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

Re: Hey, Mr. Canyon!

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    I just realized that I incorrectly referred to asking Buff Scott eleven specific questions. There were actually twelve questions. I had inadvertantly repeated
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I just realized that I incorrectly referred to asking Buff Scott
      eleven specific questions. There were actually twelve questions. I had
      inadvertantly repeated the number "1" with the first two questions, so
      the numbering was wrong, and thus the last question should have been
      shown as "12," not "11." When I stated there were eleven questions,
      it's because I was looking at the mistaken number of the last question.

      I like this better, because now I can literally say that I asked Buff
      a dozen questions and he deliberately ignored all dozen questions!

      Chuckling,
      Todd Greene
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... Yes, Buff, they do. There are all kinds of geological features that are impossible to have developed in merely 6,000 years. THAT S THE POINT. ... The fact
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- "James C. Doan" (Buff Scott) wrote:
        > Todd, the geological features of the Grand Canyon speak for
        > themselves.

        Yes, Buff, they do. There are all kinds of geological features that
        are impossible to have developed in merely 6,000 years.

        THAT'S THE POINT.

        > Your problem is
        > your misinterpretation of them.

        The fact of the matter is that it is the young earth creationist
        "interpretation" that is entirely wrong, precisely because the young
        earth creationist "interpretation" consists of ignoring all of the
        geological features of the Grand Canyon that cannot be scientifically
        explained by young earth creationists.

        > The features are
        > there.

        That's right, they are. So why are you ignoring them? When I have been
        writing to you about the geology of the Grand Canyon, you have run
        away from even discussing it, doing nothing more than changing the
        subject and talking about a number of things that are completely
        irrelevant to the subject.

        > Your explanations are
        > not, as I quite well point out in my Website feature.

        I already pointed out a number of factual errors in your article. You
        have refused to deal with your errors. Indeed, now you're deceitfully
        pretending that I didn't point out any of your errors. This is the
        standard deceitful manner in which you young earth creationists operate.

        > And, no, I
        > have not misrepresented Frenzen.

        You certainly have. Frenzen was CONTRASTING the soft-sediment gorge at
        Mt. St. Helens with *hardrock* canyons, because the Mt. St. Helens
        gorge was eroded out of soft sediment.

        Indeed, Buff, I asked you twelve specific question - which you have
        deliberately ignored (you lied to me when you told me to give you
        questions to answer, because as you have demonstrated it is your
        deliberate intention to ignore any such questions). By the way, it was
        twelve questions, not eleven. If you look at the numbering I had in my
        original email with the questions, you'll see that I accidentally used
        the number "1" twice.

        Here are the twelve questions again:

        1. Do you think it's okay to take people out of context and mispresent
        what they are talking about?

        2. When are you going to correct your false representation of Peter
        Frenzen's statement on your web page?

        3. Do you deny that the Grand Canyon is a hardrock canyon?

        4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded into relatively
        soft sediment?

        5. Do you deny that we observe geologic layers that show intense
        folding and crumbling?

        6. Do you think it's okay to use rhetoric for the purpose of
        misleading readers into believing something that is not true?

        7. Is Rick Presley a professional geologist?

        8. Do you think it is correct to describe a person who is either
        seriously ignorant of or deliberately ignoring facts about geology
        taught in basic geology courses (in high school and college) as a
        "knowledgeable student of geology"?

        9. Do you deny that sedimentary layers are not laid down in the form
        of a dome?

        10. Do you deny that we have earthquakes and floods today?

        11. Do you deny that what researchers of the Monterey Bay area are
        talking about is earthquakes and floods just like the earthquakes and
        floods that we have now?

        12. Do you think it's okay to ignore the facts when the facts show
        that claims you have promoted are in error?

        As you can see, I specifically asked you "Do you deny that Mt. St.
        Helens is a gorge eroded into relatively soft sediment?"

        As I can see, you have deceitfully ignored the question and are now
        pretending I never asked you the question.

        > If he was
        > misrepresented, blame National Geographic. I assume you
        > have written them about it and raked them over the coals
        > in your writings.

        The National Geographic article does not misrepresent Frenzen's
        statement. You do. So now I see you're lying about the National
        Geographic article.

        > Look up! Heaven is still there, in spite of Todd
        > Greene's denial.

        This has nothing whatsoever to do with the geology of the Grand
        Canyon, nor with your deliberate, defiant misrepresentation of
        Frenzen's statement.

        > But don't expect
        > to go there until you replace your trust in the One you
        > once believed it but now mock. Your penalty will not be
        > overlooked by the God of creation.

        Yet again I see you pretend to be God. I'm criticizing YOU, Buff! I'm
        criticizing YOUR errors. And you are not God. Of course, you certainly
        are not the first young earth creationist to pretend that he is God,
        by pretending that if you criticize HIS factual and logical errors
        then you are somehow criticizing God. It's just another example of the
        zany and ultra-arrogant attitude of the young earth creationist mindset.

