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

Re: "GRAS" - for Michael

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Michael. Unlike young earth creationists and their cohorts, I acknowledge my errors when they are pointed out to me, and I acknowledge this one. My
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1307):
      > Todd says, "You say that the first premise of GRAS..."; and then
      > quotes me saying, "makes zero mention regarding the age of the
      > earth." That is to say that I make the GRAS position makes zero
      > mention regarding the age of the earth. Is that what I said Mr.
      > Greene?
      >
      > Here is the text: {do I need to quote it>????}. I surely hope I
      > do not have to quote it.
      >
      > No, in fact Mr. Greene, I said that the "text" makes no such
      > reference... So, I ask you, which part of the text, not the
      > premise of GRAS, mentions that the earth is [you pick the date]
      > years old. The very idea!

      Hi, Michael.

      Unlike young earth creationists and their cohorts, I acknowledge my
      errors when they are pointed out to me, and I acknowledge this one.
      My mistake!

      I acknowledge that you were referring to "the text" of Genesis. But I
      further note here that you incorrectly restrict this to Genesis 1.
      The major premise of GRAS refers to "Genesis," and not just "Genesis
      1."

      Furthermore, you state that "I would not accept this as a major
      premise. Have you found any that do?" The *fact* is that this is the
      premise of young earth creationists. The doctrine of young earth
      creationism is based on Genesis. Six to ten thousand years (which is
      why I stated that I would have said "several thousand years" rather
      than "a few thousand years") is the standard figure given by the
      leading young earth creationists, such as those involved with ICR,
      AiG, CRS, and people like Wayne Jackson, Bert Thompson, and Marion
      Fox. If you did not know this, then you certainly don't have any
      basis for criticizing GRAS when aren't even familiar with what you're
      talking about.

      >
      > [Young earth creationists claim...]. What do you, or I, care
      > about what the young earth creationist claim? I did not come here
      > to defend that position, only your religious abortion and
      > prejudice against it!

      Yet you are defending the YEC position that astronomy and geology are
      nonsense, and that the idea of the antiquity of the world is a bunch
      of gobbledygook and scientists don't really have any idea what
      they're talking about. In other words, the standard YEC rhetoric.

      Besides, in this specific case we are discussing GRAS, and GRAS *is*
      specifically about what young earth creationists claim. So don't
      start talking about GRAS (which is about the YEC claim) and then
      complain because someone thinks you're talking about what YECs claim.

      > Then you insert
      > that you would assert: "I would say 'several' thousand years
      > ago...". If this is all GRAS is about, then, I hand you victory!

      Thank you, Michael.

      > But, as I
      > stated, neither position can be proven.

      It is a matter of direct observation that the universe has been in
      existence far, far longer than ten thousand years. Therefore, the YEC
      position has been falsified. What has been proved that the YEC
      position is a false idea about the real world.

      >
      > If you want to continue to provide "evidence" that the earth must
      > be less than 10K years old; well, by all means, then, try.

      No "evidence" (the biblical text) needs to be provided. GRAS is about
      what YECs claim about the Bible, and in this it is correct.

      >
      > Then, I read this: "Additionally, you seriously need to address
      > this issue..."
      >
      > Ok, I am sure you are working on the "issues" that "you" too need
      > to "answer." I am sure you have your answers forthcoming. Or, are
      > you deferring to your experts? I thought we are speaking of our
      > own "knowledge."

      What are you talking about?

      >
      >> If we have no idea how long a road is, but we know that it is at
      >> least 32 miles long, then isn't it absolutely correct to say, "I
      >> know that the idea that the road is only 1 mile long is a false
      >> idea"?]
      >
      > Here is your issue, right? "If we have no idea how long a road is
      > (etc)": Is this all? Do you know what the age of the earth is,
      > (i.e., how long the road is)? If so, then show the exact figure
      > and how you arrived at that figure please.

      When you write this you demonstrate that you don't even understand
      the analogy.

