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

Hardly on equal footing!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... Well, I am hoping Todd will take that up with you. Since you expressed an interest in keeping things casual, I would just propose that the evidence in
    Message 1 of 6 , May 29, 2003
      Michael, you wrote:

      > I hope that the empirical evidence
      > that has been so exalted ever so
      > briefly can be made known.

      Well, I am hoping Todd will take that up with you. Since you expressed
      an interest in keeping things casual, I would just propose that the
      evidence in legitimate science is so much taken somewhat for granted,
      like heliocentrism, that one could well expect the YEC to take the
      affirmative in opposition.

      > Does one side have the goods
      > on the other? I have seen that
      > they do not. That is why I am here.

      > . . .my convictions that the oec
      > is simply is as equally improvable
      > as the yec.

      Yes, one side does have the goods on the other. That's my experience.
      However, I understand you may not be convinced regardless of the
      conversations here.

      As for me, we could talk about moon-dust a bit, if you wish.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • rlbaty50
      ... Following my name below is the moon-dust promotion of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. It is pretty much identical to that Henry Morris helped to popularize. I think
      Message 2 of 6 , May 30, 2003
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:

        > As for me, we (Michael and I) could talk about
        > moon-dust a bit.

        Following my name below is the moon-dust promotion of Bert Thompson,
        Ph.D. It is pretty much identical to that Henry Morris helped to
        popularize.

        I think it makes a pretty good example of how unequal are the merits
        of "creation-science" as opposed to legitimate science. Like,
        consistent with Todd's outstanding challenge, the race isn't even
        close.

        Moon-dust is just one of those things I fell into that I happened to
        have had the time, talen and interest to dig into for purposes of
        testing the YEC movement and some of the men behind it. It and them
        flunked their test.

        Bert was right about one thing. There are many other such examples
        which show "creation-science" is without merit and some of the men
        behind the movement are not particularly open and honest about
        dealing with the issue(s). James Murphy may be another one that
        flunks both of those tests.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

        ###############################


        Here's the moon dust promotion of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. which is
        pretty much identical to that of Henry Morris in his creation book
        that is so famous:

        "There is a constant rate of cosmic dust entering the
        atmosphere from outer space. One scientist estimates that about 14
        million tons settles on the earth each year (Hans Petterson,
        Scientific American, February 1960, p 132). If the earth is nearly 5
        billion years old, as evolutionists assert, there should be a layer
        of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet deep over the entire world
        (Cf: Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, editor, Creation Life
        Publishers, 1974, p 152)! Of course, no such layer exists.

        Evolutionists speculate, however, that is has simply been dissipated
        through the erosion processes of wind and water. It was predicted,
        though, that on the moon, where erosion is not a factor, meteoritic
        dust would be quite deep. Some creationists argued that since the
        moon had not been in existence for 5 billion years, the moon dust
        would not be very deep. Then, in July 1969 the Apollo 11 space craft
        landed on the moon. It did not sink into a vast layer of moon dust.

        In fact, the dust was only a couple of inches thick!

        Neil Armstrong's footprints on the moon were a cruel
        blow to evolution's feeble predictive power!

        And, many other such examples could be given (Cf: Reason &
        Revelation, Vol. II, January 1982)."
      • Michael
        Hello Robert You said: [I would just propose that the evidence in legitimate science is so much taken somewhat for granted, like heliocentrism, that one could
        Message 3 of 6 , May 31, 2003
          Hello Robert

          You said: [I would just propose that the evidence in legitimate science is
          so much taken somewhat for granted, like heliocentrism, that one could well
          expect the YEC to take the affirmative in opposition.]

          I will affirm that legitimate science does take a heliocentric approach and
          do make great assumptions based upon results that cannot be proven. I
          thought that is what I have done by accepting a discussion.

          If you want to see how easy it is to punch wholes in the model you hold as
          truth then just put up your evidence one by one and let's see.

          I have 28 more messages to read-you all have been busy. You all must have a
          great deal more time than I do. I work at least 10 hours each day, and
          sometimes more. Most of my catching up will be done on the weekends so
          please be patient if you do not receive a reply from me right away.

          V/r

          Michael
        • rlbaty@webtv.net
          ... I will recommend that you pursue that with Todd as he is looking forward to you participation on just such a topic. Enjoy your review of the present
          Message 4 of 6 , May 31, 2003
            Michael, you wrote:

            > If you want to see how easy
            > it is to punch wholes in the
            > model you hold as truth then
            > just put up your evidence one
            > by one and let's see.

            I will recommend that you pursue that with Todd as he is looking forward
            to you participation on just such a topic.

            Enjoy your review of the present messages. It has been a busy night.

            Why not, when you figure it out, give us your take on James problem with
            the "GRAS", independent of the "empirical evidence" issue.

            I'd like to know if you recognize his misguided cause concerning the
            "GRAS" and how the YEC movement is described therein.

            In other words, do you and James share the same problem with "GRAS" as
            to those "some who put the six days for everything within the last few
            thousand years"?

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            Now off to do some other things and try to let James come around and do
            the right thing when he arises to find a new day, and possibly some new
            insight into his "GRAS" error.
          • Michael
            [Why not, when you figure it out, give us your take on James problem with the GRAS , independent of the empirical evidence issue. I d like to know if you
            Message 5 of 6 , May 31, 2003
              [Why not, when you figure it out, give us your take on James problem with
              the "GRAS", independent of the "empirical evidence" issue.

              I'd like to know if you recognize his misguided cause concerning the
              "GRAS" and how the YEC movement is described therein.]

              I have barely enough time to keep up with the current participation let
              alone review all those posts. Besides, I would not do this just in order to
              recognize "his misguided cause."

              I am not here to defend or affirm any YEC dogma.

              V/r

              Michael
            • Todd S. Greene
              ... [Robert Baty wrote:] ... Hi, Michael. If you really aren t, then why are you defending and affirming the YEC dogma that, for example, astronomers have not
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 2, 2003
                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1294):
                [Robert Baty wrote:]
                >> Why not, when you figure it out, give us your take on James
                >> problem with the "GRAS", independent of the "empirical evidence"
                >> issue.
                >>
                >> I'd like to know if you recognize his misguided cause concerning
                >> the "GRAS" and how the YEC movement is described therein.
                >
                > I have barely enough time to keep up with the current
                > participation let alone review all those posts. Besides, I would
                > not do this just in order to recognize "his misguided cause."
                >
                > I am not here to defend or affirm any YEC dogma.

                Hi, Michael.

                If you really aren't, then why are you defending and affirming the
                YEC dogma that, for example, astronomers have not really observed an
                ancient universe?

                By the way, you should ask yourself, if this YEC dogma is correct,
                then why do so many YECs advocate the apparent age argument - which
                acknowledges the astronomical observations of an ancient universe but
                argues that they are nothing more than an illusion.

                Contradictions, contradictions.

                Regards,
                Todd S. Greene
                http://www.creationism.cc/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.