todd, Baty, and Hartzog are in real trouble.
                        >
                        > Here we see Daniel again stating one lie based on his previous lie
                        of
                        > tying Robert and Rick into atheism. Robert and Rick are not
                        atheists,
                        > pure and simple. Every single time Daniel pretends otherwise he is
                        > lying.
                        >
                        > So this is lie #6.
                        >
                        > In regard to the relevance of belief in God to empirical facts,
                        > everyone knows that NO MATTER WHAT A PERSON BELIEVES ABOUT ANY GOD
                        (S)
                        > THE EMPIRICAL FACTS ARE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. The Earth orbits the
                        > Sun, not the other way around. The facts of geological science (such
                        > as, for example, the specific physical geologic features observed at
                        > the Grand Canyon) are what they are FOR EVERYONE, and whether they
                        > like strawberry ice cream or hate it IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE
                        > FACTS. Whether a person believes in Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, or Ra
                        > and Isis, or Allah, or Yahweh DOES NOT MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE.
                        >
                        > This specific point has been explicitly pointed out to Daniel
                        > NUMEROUS TIMES, yet he completely ignores this point, and then
                        states
                        > lies based on his deliberately ignoring the facts.
                        >
                        > So this makes Lie #7.
                        >
                        > Daniel Denham is seriously afflicted with the three monkeys
                        syndrome,
                        > in which he himself covers his eyes, stops up his ears, and refuses
                        > to tell the truth. This is how he demonstrates for everyone how his
                        > position is completely incapable of dealing rationally with reality.
                        >
                        > - Todd Greene
                        >
                      • Todd S. Greene
                        ... Of course, as all of us already know (including the ContendingFTF young earth creationists!) they will not discuss the relevant science (as they ve been
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #11002):
                          > Todd,
                          >
                          > Our posts just crossed in cyberspace.
                          >
                          > So, when you get a chance, you might want to comment on
                          > my latest proposals...

                          These are my standard ones:

                          | Proposition #1:
                          | The empirical evidence shows that the Earth has
                          | been in existence longer than one hundred
                          | thousand (100,000) years.
                          |
                          | Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                          | Deny: David P. Brown?
                          |
                          | Proposition #2:
                          | The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
                          | has been in existence longer than one hundred
                          | thousand (100,000) years.
                          |
                          | Affirm: Todd S. Greene
                          | Deny: David P. Brown?
                          |
                          | Proposition #3:
                          | The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
                          | less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
                          | old.
                          |
                          | Affirm: David P. Brown?
                          | Deny: Todd S Greene
                          |
                          | Proposition #4:
                          | The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
                          | is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
                          | years old.
                          |
                          | Affirm: David P. Brown?
                          | Deny: Todd S. Greene

                          Of course, as all of us already know (including the ContendingFTF
                          young earth creationists!) they will not discuss the relevant science
                          (as they've been showing everyone), but will run away from discussing
                          the science because - even as they themselves have occasionally let
                          slip out in their own rhetoric - they're advocating the "We don't
                          need no stinkin' evidence" position.

                          In regard to the arguments that "If the world is ancient, then the
                          Bible isn't God's Word" or "If the world is ancient, then God doesn't
                          exist," what we have observe about these Contending For Tendentious
                          Fallacies guys is that they are utterly incapable of engaging in
                          rational discussion. All the time they're making statements that are
                          based on (i.e., implying) these very premises, but every single time
                          we point out these logical premises of their rhetoric THEY RUN AWAY
                          and will not deal with the logical premises of their rhetoric. (And
                          then these guys who are incapable of dealing with simple, basic logic
                          have the audacity to say that we're the ones with the numb skulls!!!
                          The obtuse irrationality of the young earth creationist mind never
                          ceases to amaze me.) The fact that when presented with rational
                          argument/criticism these guys either just clam right up (a recent
                          example is Skip Francis clamming up about his "moon recession"
                          argument after being presenting with numerous errors about it), or
                          deliberately lie that we never even discussed a subject (as Daniel
                          Denham and Don DeLong love to do), or merely condemn people to
                          roasting in fire eternally for disagreeing with them (as they all do;
                          preachers, you know, confusing their thoughts with being God's
                          thoughts; occupational hazard?), demonstrates their awareness of the
                          fact that they cannot sustain their position using reason and the
                          facts. In other words, they know they can't sustain their position by
                          the truth, because if they knew they could, that's what they'd be
                          doing.

                          - Todd Greene
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          ... The lies of Daniel Denham continue as he spews his standard irrelevant ad hominem insults (and has the audacity to call himself a moral Christian !) ...
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 5, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7429):
                            > List,
                            >
                            > Todd "Larry, Neville Chamberlain, the Self-admitted Phoney,
                            > Agnostic Pretending To Be An Atheist, Chuckles, Steve
                            > Heiden" Greene

                            The lies of Daniel Denham continue as he spews his standard
                            irrelevant ad hominem insults (and has the audacity to call himself
                            a "moral Christian"!)

                            > has popped up
                            > for air from his hidey-hole

                            Lie #2 from Daniel Denham, already pointed out.

                            > and still not
                            > ready to defend his atheism in public debate

                            Lie #3 from Daniel Denham.

                            Notice how he keeps right on lying to people even after his distinct
                            error has been explicitly pointed out to him. Deceit is Daniel's
                            standard rhetorical method.

                            > -- probably afraid that
                            > it would offend Moe and Curly, who have endorsed him as
                            > their "chumpion."

                            Futher irrelevant ad hominem insults based on the previously stated
                            lie.