      > Your "if...then"
      > statement, notwithstanding, still proves that you are relating
      > inequitable items when it comes to your "measurements"
      > that the road is 32 miles long. So, is it? You are the one
      > relating this to equate with the age of the earth. If this is the
      > case: then, please show how you "know" the proverbial 'road' is
      > 32 miles long.

      Golly, Michael, why do you struggle so hard to miss the point? I was
      very, very clear that "about 1 mile long" was 6,000 feet (equates to
      6,000 years) and that "32 miles long" was about 168,000 feet (equates
      to the event of the stellar explosion SN1987A that took place about
      168,000 years ago). Not knowing how long the road really is refers to
      know knowing the precise time of the origin of the universe.

      Please try to pay closer attention.

      >
      > Therefore, your illustration does not stand because your odometer
      > you are using is faulty. Get it? Or, which I would rather you do,
      > provide the proof of that odometer. It is either that, or let me
      > roll it back for you! :)

      I already provided the proof. You already tried to roll it back, and
      failed!

      >
      > If, though, you "knew" as a matter of fact that a certain road is
      > 32 miles long, then it would be correct to say the above.

      Thank you, Michael, for (finally) acknowledging the obvious!

      > The problem is
      > that you do not "know," or can "prove," that the road is 32 miles
      > long.

      Already done.

      > Let's test your
      > odometer, shall we?

      Please.

      Regards,
      Todd S. Greene
      http://www.creationism.cc/
    • Michael
      [If you did not know this, then you certainly don t have any basis for criticizing GRAS when aren t even familiar with what you re talking about.] I admit I am
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        [If you did not know this, then you certainly don't have any
        basis for criticizing GRAS when aren't even familiar with what you're
        talking about.]

        I admit I am not familiar with GRAS. I read the proposition to mean that
        the "text" teaches the 6-10K years. I cannot imagine that anyone would say
        that the text of Genesis one teaches the age of the earth is so and so many
        years.

        I think you see that was my understanding.

        Now, you say that the premise does not limit itself to teh text of Genesis
        one. How does it not? I am no master at logic so maybe you can explain how
        the wording does not limit itself that some interpret the "text" to teach
        literal 24 hour days, AND that the earth is 6-10K years old.

        V/r

        Michael
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        ... I have copied the GRAS following my name below. You would do well to get familiar with it. We re making a little history here! ... Todd and I both
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael, you wrote, in part:

          > I admit I am not familiar with GRAS.

          I have copied the "GRAS" following my name below. You would do well to
          get familiar with it. We're making a little history here!

          You continued:

          > I cannot imagine that anyone would
          > say that the text of Genesis one
          > teaches the age of the earth is so
          > and so many years.

          Todd and I both earlier today posted quotes from representative YEC's on
          the subject. I guess you will get to those. In order that we can
          better understand where you are coming from, you might try explaining a
          lit bit about yourself so we might believe that you have never heard of
          such things.

          You continued:

          > You say that the premise does not
          > limit itself to the text of Genesis one.
          > How does it not?

          Strictly speaking, the GRAS is not so limiting as far as I can tell, but
          it would seem that in the "battle over beginnings" that is where the
          YEC's envisioned by the GRAS seem to draw their "line in the sand".

          And, in conclusion you wrote:

          > I am no master at logic. . .

          Well, I ain't one of those either, so we can struggle together to come
          to some agreement on this matter, notwithsanding the confusion wrought
          by James and his secret witness.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

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

          The "Goliath of GRAS"

          Major premise:

          If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six
          days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a
          few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
          actually much older than a few thousand years, then the interpretation
          of the text by some is wrong.

          Minor premise:

          God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days,
          is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
          thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence that things are
          actually much older than a few thousand years.