        > I'll answer your questions in my own way and in my
        > own time. I will not submit to your schedule.

        You're the one who told me to "shoot" any questions I had to you. But
        as I have observed, you telling me to ask you questions was nothing
        more than a deceitful rhetoric tactic since you have shown that you
        have no intention of answering the questions.

        > I may even
        > post them on my Website for thousands to read.

        Copying the questions somewhere is not answering them.

        > But again, I'll
        > do it in my own time.

        In other words, again, you were lying to me.

        > By the way,
        > most of the charges you leveled against me point
        > in your own direction. "Mr. Pot calling the Kettle
        > black!." Hmmmm.---Buff.

        Such as? I'm laughing at your empty rhetoric. You make a false
        allegation, and then you don't even *attempt* to back it up! This is
        just another example of the deceitful nature of young earth
        creationist rhetoric.

        So as of this point, you STILL have not yet addressed a SINGLE thing
        about the subject of the geology of the Grand Canyon that I pointed
        out to you in my first email response to you about it, and you STILL
        have not even attempted to answer a SINGLE one of the twelve specific
        questions I asked you.

        Thank you for demonstrating the typical incompetence of young earth
        creationists in regard to being able to deal with issues in a relevant
        and rational way. The vast majority of your rhetoric is nothing more
        than smoke and mirrors, and shell games.

        - Todd Greene

        P.S.: Again, I am going to post a copy of this email to the
        "Maury_and_Baty" Yahoo discussion group, and elsewhere. I do this
        because I like for people to see what you young earth creationists are
        really like, so that they observe the irrational nature of the young
        earth creationist mindset.
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Virtually every single professional geologist in the world who is a Christian thinks your young earth creationism is nonsense. So your remark here is just
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- "James C. Doan" (Buff Scott) wrote:
          >> "Yes, Buff, they do. There are all kinds of geological
          >> features that are impossible to have developed in merely
          >> 6,000 years."
          >
          > Wrong. The God you once believed in but now denounce is
          > still in control.

          Virtually every single professional geologist in the world who is a
          Christian thinks your young earth creationism is nonsense. So your
          remark here is just further nonsense.

          What does this have to do with the physical geological features that
          we see at the Grand Canyon? Hey, Buff, are you now going to tell us
          that "God miraculously created a worldwide flood, and then He
          miraculously wiped out all physical evidence of this flood, and
          miraculously changed all the physical geological features to look as
          if the Earth has been around for millions of years with no flood"?

          Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying something else? Please
          *try* to articulate a rational argument.

          >> "...consists of ignoring all of the geological features
          >> of the Grand Canyon that cannot be scientifically
          >> explained by young earth creationists."
          >
          > Scientifically explained? Wrong. They have to be divinely
          > explained, and science must measure their "findings" to
          > coincide with divinity, not the opposite.

          In other words, young earth creationists want to make up whatever they
          want to make up regardless of what we actually observe about the real
          world.

          Yes, I already knew that.

          Buff, you are not a god. You are not divine. You have to deal with the
          geological features of the Grand Canyon. If you cannot deal with the
          geological features of the Grand Canyon, then you don't have a "divine
          explanation," you have a personal belief by a man - you - that is
          factually wrong.

          >> "I already pointed out a number of factual errors in
          >> your article. You have refused to deal with your errors.
          >> Indeed, now you're deceitfully pretending that I didn't
          >> point out any of your errors. This is the standard
          >> deceitful manner in which you young earth creationists
          >> operate."
          >
          > This is the usual rhetoric of the atheist and the
          > evolutionist. Their "logic" is most always suspect.

          We're not even talking about atheism. We're not even talking about
          evolution. We're talking about geology. Something that you seem
          apparently completely incapable of discussing.

          Also, most Christians around the world think your young earth
          creationism is bonkers, precisely because it is factually wrong. Of
          course, just like you pretend it's okay to ignore the scientific facts
          in your rhetoric, you also think it's okay pretend in your rhetoric
          that all of the Christians who disagree with your belief in young
          earth creationism don't even exist, as you pretend that geological
          science doesn't exist but is merely part of some worldwide atheist
          conspiracy. These are the ridiculously silly notions implied by the
          rhetoric you use all the time.

          You *assert* that you think there is something wrong with the logic
          but you're never able to back up your assertion. Indeed, much (if not
          most) of the time you guys make assertions like these you don't even
          attempt to back up your assertion. Just as you fail to do so here.

          Indeed, it is you who has been running and running and running away
          from the specific questions I have asked you, precisely because you
          have failed to deal with any logic.

          >> "You certainly have. Frenzen was CONTRASTING the
          >> soft-sediment gorge of Mt. St. Helens with *hardrock*
          >> canyons, because the Mt. St. Helens gorge was eroded out
          > of soft sediment."
          >
          > I quoted his statement exactly as it appeared.