                            > Ostensibly, he seeks
                            > to document my "many lies,"

                            Indeed, they are documented. That's the point.

                            > but this is
                            > the same Todd Greene who has admitted and boasted
                            > about lying in the Steve Heiden affair,

                            Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the facts at hand. But
                            this is Daniel Denham we're talking about, who seeks to use deception
                            at every hand, such as red herring rhetoric, to try to distract away
                            from his many problems.

                            > which he has
                            > even chronicled on his own website to show the depths to
                            > which he will go to justify in his own mind blatant
                            > dishonesty on his own part.

                            Further irrelevant red herring by the deceitful Daniel Denham that he
                            uses for the deliberate purpose of evading the facts that are
                            relevant to discussion. The nonexistence of the Steve Heiden
                            character is completely irrelevant to the facts of discussion, Daniel
                            Denham knows this (which is why he diligently runs away from even
                            discussing the relevant facts by wasting time on irrelevant remarks
                            about the nonexistence of the Steve Heiden character).

                            > Liberals are good
                            > at that.

                            Another beautiful example of red herring rhetoric, in this case also
                            called "red-baiting." Daniel loves to use many of the basic fallacies
                            of rhetoric that students learn about in high school.

                            > Lying is always
                            > evil, except when they do it, because they have "noble"
                            > aims in doing it.

                            So says the man who is lying right now, and lying about the very
                            facts that are actually relevant to what he's talking about.

                            > It's also fascinating
                            > that an atheist would accuse someone else of doing what
                            > his (the atheist's) position says implicitly is impossible

                            Here we see Daniel introducing a new claim. Notice that he merely
                            ASSERTS it, but doesn't even attempt to explain it. As we have
                            already observed, Daniel rarely attempts to explain anything, because
                            he makes such a mess of it when he tries, so he relies on merely
                            making assertions over and over and over and over again, without
                            explaining why they are supposed to be so (in terms of logic), or
                            whether, if they do happen to make logical sense, there is any
                            evidence to subtantiated them. This is called argument-by-
                            insinuation, which young earth creationists use routinely.

                            > -- to commit real,
                            > objective moral evil.

                            Notice that poor Daniel cannot even figure out the difference between
                            on ontological claim and a moral claim. And this man pretends to be
                            able to carry out philosophical discussion.

                            Whether a lie is a moral evil or not is IRRELEVANT to whether or not
                            a statement is a lie. A statement is a lie simply because (1) it is
                            not true, and the (2) the person promoting it knows it isn't true yet
                            continues to promote it for the purpose of leading people to believe
                            it and support him in his lie. The fact of what it is is completely
                            independent of considerations of whether or not a lie is a moral evil.

                            Additionally, Daniel's comment is a complete red herring on another
                            level, which is simply that whether or not *I* think it's
                            an "objective moral evil" is completely irrelevant. What IS relevant
                            is that DANIEL THINKS IT'S AN OBJECTIVE MORAL EVIL, AS HE HAS JUST
                            STATED, YET IT IS HE WHO IS LYING LEFT AND RIGHT. Thus does he
                            demonstrate his hypocrisy.

                            > Todd does not
                            > seem to realize that even in making his charge he
                            > implicitly repudiates atheism,

                            Oooooo, how impressive, another argument by assertion with no logical
                            explanation. In other words, standard baseless rhetoric from Daniel
                            Denham.

                            > just as when
                            > he attempts to resort to reason to get folks to change
                            > their minds and become reprobate atheists just like he
                            > is.

                            Daniel already lost that argument. Indeed, he lost it so badly that
                            he ran away from the discussion and is now deceitfully pretending
                            that the discussion never took place.

                            > Well, again, go,
                            > figure. Todd is also a self-admitted fool,

                            Another lie by Daniel Denham. I am an atheist, and Daniel - as usual -
                            uses another fallacy, argument from authority (i.e., no reasoning to
                            back it up).

                            Of course, Daniel demonstrates the utter foolishness of his rhetoric
                            in almost every post he writes.

                            > and even Rick
                            > Hartzog has acknowledge that as well by implication.

                            Yes, more irrational rhetoric from Daniel. He can't make a rational
                            argument, and knows it, so continues to fill up his posts with
                            irrational nonsense.

                            > Todd, the challenge
                            > is still on the table to debate the existence of God.

                            And I've been discussing and debating the existence of God. But the
                            truth about this obviously doesn't matter to Daniel, because no
                            matter what the facts are he's going to lie about it, as he has been
                            showing us.

                            > The only requested
                            > email I want from you is your agreement to affirm
                            > "Resolved: I (Todd Greene) know that God does not
                            > exist."

                            This is a false representation of the atheistic position. I have
                            pointed this out to Daniel AT LEAST a dozen times now, but the truth
                            about this obviously doesn't matter to Daniel, because no matter what
                            the facts are he's going to lie about it, as he has been showing us.

                            > Otherwise, your responses
                            > will continue to be reported for what they are -- 100%
                            > spam from a self-confessed liar.

                            And so does the lying Daniel Denham continue in his deceitful ways.

                            Now, here's the real deal. The facts of the public record are
                            obvious, and there are a number of individuals of the ContendingFTF
                            group who know that Daniel is lying about these things, YET THEY
                            REMAIN SILENT AND IMPLICITLY SUPPORT THE DECEITFUL WAYS OF DANIEL
                            DENHAM. This is how they, too, demonstrate their hypocrisy.