          Conclusion:

          The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... [Todd Greene wrote:] ... Hi, Michael. Without actually checking, I would think others have already responded to this, but here s my belated two cents: GRAS
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1344):
            [Todd Greene wrote:]
            >> If you did not know this, then you certainly don't have any
            >> basis for criticizing GRAS when aren't even familiar with what
            >> you're talking about.
            >
            > I admit I am not familiar with GRAS. I read the proposition to
            > mean that the "text" teaches the 6-10K years. I cannot imagine
            > that anyone would say that the text of Genesis one teaches the
            > age of the earth is so and so many years.
            >
            > I think you see that was my understanding.
            >
            > Now, you say that the premise does not limit itself to the text
            > of Genesis one. How does it not? I am no master at logic so maybe
            > you can explain how the wording does not limit itself that some
            > interpret the "text" to teach literal 24 hour days, AND that the
            > earth is 6-10K years old.

            Hi, Michael.

            Without actually checking, I would think others have already
            responded to this, but here's my belated two cents:

            GRAS is obviously about the YEC proposition concerning the text of
            Genesis. Its reference to the text of Genesis is in direct
            association with that. If you don't keep it in this context, then you
            are taking it out of context. This is so obvious, I'm amazed at how
            we have to belabor this so much.

            Regards,
            Todd Greene
          • Michael
            When I reply to this post by Mr. Greene, it is with great reservation. I really thought, and someone can say if I am wrong, that I made myself clear that I
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              When I reply to this post by Mr. Greene, it is with great reservation. I
              really thought, and someone can say if I am wrong, that I made myself clear
              that I was not supporting YEC or GRAS.

              NOW, CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER? I DO NOT SUPPORT GRAS, NOR DO I DEFEND
              YEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              (at least how you define each!)

              Now, GRAS, has nothing to do with what Mr. Greene's position is with regard
              to what he proposes as evidence against it is, right?

              So, when he claims, "GRAS is obviously about the YEC proposition concerning
              the text of
              Genesis."

              Well, now we have it. It IS about the text in Genesis and so, as I have
              posted, IS not just generally as they have tried to show. I do believe that
              I read on post against my position against this.

              Now, Todd, time to come clean... If one says that he believes the days of
              Genesis are 24 hours, does it mean this person, is a YEC and against GRAS?

              Try to AFFIRM this!!!! TRY TO DENY IT!

              V/r...

              Michael
            • rlbaty@webtv.net
              ... Michael, I m afraid you have been developing a Murphy problem. That is, your testimony is not particularly credible to at least one of our members. If you
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael, you wrote, in part:

                > CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?

                > I DO NOT SUPPORT GRAS,
                > NOR DO I DEFEND YEC!!!!!!!
                > (at least how you define each!)

                Michael,

                I'm afraid you have been developing a Murphy problem. That is, your
                testimony is not particularly credible to at least one of our members.

                If you do not support GRAS, there simply has got to be something wrong
                with your reasoning abilities or understanding.

                We've been through that enough for all to support the GRAS.

                It is THE ARGUMENT.

                You don't have to believe it is sound, but you have to (IMHO) accept and
                defend it if you expect to deal with the YEC issue. Folks may not
                reference the GRAS, but whenever and wherever YEC is hotly disputed, the
                basic argument underlying the dispute is in the nature of the GRAS.

                Of course, with your alleged agnosticism on the issue, I guess maybe it
                is the case you don't have to know any of this stuff and don't believe
                anyone can know any of it???

                I think part of your problem may be that you have not really been clear
                about who you are, where you are coming from, and what you think the
                topic should find as its conclusion. At least I haven't noticed you
                making your identity, background and interest known (though I nudged you
                a bit on this earlier on).

                Of course, I could have missed something. If so, feel free to fill me
                in on some of the details. More of the punch-line if you will; other
                than that you think that YEC and OEC should get equal billing in the
                public square (though you may have changed your mind considering your
                possible new-found knowledge as to what YEC is as is popularly
                understood).

                I noticed you didn't seem to want to discuss the "moon-dust" example for
                purposes of evaluating the "equal billing" issue.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Todd S. Greene
                Hi, Michael. First of all, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to stick with the general issue. Second, I don t like the fact that you are so prone to
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Michael.