          No, in fact you didn't. You added a word that is not in the original.
          Robert Baty pointed that out to you years ago, but you deliberately
          ignored that just like you deliberately ignore anything else you feel
          like ignoring.

          And then in your discussion you lead people to believe that Frenzen
          was saying the opposite of what he was actually saying.

          And now we see you pretending that there is no such thing as quoting
          people out of context and misrepresenting what they're talking about.
          Since everyone - including you - knows that out-of-context
          misrepresentation of quotes does exist, your statement "I quoted his
          statement exactly as it appeared" is completely irrelevant. Another
          red herring from you used specifically to fail to deal with your
          misrepresentation of Frenzen.

          You've been shamelessly lying about what Frenzen is saying for years,
          Buff. Why stop lying about it now? Young earth creationists are simply
          not concerned about lying about people. Your defiant refusal to
          correct your misrepresentation of Frenzen is just another example of this.

          Oh, and - surprise, surprise - look at my first question, that you
          have failed to answer:

          1. Do you think it's okay to take people out of context and mispresent
          what they are talking about?

          And questions 3 and 4 are related to this one:

          3. Do you deny that the Grand Canyon is a hardrock canyon?

          4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded into relatively
          soft sediment?

          But you've been studiously ignoring the questions, because you don't
          deal with facts, all you do is spout irrelevant prejudice-pandering
          rhetoric. Literally, Buff, that is all you produce. You have not deal
          with any substantive issue in this discussion in any way whatsoever.

          >> "Indeed, Buff, I asked you twelve specific questions -
          >> which you have deliberately ignored (you lied to me when
          >> you told me to give you questions to answer, because as
          >> you have demonstrated it is your deliberate intention to
          >> ignore any such questions). By the way, itwas twelve
          >> questions, not eleven. If you look at the numbering I
          >> had in my original email with the questions, you'll see
          >> that accidentally used the number "1" twice."
          >
          > You're not reading me. I said in my last letter that
          > your questions would be answered, but in my own time and
          > on my own schedule, not yours. Now read my lips:
          >
          > Each of your questions will be answered in an upcoming
          > column, after which I will consider posting your
          > questions and my answers on my Website.
          >
          > Now you know. Or do you?

          I'm reading you just fine, Buff.

          Here is what I know: In your very first reply to me after I asked you
          the questions (that you prompted me to give you in the first place)
          you totally ignored the questions, without any explanation of any
          kind, pretending I didn't ask you anything at all.

          Here is what else I know: You have not answered the questions.

          Here is what I suspect: You will "deal" with my questions just as you
          have "dealt" with my reference to the physical geological features of
          the Grand Canyon - in other words, you won't answer the questions at
          all, but will completely ignore actually dealing with them by changing
          the subject and instead talking about all kinds of other things like
          atheism and homosexuality (or whatever), that are utterly irrelevant
          actually dealing with the questions. Which is your habit.

          I will acknowledge that you have answered the questions ONLY if you
          *actually* do so.

          And should you actually address any of the twelve questions (which I
          seriously doubt), I will address your comments at that time. As of
          now, Buff, all you've provided is NOTHING. It's actually pretty
          amazing to me how much you can write and write and write and write
          without producing a single thing of any substance or that has any
          relevance of any kind to the issues.

          Chuckling,
          Todd Greene

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

          Here are the twelve questions again:

          1. Do you think it's okay to take people out of context and mispresent
          what they are talking about?

          2. When are you going to correct your false representation of Peter
          Frenzen's statement on your web page?

          3. Do you deny that the Grand Canyon is a hardrock canyon?

          4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded into relatively
          soft sediment?

          5. Do you deny that we observe geologic layers that show intense
          folding and crumbling?

          6. Do you think it's okay to use rhetoric for the purpose of
          misleading readers into believing something that is not true?

          7. Is Rick Presley a professional geologist?

          8. Do you think it is correct to describe a person who is either
          seriously ignorant of or deliberately ignoring facts about geology
          taught in basic geology courses (in high school and college) as a
          "knowledgeable student of geology"?

          9. Do you deny that sedimentary layers are not laid down in the form
          of a dome?

          10. Do you deny that we have earthquakes and floods today?

          11. Do you deny that what researchers of the Monterey Bay area are
          talking about is earthquakes and floods just like the earthquakes and
          floods that we have now?

          12. Do you think it's okay to ignore the facts when the facts show
          that claims you have promoted are in error?
        • w_w_c_l
          ... Todd, I m glad this point got brought up. When I pointed it out on another list, Buff ignored me completely, and when I pointed it out again is when he
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd had written:

            > >> "You [Buff] certainly have [misrepresented Frenzen].
            > >> Frenzen was CONTRASTING the soft-sediment gorge of
            > >> Mt. St. Helens with *hardrock* canyons, because the
            > >> Mt. St. Helens gorge was eroded out of soft sediment."