                            Keep in mind that the whole reason these ContendingFTF guys wanted to
                            CHANGE THE SUBJECT to atheism, including David P. Brown and Don
                            DeLong, as well as Daniel Denham, was precisely because they are so
                            embarrassed about their own belief in young earth creationism that
                            they want to evade any critical discussion of it.

                            Here are some of my posts that Daniel is with his rhetoric
                            deceitfully pretending don't exist:

                            Let's see if they can possibly comprehend the meaning of atheism
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 24, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10722

                            Daniel Denham is every which way, and loose!
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 25, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10756

                            A Short Explanation of the Agnostic Position
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 26, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10773

                            The Meaning Of Atheism
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 26, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10793

                            Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 27, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10828

                            Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 27, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10829

                            Re: The syndrome afflicting David Brown
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 28, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10856

                            Daniel Denham lies about correction of misrepresentation...
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 28, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10865

                            Daniel Denham lies about correction of misrepresentation...
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 29, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10883

                            Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 29, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10887

                            The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                            by Todd Greene (Jun. 30, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10911

                            Re: The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                            by Todd Greene (Jul. 1, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10935

                            Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                            by Todd Greene (Jul. 1, 2007)
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                            - Todd Greene
                          • Todd S. Greene
                            ... Uh... There is no morality separate and apart from human beings. If human beings don t exist, morality doesn t exist. If there aren t any human, there
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 6, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7437):
                              > Wayne and List,
                              >
                              > Notice Todd's attempted response to the point that if
                              > God does not exist, then anything goes -- it's all
                              > academic.
                              >
                              > Todd partially quotes from me: "If God does not
                              > exist, as Todd claims, then everything is academic."
                              >
                              > He then adds: "This is just a stupid statement. Actions
                              > have consequences, regardless of a person's religious
                              > beliefs. If you eat food, you live. If you don't eat
                              > food, after awhile you die. If you drink poison, it will
                              > kill you. If you jump off a cliff, gravity works the
                              > same for EVERYONE, regardless of a person's religious
                              > beliefs or lack of them."
                              >
                              > Maybe Todd will indulge us with proof of a real,
                              > objective moral standard that exists separate and
                              > apart from individual humans or groups of humans.
                              > Let him produce it! How does he know that murder is
                              > wrong, for example.

                              Uh... There is no morality separate and apart from human beings. If
                              human beings don't exist, morality doesn't exist. If there aren't any
                              human, there can't be any murder.

                              Duh.

                              By the way, how does Daniel Denham know that murdering babies and
                              children is wrong? Bear in mind that this man advocates a religious
                              book that teaches that God commanded the murder of babies and
                              children.

                              Daniel's current rhetoric about morality is based on a completely
                              false premise. I noticed him use the phrase "objective moral
                              standard" - pretending that he has one in his possession. In fact, he
                              does NOT possess an objective moral standard, so the man in this
                              discussion who has the problem of "it's all academic" is the man
                              who's using an abstract concept that he himself does not possess.

                              > That is what
                              > I had reference to in the context of the statement he
                              > quotes and then tries to attack.

                              I didn't "try" to attack it, I even gave specific examples proving
                              that the statement was wrong. I have zero doubt that henceforth
                              Daniel will ignore what I pointed out, ignore my examples, then lie
                              that I never even addressed this point, and then deceitfully continue
                              to misrepresent my position. This is the deceitful Daniel Denham
                              we're dealing with, and this is his standard operating procedure.

                              > I was dealing
                              > with the question of real, objective moral evil.

                              Nice try at distraction. It doesn't matter what he was dealing with,
                              what he did was make a stupid statement misrepresenting my position.

                              > How does he
                              > know that it exists?

                              Who said that it does? Keep in mind that Daniel promotes belief in a
                              God who commands the murder of babies and children.

                              > What standard tells
                              > him so?

                              What standard tells Daniel that it's perfectly okay for a god to
                              command the murder of babies and children?

                              > Wait and see
                              > if you get a clear, unequivocal response.

                              We know we won't. I bet another 58 quatloos that Daniel Denham will
                              RUN AWAY from this question and pretend it was never asked. This is
                              because Daniel's whole argument is based on the false premise that he
                              possesses an objective moral standard when the fact of the matter is
                              that he doesn't have anything of the sort.

                              Hey, Daniel, is slavery a sin?

                              Quote the verse.

                              Hey, Daniel, what makes it okay for your god to command the murder of
                              babies and children?

                              Please explain more about this "objective moral standard" of yours.

                              > I suspect his
                              > silence will be deafening.

                              I know it won't. But as far as Daniel's rhetoric is concerned it
                              won't matter, because as we have already seen Daniel will just
                              deliberately ignore the existence of the posts and then lie to people
                              to deceitfully pretend that I didn't write anything on the subject -
                              just as I've written at least a dozen posts in just the last several
                              days, yet he's been lying to people pretending that those don't exist.

                              > If he does
                              > determine to try and touch it, it'll come back to bite
                              > him ten times over.

                              We've already begun to see what has bitten whom. Not to mention the
                              simple fact that the guy touting an "object moral standard" is the
                              guy lying left and right about almost everything involved in
                              discussion.

                              > Let him deal with real, objective evil and come up with
                              > evidence of a standard demanding that such does in fact
                              > exist. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist and an existential
                              > philosopher, stated expressly, "If God does not exist,
                              > anything goes."

                              Actually, according to Daniel's God anything does go, including the
                              murder of babies and children, the taking of virgin girls for sexual
                              pleasures, and the enslavement of fellow human beings, among many
                              other atrocities.

                              > Let Todd address
                              > the real point, rather than trying to misdirect people from
                              > it, which is really all an atheist, who is determined to be
                              > dishonest about his position can really do!