                  First of all, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to stick with
                  the general issue.

                  Second, I don't like the fact that you are so prone to taking things
                  out of context.

                  You can *say* "I don't support GRAS" all you want, but the fact of
                  the matter is that in your discussion of various issues you have made
                  statements and acknowledgements that agree with GRAS.

                  For a number of days I have fully understood that you don't support
                  the young earth creationism position *as a whole*. However, you
                  *have* defended some YEC arguments (or, shall we say, some arguments
                  that are standard rhetorical tools in the YEC toolbox). Since I am
                  familiar with the YEC position, and these arguments, and know that
                  this is the milieu within which you advocate this rhetoric, this is
                  why I refer to it. Just for example, you advanced the YEC proposition
                  of c-decay in the recent past, a la Barry Setterfield. This is
                  classic YEC stuff.

                  At the same time I know that you have argued that you accept SN1987A
                  having occurred about 168,000 years ago as a good ballpark figure,
                  and that you would go along with the world have been around for at
                  least 500,000 years. Indeed, I have pointed out how some of your
                  other comments actually contradict your stated position on those
                  things.

                  Regardless of Genesis 1, the estimation of the creation of the world
                  as being just several thousand years ago (six to ten thousand years)
                  is concerned with using the genealogies as a chronology. When you
                  propose that the world has existed for half a million years or so,
                  you have already flatly rejected the YEC interpretation of Genesis as
                  a whole. To do that you clearly are NOT following the YEC
                  literalistic interpretation of Genesis.

                  In regard to biblical interpretation in particular, and the "days" of
                  Genesis 1, I would also make this point to you: Just because "day"
                  means a regular 24-hour day, this does not necessarily mean that what
                  is being referred to *in the context* of the discussion is a regular
                  24-hour day. Indeed, a regular day can even be virtually irrelevant
                  to the discussion, *even though* "day" means a regular day. In the
                  following post in this discussion group

                  "Is Genesis 1 a technically literal description of creation?"
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/598

                  I wrote the following:

                  | The Hebrew word
                  | for "eagle" in Ezekiel 17:7 really does mean "eagle" too. But
                  | you can study the literal meaning of the Hebrew word for "eagle"
                  | as used in Ezekiel 17:7 every day of every week for the next 52
                  | weeks (an eagle is an eagle is an eagle is an eagle), and you
                  | won't be one whit closer to understanding the message of Ezekiel
                  | 17:7 because "eagle" is being used metaphorically.

                  Just something to think about.

                  Incidentally, it means nothing to me how you choose to interpret
                  Genesis in the general scheme of things, since I don't buy the idea
                  that the Bible is inspired by God in the first place. The fact is
                  that the world is ancient, just as it is a fact that the earth orbits
                  the sun. What you choose to do in regard to biblical interpretation,
                  after recognition of this fact is whatever you choose to do. My beef
                  is with young earth creationists in particular who crow about being
                  so dedicated to truth and truth-seeking - even while they spit in the
                  face of the truth. This is hypocrisy of the first order.

                  Regards,
                  Todd S. Greene
                  http://www.creationism.cc/


                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1386):
                  > When I reply to this post by Mr. Greene, it is with great
                  > reservation. I really thought, and someone can say if I am wrong,
                  > that I made myself clear that I was not supporting YEC or GRAS.
                  >
                  > NOW, CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER? I DO NOT SUPPORT GRAS, NOR DO I
                  > DEFEND YEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  >
                  > (at least how you define each!)
                  >
                  > Now, GRAS, has nothing to do with what Mr. Greene's position is
                  > with regard to what he proposes as evidence against it is, right?
                  >
                  > So, when he claims, "GRAS is obviously about the YEC proposition
                  > concerning the text of Genesis."
                  >
                  > Well, now we have it. It IS about the text in Genesis and so, as
                  > I have posted, IS not just generally as they have tried to show.
                  > I do believe that I read on post against my position against this.
                  >
                  > Now, Todd, time to come clean... If one says that he believes the
                  > days of Genesis are 24 hours, does it mean this person, is a YEC
                  > and against GRAS?
                  >
                  > Try to AFFIRM this!!!! TRY TO DENY IT!
                • rlbaty@webtv.net
                  ... With all the talk also about light-bending , I was wondering when Moon & Spencer were going to show up! Sincerely, Robert Baty
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Todd, you wrote to Michael:

                    > Just for example, you advanced
                    > the YEC proposition of c-decay
                    > in the recent past, a la Barry
                    > Setterfield.

                    > This is classic YEC stuff.

                    With all the talk also about "light-bending", I was wondering when "Moon
                    & Spencer" were going to show up!

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • Michael
                    Mr. Greene, Hi, You stated: you advanced the YEC proposition of c-decay in the recent past, a la Barry Setterfield. This is classic YEC stuff. I don t ever
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mr. Greene,

                      Hi,

                      You stated: "you advanced the YEC proposition
                      of c-decay in the recent past, a la Barry Setterfield. This is
                      classic YEC stuff."

                      I don't ever remember speaking to you about c-decay from Barry
                      Setterfield, with you. All I mentioned was that c was not a constant
                      and there is creditable evidence that c is not a constant.

                      Your math takes none of this into consideration.

                      Can you show me where I quoted Barry Setterfield? If not, then, why lie
                      and state that I am advancing his position?

                      Next, you state that I argued that I accept the SN1987A as having
                      occurred 168K years ago.

                      This is so untrue that I cannot even imagine where you got this!

                      I also have not advocated a 1 billion figure of antiquity even more than
                      I have 500K! You have SO misread my arguments!

                      Your math is proven to be inaccurate and if you want to keep this up I
                      will have to embarrass you with it. I hope not to do this. I am hoping
                      your honesty with facts will prove itself first. If you want to
                      continue to test your facts I am willing, but remember what "fact" is,
                      will you?

                      V/r

                      Michael
                    • Michael
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jun 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        <<I'm afraid you have been developing a Murphy problem.>>

                        No, the problem is that you cannot support what you call "proof."

                        I am sure that my arguments seem not "credible" to those that do not think
                        things through just like those did not think the claim that one million
                        times the speed of light is what would require for YEC claims to be true!

                        V/r

                        Michael
                      • rlbaty50
                        ... There s the rub (against Michael), I guess. He s testifying and NOT making any argument that I can tell. At least none that come close to touching the
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jun 9, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I had opined in regards to Michael's testimony:

                          > I'm afraid you have been developing a
                          > Murphy problem.

                          To which Michael responded, in relevant part:

                          > No, the problem is that you cannot support
                          > what you call "proof."
                          >
                          > I am sure that my arguments seem not "credible". . .

                          There's the rub (against Michael), I guess.

                          He's testifying and NOT making any "argument" that I can tell. At
                          least none that come close to touching the soundness of the grand and
                          glorious "Goliath of GRAS" (copied below for reference). Let him put
                          forth his "GRAS-like" argument so we can see how he reasons and what
                          conclusion he thinks he wants us to come to.

                          I still figure he knows a little about what he is talking about but
                          he is cleverly withholding a real disclosure of what he is trying to
                          get at and just what is up with him (apart from what appears to be a
                          simple agnosticism). Of course, being agnostic, it still does not
                          reasonably follow that the YEC position, as popularly espoused, is
                          on "equal footing" with legitimate science.

                          If Michael wants to put forth his "argument" in rebuttal to
                          the "GRAS". . . . Well, wait a minute; hasn't he conceded the
                          soundness of the "GRAS".

                          I think so! Don't you? Of course you do!

                          Michael has has much admitted what most folks see as a given; that is
                          that there is, indeed, evidence of an ancient order of things.