                              This is funny, seeing a red herring chef such as Daniel Denham
                              pretend I'll misdirect anyone away from anything. What makes it even
                              funnier is the fact that this very post of Daniel's that I'm
                              responding to is for the purpose of changing the subject and not
                              dealing with the problems of the Transcendental Argument that I
                              already pointed out (you know, the posts I made that Daniel is now
                              lying to people that I didn't write them).

                              This is another one of Daniel's standard operating procedures. Lie
                              about previous discussion, and then RUN AWAY by changing the subject.

                              > That is why
                              > he does not want to debate the existence of God

                              And there's that lie again.

                              > -- the most important
                              > issue man has ever confronted.

                              Ooooo... How dramatic.

                              Did anyone catch the STANDARD FALLACY inherent in this piece of
                              rhetoric?

                              It's more commonly known as "Pascal's Wager."

                              > He would have to face some ugly truths about what he
                              > believes and why he believes it. That he will not do.

                              Here is where Daniel must be explaining to everyone why he refuses to
                              engage in rational discussion.

                              - Todd Greene
                            • w_w_c_l
                              (adapted from Daniel Denham s comments on the ChristianEvidences list): List, Moe (Robert Baty) and Curly (Rick Hartzog) must really be unhappy with Daniel
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 6, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                (adapted from Daniel Denham's comments on the
                                ChristianEvidences list):


                                List,

                                "Moe" (Robert Baty) and "Curly" (Rick Hartzog) must really be
                                unhappy with Daniel Denham's performance in this discussion --
                                they keep wanting to jump in and help him out of the morass
                                he has made of his attempts at discussing "objective" morals
                                that exist "separate and apart from individual humans or
                                groups of humans". Well, that's just tough. Denham is stuck
                                in a swamp of his own making. I suspect we shall soon see
                                him try to change the subject away from "objective" evil now
                                that he sees the impossibility of his position. Indeed, it
                                is quite amusing to watch Moe's and Curly's embarrassment at
                                the mess their fellow theist has gotten them into.

                                Chuckling still,
                                "Larry"
                              • w_w_c_l
                                And now Doug Post wants to jump into the conversation, as if he had something to say: it is objectively wrong to exploit children for sex:
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 6, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  And now Doug Post wants to jump into the conversation, as
                                  if he had something to say: it is "objectively" wrong to
                                  exploit children for sex:


                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/7439

                                  Re: Notice Atheism's Stupidity


                                  > Daniel,
                                  >
                                  > True Humanists, who are Athiests, and in large part
                                  > Communists, must believe that there are no moral
                                  > absolutes in order for them to rule out any Divine or
                                  > Supernatural being, yet they cannot remain consistent.
                                  > Some of these folks have argued there is nothing
                                  > inherently evil with child molestation but only that
                                  > the evolving norms of the culture set the standard.
                                  > But, what of the culture of homosexuals such as NAMBLA (??)
                                  > who advocate the legalization of child sex? There is a
                                  > growing population among the homosexual community,
                                  > worldwide, actually pushing for this - at least for
                                  > having the age of consent at the age of 10. I wonder if
                                  > the 3 stooges find anything inherently evil about this
                                  > matter?
                                  >
                                  > doug post

                                  Why don't you ask Bert Thompson, Doug?



                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                  "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > (adapted from Daniel Denham's comments on the
                                  > ChristianEvidences list):
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > List,
                                  >
                                  > "Moe" (Robert Baty) and "Curly" (Rick Hartzog) must really be
                                  > unhappy with Daniel Denham's performance in this discussion --
                                  > they keep wanting to jump in and help him out of the morass
                                  > he has made of his attempts at discussing "objective" morals
                                  > that exist "separate and apart from individual humans or
                                  > groups of humans". Well, that's just tough. Denham is stuck
                                  > in a swamp of his own making. I suspect we shall soon see
                                  > him try to change the subject away from "objective" evil now
                                  > that he sees the impossibility of his position. Indeed, it
                                  > is quite amusing to watch Moe's and Curly's embarrassment at
                                  > the mess their fellow theist has gotten them into.
                                  >
                                  > Chuckling still,
                                  > "Larry"
                                  >
                                • Robert Baty
                                  (To reflect that Wayne Blake will be included as an affirmative with David P. Brown until such time as Wayne might provide his explicit claims denying such a
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 6, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    (To reflect that Wayne Blake will be included as an affirmative with David P. Brown until such time as Wayne might provide his explicit claims denying such a position and what alternative position he might actually hold.)

                                    Following is the proposition, Thomas B. Warren-like, that is still on the table for David P. Brown to take up in the proposed
                                    formal, in writing, for the record discussion:

                                    > We, David P. Brown and
                                    > the ContendingFTF boys,
                                    > affirm:

                                    >> If some thing really
                                    >> is more than a few
                                    >> thousand years old,
                                    >> then the God we believe
                                    >> in, as represented in
                                    >> the Bible, does not exist.

                                    > Affirmed: David P. Brown

                                    The Boys:

                                    > Affirmed: Wayne Coats
                                    > Affirmed: Dub McClish
                                    > Affirmed: Harrell Davidson

                                    > Affirmed: John West
                                    > Affirmed: Daniel Denham
                                    > Affirmed: Don DeLong
                                    > Affirmed: Doug Post
                                    > Affirmed: Dennis Francis
                                    > Affirmed: Daniel Coe
                                    > Affirmed: Keith Sisman
                                    > Affirmed: Richard Mansel
                                    > Affirmed: Robin Haley
                                    > Affirmed: Ken Chumbley
                                    > Affirmed: Kent Bailey
                                    > Affirmed: Jerry Brewer
                                    > Affirmed: Roelff Ruffner
                                    > Affirmed: Denny Durigan
                                    > Affirmed: Geoff Litke
                                    > Affirmed: Daniel Douglas
                                    > Affirmed: Tim Smith
                                    > Affirmed: Donald Canny
                                    > Affirmed: Wayne Blake
                                    > Affirmed: Bill Rainey
                                    > Affirmed: Denny Wilson
                                    > Affirmed: Jimmie Z. Gribble
                                    > Affirmed: Charles Wallace
                                    > Affirmed: Robert Collier
                                    > Affirmed: Michael Wilk
                                    > Affirmed: Roger Zink
                                    > Affirmed: Donald Mash
                                    > Affirmed: Charles Broyles
                                    > Affirmed: Brian Reagan
                                    > Affirmed: Richie Baker
                                    > Affirmed: Gilbert Gough
                                    > Affirmed: John Miler
                                    > Affirmed: Kevin Townsend
                                    > Affirmed: Justin Guess
                                    > Affirmed: David Hammer
                                    > Affirmed: Donald R. Fox
                                    > Affirmed: Johnny Kelton
                                    > Affirmed: Bruce Stulting
                                    > Affirmed: Bradley S. Cobb
                                    > Affirmed: Joe Gannotti
                                    > Affirmed: Chuck Newell
                                    > Affirmed: Bill Schwegler
                                    > Affirmed: Val Jamison
                                    > Affirmed: Robert Foster
                                    > Affirmed: Lynn Parker
                                    > Affirmed: Weldon Blake
                                    > Affirmed: Dale Miller
                                    > Affirmed: Jack L. Burch
                                    > Affirmed: "et al"

                                    If the above is not a correct and accurate description of the position they have been implicitly prosecuting lately, they should
                                    respond directly to this list and state explicitly their true position on what they believe the consequence is regarding their
                                    position IF some thing really is more than a few thousand years old.

                                    They will then have their name removed from the above and placed appropriately on the legitimate affirmative position as indicated by their response and their explicit denial of the above affirmative.

                                    In order to respond directly to this list, they simply need to address their e-mail to:

                                    Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty

                                    P.S. If anyone knows of any public claims (i.e., with Internet links) by the above noted individuals whereby they effectively deny the above affirmative statement, please forward such verifiable references and they will be considered for purposes of determining which individuals may disagree with David P. Brown and agree with me!

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





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Todd S. Greene
                                    Thus does the deceitful Daniel Denham continue to blatantly lie about this matter, just as he has blatantly lied about so many other matters. Daniel keeps
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thus does the deceitful Daniel Denham continue to blatantly lie about
                                      this matter, just as he has blatantly lied about so many other
                                      matters. Daniel keeps falsely pretending that this post I wrote,
                                      which is a matter of public record, doesn't exist. Now, I know that
                                      he personally knows I wrote that, because when he started lying about
                                      them I immediately notified him of them by personal email. (I also
                                      happen to know that many other members of the ContendingFTF list,
                                      including David P. Brown, are aware of this particular post. Yet NOT
                                      A SINGLE ONE has pointed out Daniel's error to him. So we note here
                                      the fact these all of these people have made themselves complicit in
                                      deliberate deception.)

                                      Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                                      by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                                      There is also the fact that I have written numerous posts in the
                                      Maury_and_Baty group debating the existence of God.

                                      Additionally, there is the fact that the only reason we're even
                                      discussing the subject of theism/atheism in the first place is
                                      because Daniel and other ContendingFTF members CHANGED THE SUBJECT
                                      because they are so embarrassed about their belief in young earth
                                      creationism that they RAN AWAY from discussing the numerous
                                      scientific errors of that religious dogma. In other words, the
                                      whole "debate atheism" bluster has been nothing more than a
                                      diversionary tactic, because these guys that in terms of the relevant
                                      science they cannot defend this religious doctrine of young earth
                                      creationism. Young earth creationism is a false doctrine, precisely
                                      because it is factually wrong, because the relevant scientific facts
                                      (from astronomy and geology) show that both the Universe and the
                                      Earth have been in existence far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000
                                      years.

                                      In the Maury_and_Baty list - i.e., it's a matter of public record -
                                      we have numerous specific questions that were asked of several
                                      ContendingFTF members that they all completely failed to answer, and
                                      thus ran away from. Besides being incredibly deceitful, it's pretty
                                      funny - and real hypocritical - for these guys to even dare to
                                      pretend that I (or others) haven't been addressing and answering
                                      issues they bring up, because in fact while THEY have been diligently
                                      running away from the issues that we've been bring up for them to
                                      address, WE almost always address various issues they have raised
                                      IMMEDIATELY. But then we have Daniel proceed to lying by pretending
                                      otherwise. Of course, as all of us already know, as we have observed
                                      in the past and have been observing numerous occasions of in the last
                                      several weeks, whenever Daniel doesn't like something, he just
                                      habitually lies about it. We have been observing that this pattern of
                                      deceit and utter hypocrisy apparently runs pretty rampant with many
                                      of the ContendingFTF members.

                                      - Todd Greene


                                      --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7466):
                                      > Rick,
                                      >
                                      > The challenge for Todd to debate the existence of God is
                                      > still on the table. He seems to have lockjaw on saying yes.
                                      > Maybe you can use you (he he, as though you have any)
                                      > "moral influence" to get him to step up to the plate.
                                    • Todd S. Greene
                                      We observe the deceitful Daniel Denham continuing to lie about me. Notice we also observe Doug Post lying about Robert Baty and Rick Hartzog now, deceitfully
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jul 10, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        We observe the deceitful Daniel Denham continuing to lie about me.