                          He's welcome to quibble about the details, but that will have no
                          force and effect on the "Goliath of GRAS". Since he declines to
                          defend or affirm any YEC claim as to evidence to support that popular
                          notion, as far as Michael is concerned he is conceding both the
                          validity and soundness of the GRAS.

                          If he and Todd are still game, however, I am interested to see how he
                          plays his hand on the details of the evidence for an ancient order of
                          things.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty

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

                          "Goliath of GRAS"


                          Major premise:

                          If God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six
                          days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days
                          occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical evidence
                          that things are actually much older than a few thousand years, then
                          the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

                          Minor premise:

                          God's word says everything began over a period of six days, is
                          interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
                          thousand, and there is empirical evidence that things are actually
                          much older than a few thousand
                          years.

                          Conclusion:

                          The interpretation of the text by some is wrong.
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          ... Hi, Michael. The fact is that when you talk about c-decay in the context of trying to pretend that the universe didn t exist more than several thousand
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jun 10, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1400):
                            > Mr. Greene,
                            >
                            > Hi,
                            >
                            > You stated: "you advanced the YEC proposition
                            > of c-decay in the recent past, a la Barry Setterfield. This is
                            > classic YEC stuff."
                            >
                            > I don't ever remember speaking to you about c-decay from Barry
                            > Setterfield, with you. All I mentioned was that c was not a
                            > constant and there is creditable evidence that c is not a
                            > constant.

                            Hi, Michael.

                            The fact is that when you talk about c-decay in the context of trying
                            to pretend that the universe didn't exist more than several thousand
                            years ago (so that SN1987A didn't really happen more than 168,000
                            years ago; and so that we don't really observe the Andromeda galaxy
                            from more than 2 million years ago; and so on), you are talking about
                            Setterfield's argument. If you didn't realize this, then you merely
                            demonstrate further your lack of understanding of the position you
                            are advocating. *You* brought up c-decay in the context of arguing
                            for a young universe, not me.

                            >
                            > Your math takes none of this into consideration.

                            It doesn't need to take this into consideration, because it is a
                            matter of astronomical observation that the speed of light has been
                            constant (or very, very close to constant) for billions of years into
                            the past. I already explained this to you in post #1376:

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1376

                            Oh, wait, that's right! This is the the post I wrote that you keep
                            purposely pretending doesn't exist, both in this discussion forum and
                            the other one. Why are you purposely pretending that that post
                            doesn't exist? Do you really believe that it's okay to purposely and
                            willfully make such false pretensions?

                            >
                            > Can you show me where I quoted Barry Setterfield? If not, then,
                            > why lie and state that I am advancing his position?

                            I did not claim you quoted Setterfield. That is irrelevant. I stated
                            that you advanced his position because that is exactly what you did.

                            Of course, you could simply start producing the citations I have
                            repeatedly asked you that you've conveniently never produced. Of
                            course, we know you'll never do this because you're more interested
                            in running away from reality than facing it.

                            >
                            > Next, you state that I argued that I accept the SN1987A as having
                            > occurred 168K years ago.

                            I stated that you agreed that this is a good "ballpark" figure. You
                            stated this in post #1342:

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1342

                            >
                            > This is so untrue that I cannot even imagine where you got this!

                            Oh, and now you're falsely pretending that you didn't write what you
                            wrote. This is why critics of your position become so exasperated
                            with people like you. All of these false pretensions, and the eager
                            willingness to engage in them.

                            >
                            > I also have not advocated a 1 billion figure of antiquity even
                            > more than I have 500K! You have SO misread my arguments!

                            Well, here I actually have no idea what you're talking about. Who is
                            it who has said you advocated 1 billion years of antiquity? It
                            certainly isn't me.

                            >
                            > Your math is proven to be inaccurate and if you want to keep this
                            > up I will have to embarrass you with it. I hope not to do this. I
                            > am hoping your honesty with facts will prove itself first. If you
                            > want to continue to test your facts I am willing, but remember
                            > what "fact" is, will you?