                                        Notice we also observe Doug Post lying about Robert Baty and Rick
                                        Hartzog now, deceitfully pretending they are atheists.

                                        And now we have Skip Francis - remember, he's the guy who promoted
                                        the young earth creationist moon recession argument, and after
                                        numerous errors of logic and fact were pointed out he clammed right
                                        up and has completely ignored the subject, deliberately refusing to
                                        acknowledge any error of any kind, another form of deceitfulness
                                        (Hey, Skip, when are you ever gonna get around to addressing the
                                        problem??? Never, huh??? Yeah, that's what I figured, because that's
                                        how you guys really are.) - expressing some bizarre form of
                                        blindness, because even though I gave him this specific reference

                                        Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                                        by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                                        Skip is apparently utterly incapable of reading and comprehending
                                        what I wrote.

                                        Now, I know not only that Daniel Denham is aware of me having made
                                        these posts in discussion of theism/atheism, as well as having
                                        accepted their debate challenge, and it is Daniel and the others who
                                        have run away from the discussion because rather than respond to any
                                        of the points I made they ignored them and now have Daniel lying to
                                        people that I never made these points in the first place. I have made
                                        several points in these posts that Daniel has deliberately ignored
                                        and completely failed to address, yet here is lying that I never made
                                        these points in the first place. He blatantly lies that I have
                                        diverted the issues, which is merely another blatant lie on his part.
                                        Every issue he has raised I have addressed immediately and
                                        forthrightly - which Daniel himself then ignores and then lies to
                                        people that I did not write what I wrote. These Contentious for
                                        Tendentious Fallacies men are complicit in Daniel's deceitfulness
                                        because they know the truth and thus know that he's lying but they
                                        deliberately refuse to correct his error, and further make comments
                                        encouraging him for lying.

                                        Here are some of my posts that Daniel is with his rhetoric
                                        deceitfully pretending don't exist:

                                        Let's see if they can possibly comprehend the meaning of atheism
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 24, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10722

                                        Daniel Denham is every which way, and loose!
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 25, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10756

                                        A Short Explanation of the Agnostic Position
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 26, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10773

                                        The Meaning Of Atheism
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 26, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10793

                                        Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 27, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10828

                                        Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 27, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10829

                                        Re: The syndrome afflicting David Brown
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 28, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10856

                                        Daniel Denham lies about correction of misrepresentation...
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 28, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10865

                                        Daniel Denham lies about correction of misrepresentation...
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 29, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10883

                                        Re: The Meaning Of Atheism
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 29, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10887

                                        The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                                        by Todd Greene (Jun. 30, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10911

                                        Re: The "Transcendental Argument" for God
                                        by Todd Greene (Jul. 1, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10935

                                        Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                                        by Todd Greene (Jul. 1, 2007)
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                                        And here is a post I wrote on July 5, 2007 in which I pointed out the
                                        fact that he was lying about these posts not existing and provided
                                        this same list:

                                        Re: The Many Lies of Mr. Denham
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11021

                                        Keep in mind that the whole reason we're even discussing
                                        theism/atheism in the first place is because these guys are just too
                                        embarrassed about their belief in young earth creationism to try to
                                        back it up, so they CHANGED THE SUBJECT to atheism as a diversionary
                                        tactic.

                                        What's ironically funny about this is how these guys promote
                                        themselves as gospel preachers, and they like to talk about revering
                                        the truth, and they like to make comments having an objective
                                        morality under which all lying is wrong, yet when backed into a
                                        corner they will lie at the drop of a hat (I see they're still
                                        promoting the known plagiarist and fabricator of "history," Keith
                                        Sisman). Their standard procedure: (1) deliberately ignore what
                                        you've written, (2) misrepresent you, even blatantly lie about you,
                                        on the basis of having deliberately ignored what you've written, (3)
                                        change the subject. Apparently their position is so false, so
                                        extreme, so embarrassing that they find themselves incapable of
                                        trying to sustain it without resorting to deceitfulness on a routine
                                        basis.

                                        - Todd Greene


                                        --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7508):
                                        > Brother Doug,
                                        >
                                        > I just received three little putrid emails from one of
                                        > them. In one he accuses me of saying that he has not sent
                                        > any emails, which is a blatant lie on his part. But then
                                        > he is the one who boasts about his prowess at lying. What
                                        > I have stressed repeatedly is that he does not deal with
                                        > the points made in posts against his nonsense; rather he
                                        > seeks to divert the issue time and again, while demanding
                                        > that one follow him down the rabbit hole where his
                                        > imaginary friends live. His emails are being reported as
                                        > spam. I have stated that the only email I want from him
                                        > -- the only one that is solicited -- is the one where he
                                        > publicly acknowledges his willingness to debate the
                                        > existence of God by affirming that "Resolved: I (Todd
                                        > Greene) know that God does not exist." He will not do
                                        > that, because he knows that that's a lost cause. The
                                        > Warren-Flew and Warren-Matson debates show that it
                                        > cannot be sustained. Thank you, for your kind comments.
                                        > BTW their incessant buzzing will stop, especially when
                                        > God deals with their foolishness come the Judgment, then
                                        > there will really be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In ContendingFTF, Doug Post wrote:
                                        >> I keep receiving emails from the "Fools that say there
                                        >> is no God" club. You can tell brother Denham has got to
                                        >> them, and has devistated everything they stand for, as
                                        >> they are now buzzing around like little bees.
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #11125):
                                        >>> Thus does the deceitful Daniel Denham continue to
                                        >>> blatantly lie about this matter, just as he has
                                        >>> blatantly lied about so many other matters. Daniel
                                        >>> keeps falsely pretending that this post I wrote, which
                                        >>> is a matter of public record, doesn't exist. Now, I
                                        >>> know that he personally knows I wrote that, because
                                        >>> when he started lying about them I immediately notified
                                        >>> him of them by personal email. (I also happen to know
                                        >>> that many other members of the ContendingFTF list,
                                        >>> including David P. Brown, are aware of this particular
                                        >>> post. Yet NOT A SINGLE ONE has pointed out Daniel's
                                        >>> error to him. So we note here the fact these all of
                                        >>> these people have made themselves complicit in
                                        >>> deliberate deception.)
                                        >>>
                                        >>> Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                                        >>> by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                                        >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
                                        >>>
                                        >>> There is also the fact that I have written numerous
                                        >>> posts in the Maury_and_Baty group debating the
                                        >>> existence of God.
                                        >>>
                                        >>> Additionally, there is the fact that the only reason
                                        >>> we're even discussing the subject of theism/atheism in
                                        >>> the first place is because Daniel and other
                                        >>> ContendingFTF members CHANGED THE SUBJECT because they
                                        >>> are so embarrassed about their belief in young earth
                                        >>> creationism that they RAN AWAY from discussing the
                                        >>> numerous scientific errors of that religious dogma. In
                                        >>> other words, the whole "debate atheism" bluster has
                                        >>> been nothing more than a diversionary tactic, because
                                        >>> these guys that in terms of the relevant science they
                                        >>> cannot defend this religious doctrine of young earth
                                        >>> creationism. Young earth creationism is a false
                                        >>> doctrine, precisely because it is factually wrong,
                                        >>> because the relevant scientific facts (from astronomy
                                        >>> and geology) show that both the Universe and the Earth
                                        >>> have been in existence far longer than just 6,000 or
                                        >>> 10,000 years.
                                        >>>
                                        >>> In the Maury_and_Baty list - i.e., it's a matter of
                                        >>> public record - we have numerous specific questions
                                        >>> that were asked of several ContendingFTF members that
                                        >>> they all completely failed to answer, and thus ran away
                                        >>> from. Besides being incredibly deceitful, it's pretty
                                        >>> funny - and real hypocritical - for these guys to even
                                        >>> dare to pretend that I (or others) haven't been
                                        >>> addressing and answering issues they bring up, because
                                        >>> in fact while THEY have been diligently running away
                                        >>> from the issues that we've been bring up for them to
                                        >>> address, WE almost always address various issues they
                                        >>> have raised IMMEDIATELY. But then we have Daniel
                                        >>> proceed to lying by pretending otherwise. Of course, as
                                        >>> all of us already know, as we have observed in the past
                                        >>> and have been observing numerous occasions of in the
                                        >>> last several weeks, whenever Daniel doesn't like
                                        >>> something, he just habitually lies about it. We have
                                        >>> been observing that this pattern of deceit and utter
                                        >>> hypocrisy apparently runs pretty rampant with many of
                                        >>> the ContendingFTF members.
                                        >>>
                                        >>> - Todd Greene
                                        >>>
                                        >>>
                                        >>> --- In ContendingFTF, Daniel Denham wrote (post #7466):
                                        >>>> Rick,
                                        >>>>
                                        >>>> The challenge for Todd to debate the existence of God
                                        >>>> is still on the table. He seems to have lockjaw on
                                        >>>> saying yes. Maybe you can use you (he he, as though
                                        >>>> you have any) "moral influence" to get him to step up
                                        >>>> to the plate.
                                      • w_w_c_l
                                        ... Todd, you noticed that too! I ve been waiting and waiting, but I haven t been able to get a single word of acknowledgement about that out of Keith Sisman
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jul 10, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                          "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote (in part):
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > What's ironically funny about this is how these
                                          > guys promote themselves as gospel preachers, and
                                          > they like to talk about revering the truth, and
                                          > they like to make comments having an objective
                                          > morality under which all lying is wrong, yet when
                                          > backed into a corner they will lie at the drop of
                                          > a hat
                                          >>>> (I see they're still promoting
                                          >>>> the known plagiarist and fabricator
                                          >>>> of "history," Keith Sisman). <<<<

                                          Todd, you noticed that too! I've been waiting and
                                          waiting, but I haven't been able to get a single
                                          word of acknowledgement about that out of Keith
                                          Sisman or anyone else! No one on the ContendingFTF
                                          list has even asked Keith any questions about that
                                          nonsense! (Someone on CFTF did, regarding John
                                          Morton {"Iohn Murton"} and Keith said there were
                                          *two* John Mortons and RAN AWAY!) You would think
                                          while Keith was making stuff up, he would throw a
                                          few pterodactyls in for good measure! You know he
                                          wants to!


                                          > Their standard procedure:
                                          >
                                          > (1) deliberately ignore what you've written,
                                          >
                                          > (2) misrepresent you, even blatantly lie about you,
                                          > on the basis of having deliberately ignored what
                                          > you've written,
                                          >
                                          > (3) change the subject.

                                          Play your quatloos right and this kind of information
                                          can make you a wealthy man!