                            Go for it, Michael! You have proved nothing. I've been asking you to
                            address the details from the get-go, but you keep running away from
                            them. I'm not the one engaging in all of these false pretensions.

                            You could start off simply by acknowledging the existence of this
                            post that I wrote:

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1376

                            And then you could address the several critical problems with your
                            claims that I pointed out in that.

                            Regards,
                            Todd S. Greene
                            http://www.creationism.cc/
                          • Michael
                            It is interesting how c has become an issue. Do you not agree? Ummm. Well... V/r Michael p.s. Are you still willing to discuss your position and not
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jun 21, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It is interesting how "c" has become an "issue." Do you not agree?

                              Ummm. Well...

                              V/r Michael

                              p.s. Are you still willing to discuss "your" position and not "mine?"

                              v/r

                              Michael
                            • Todd S. Greene
                              Hi, Michael. Since you have purposely chosen to refuse to provide any references whatsoever to what you seem to think you are talking about, you have, quite
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jun 21, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi, Michael.

                                Since you have purposely chosen to refuse to provide any references
                                whatsoever to what you seem to think you are talking about, you have,
                                quite literally, left yourself with nothing.

                                I have an inkling of what you might be referring to, and if I'm
                                correct then I'm still laughing because if you ever got around to
                                actually providing a reference (any one) we would very quickly see
                                how your own reference refutes you!

                                Please let us know when you're ready to stop playing your "hidden
                                source" game (oh, gee, how typical!), since I've been asking you for
                                your references all along during these last few weeks even while you
                                never get around to providing any.

                                Regards,
                                Todd S. Greene
                                http://www.creationism.cc/


                                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1474):
                                > It is interesting how "c" has become an "issue." Do you not
                                > agree?
                                >
                                > Ummm. Well...
                                >
                                > p.s. Are you still willing to discuss "your" position and not
                                > "mine?"
                              • Michael
                                Hello Todd, If you want a formal discussion then set forth a proposition. If I am not willing to engage it, I am sure some other scientist might. In casual
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jun 22, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hello Todd,

                                  If you want a formal discussion then set forth a proposition. If I am not
                                  willing to engage it, I am sure some other scientist might. In casual
                                  conversations I admit I do not use a lot of technical jargon and references.
                                  Such a discussion is not a research report, but a casual conversation. I
                                  also do not want to get into technical data as this takes the discussion out
                                  of reach of the regular reader.

                                  Yet, if you want a formal discussion then we might be able to agree on a
                                  proposition. You may then get more facts than you can handle. Or, it may
                                  be the other way around and you will have all the material you need for your
                                  web site.

                                  V/r

                                  Michael
                                • Todd S. Greene
                                  Hi, everyone. Yes, *will* he? He has made all kinds of false statements, and then I have been the one to cite the references, quote them, and demonstrate that
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jun 23, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi, everyone.

                                    Yes, *will* he? He has made all kinds of false statements, and then I
                                    have been the one to cite the references, quote them, and demonstrate
                                    that Michael's statements were false.

                                    The post with this heading "Will Michael EVER provide a reference"
                                    was specifically in regard to *his* claim that astronomers and
                                    astrophysicists have discovered evidence of c-decay that supports
                                    young earth creationist notions. His statement is false. Michael has
                                    never yet provided a single reference to what he is even talking
                                    about. I have repeatedly asked him to provide even one reference on
                                    this, and Michael has adamantly refused to do so.

                                    Will Michael EVER provide a reference - even one - to what he seems
                                    to think he is arguing for?

                                    No, I'm convinced he won't - because he fears that he was talking out
                                    of his own ignorance and fears the fact that his own reference(s) to
                                    this subject will refute what he has argued about.

                                    Will Michael provide any references that support his argument?

                                    No. He won't.

                                    The simple reason is because, in fact, he can't. He simply made it
                                    up. And, worse, he thinks this kind of behavior is okay. Is this any
                                    way for a Christian to act? I certainly don't think so.

                                    Michael, when will your games of deception stop?

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