                                          > Apparently their position is so false, so extreme,
                                          > so embarrassing that they find themselves incapable
                                          > of trying to sustain it without resorting to
                                          > deceitfulness on a routine basis.
                                          >
                                          > - Todd Greene

                                          But then, we already knew that. As you might say,
                                          Todd, "It's the Young Earth Creationist Way." And
                                          that before unbelievers.

                                          Thanks for pointing out that Keith Sisman thing.


                                          Rick Hartzog
                                          Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                                        • Robert Baty
                                          ... Sincerely, Robert Baty [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jul 10, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Todd, you wrote the following which is, indeed, good to keep in mind:

                                            > Keep in mind that the
                                            > whole reason we're even
                                            > discussing theism/atheism
                                            > in the first place is because
                                            > these guys are just too
                                            > embarrassed about their
                                            > belief in young earth
                                            > creationism to try to back
                                            > it up, so they CHANGED
                                            > THE SUBJECT to atheism as
                                            > a diversionary tactic.

                                            Sincerely,
                                            Robert Baty



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Todd S. Greene
                                            See how Skip Francis now becomes explicit in his complicity with Daniel Denham in lying about me, as these men deceitfully pretend that this post doesn t
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jul 10, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              See how Skip Francis now becomes explicit in his complicity with
                                              Daniel Denham in lying about me, as these men deceitfully pretend
                                              that this post doesn't exist:

                                              Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
                                              by Todd Greene (July 1, 2007)
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

                                              Notice that he's lying about this, even after having it explicitly
                                              pointed out to him.

                                              As Robert Baty would put, I already have my "exit strategy," which is
                                              actually quite legitimate - but I have chosen to ignore my exit
                                              strategy *anyway*, which is this: Why would I ever get involved in a
                                              public debate with men who are KNOWN to lie left and right at the
                                              drop of a hat as a routine discussion strategy? This is why I intend
                                              to very careful about venue and determination of debate
                                              host/moderator.

                                              In regard to discussion of the bogus nature of the young earth
                                              creationist moon recession argument, Skip Francis apparently *has*
                                              run and hide, because now he's even pretending that Rick never
                                              pointed out the logic errors and factual errors that he did in fact
                                              already point out to Skip. Skip has completely retreated to now
                                              making the same old crazy comments that he started off with, as if
                                              Rick never even wrote one single thing.

                                              Here's one of the main posts that Skip has deliberately ignored:

                                              Malcolm Bowden Weasels Out on Moon Recession
                                              by Rick Hartzog (May 2, 2007)
                                              http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/moonrecession2.html

                                              In regard to Skip hiding in a closed forum, well - DUH! - the facts
                                              speak for themselves.

                                              In regard to Skip's remark, "It is easy to hide behind your monitor
                                              and say things, or just spew derivative drivel," I'm laughing at the
                                              irony, since that pretty much sums up young earth creationists.

                                              In regard to other comments about Rick and supposedly representing
                                              what Rick has stated, I'll let Rick speak for himself.

                                              - Todd Greene


                                              --- In ContendingFTF, Skip Francis wrote (post #7522):
                                              > I have been accused of running and hiding from the likes
                                              > of Batty/Green/Hartzog. In fact, Rick, in true ad hominem
                                              > form, says: Would Skip Francis dare to say things like
                                              > that in an open forum -- a place where someone can answer
                                              > him back? No, of course not! He's just like the rest of
                                              > that bunch over there on the ContendingFTF list -- a
                                              > spineless, lying coward, ready to say anything, never
                                              > ready to back it up.
                                              >
                                              > Skip here: An open forum? The day I have to back away
                                              > from debating the likes of Rick Hartzog is the day I will
                                              > give up preaching (not likely). His braggadoccio is
                                              > stinging, isn't it, especially in light of the challenge
                                              > that has been made to his buddy Todd, et. al., to a four
                                              > night public debate. Brave fellows all! It is easy to hide
                                              > behind your monitor and say things, or just spew
                                              > derivative drivel. It is hard to have an original thought
                                              > and to deal with it.
                                              >
                                              > Rick, it IS like "beating on Jello" to talk to the likes
                                              > of you. You accuse me of not presenting an original
                                              > thought, yet all you seem to be able to do is make ad
                                              > hominem attacks on a persons credentials and then "sic
                                              > your dog" on them by sending them to someone ELSE to deal
                                              > with someone ELSE'S argument. Where is YOUR original
                                              > thought?
                                              >
                                              > Dennis (Skip) Francis
                                              > Suffolk church of Christ
                                            • Robert Baty
                                              ... It seems to me that objective folk reviewing the empirical evidence as to these discussions will note that the evidence confirming just how bad David P.
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jul 10, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Todd, you wrote, in part:

                                                > See how Skip Francis now
                                                > becomes explicit in his
                                                > complicity with Daniel
                                                > Denham in lying about
                                                > me (Todd S. Greene)...

                                                It seems to me that objective folk reviewing the empirical evidence as to these discussions will note that the evidence confirming just how bad David P. Brown and his boys have been defeated/beaten is ever more present in their most recent posts where they simply cannot comment without lying about one of us or this list or my "Goliath of GRAS", etc.

                                                Further evidence as to how bad they have been defeated/beaten is seen by noting those simple, easy to deal with things that they have simply ran off from even lying about.

                                                They are, indeed, running up the count on their 1,000 deaths that cowards must suffer.

                                                There's not a "valiant" amongst them that will "come out" and "let us reason TOGETHER"!

                                                I would that that would change.

                                                We have so much to talk about regarding important public issues and the negotiations for a discussion of David P. Brown's own falsification argument regarding the existence of God.

                                                Sincerely,
                                                Robert Baty




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.