            Buff replied:

            > > I quoted his statement exactly as it appeared.

            Todd writes:

            > No, in fact you didn't. You added a word that is not
            > in the original.
            >
            > Robert Baty pointed that out to you years ago, but
            > you deliberately ignored that just like you deliberately
            > ignore anything else you feel like ignoring.
            >
            > And then in your discussion you lead people to believe
            > that Frenzen was saying the opposite of what he was
            > actually saying.

            Todd, I'm glad this point got brought up. When I pointed
            it out on another list, Buff ignored me completely, and
            when I pointed it out again is when he ran away from the
            list and sent out those hateful messages that I posted to
            this list.

            In the Maury_and_Baty Files section is a photocopy of the
            quote from National Geographic -- it doesn't have the
            "one". Buff is deliberately trying to make people think
            that Frenzen is saying that Loowit Canyon at Mount
            St. Helens is a "hardrock canyon" that was formed overnight.

            Even the creationist sites that have taken Frenzen out of
            context by using the same quote at least quote him
            correctly, for example:

            http://creationwiki.org/Mt._St._Helens

            There are several sites that use the quote but I have
            not seen one anywhere else that adds the "one".

            As I pointed out on the Exploring the Christian Faith list,
            no amount of playing around with words is going to make
            Loowit Canyon a hardrock canyon. It doesn't matter what
            anybody says, if you go to Mount St. Helens you will find
            a gully washed out of unconsolidated volcanic ash and mud
            (part of which is already beginning to slough off and
            fill in, by the way). It has no similarity to the real
            Grand Canyon, despite the fact that young-earthers are
            all gaga over it.

            One poignant detail about this discussion with Buff is
            that Buff Scott, Jr., formerly a Church of Christ preacher,
            is one who claims to have "come out" of organized religion;
            but Buff has brought the legalistic mindset for which the
            Church of Christ is known out with him. Buff is arguing
            like a lawyer over this very simple matter; he obviously
            thinks that it makes no difference what the truth is so
            long as he can convince the jury to buy his story.

            Sorry, Buff, but Loowit Canyon and the Grand Canyon have
            nothing in common, other than being caused by erosion.

            By the way, Todd, you ask:

            > 4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded
            > into relatively soft sediment?

            Todd, I will deny that Mount St. Helens is a gorge!

            As to those other questions, you wrote (in part):

            > >> "Indeed, Buff, I asked you twelve specific questions -
            > >> which you have deliberately ignored (you lied to me when
            > >> you told me to give you questions to answer, because as
            > >> you have demonstrated it is your deliberate intention to
            > >> ignore any such questions).

            And Buff replied:

            > > You're not reading me. I said in my last letter that
            > > your questions would be answered, but in my own time and
            > > on my own schedule, not yours. Now read my lips:
            > >
            > > Each of your questions will be answered in an upcoming
            > > column, after which I will consider posting your
            > > questions and my answers on my Website.
            > >
            > > Now you know. Or do you?

            Todd then writes:

            > I'm reading you just fine, Buff.
            >
            > Here is what I know: In your very first reply to me after
            > I asked you the questions (that you prompted me to give
            > you in the first place) you totally ignored the questions,
            > without any explanation of any kind, pretending I didn't
            > ask you anything at all.
            >
            > Here is what else I know: You have not answered the questions.
            >
            > Here is what I suspect: You will "deal" with my questions
            > just as you have "dealt" with my reference to the physical
            > geological features of the Grand Canyon - in other words,
            > you won't answer the questions at all, but will completely
            > ignore actually dealing with them by changing the subject
            > and instead talking about all kinds of other things like
            > atheism and homosexuality (or whatever), that are utterly
            > irrelevant actually dealing with the questions. Which is
            > your habit.
            >
            > I will acknowledge that you have answered the questions
            > ONLY if you *actually* do so.
            >
            > And should you actually address any of the twelve questions
            > (which I seriously doubt), I will address your comments at
            > that time. As of now, Buff, all you've provided is NOTHING.
            > It's actually pretty amazing to me how much you can write
            > and write and write and write without producing a single
            > thing of any substance or that has any relevance of any
            > kind to the issues.

            With the exception of question #2, all of the questions
            are straightforward yes-or-no questions, and assuming
            Buff's honesty by answering question #2 with "Never", it
            would take 12 words for Buff to answer all 12 questions.

            Get your quatloos counted, boys, I smell a bet coming on!



            Rick


            > ------------------------------------------------
            >
            > Here are the twelve questions again:
            >
            > 1. Do you think it's okay to take people out of
            > context and mispresent what they are talking about?
            >
            > 2. When are you going to correct your false
            > representation of Peter Frenzen's statement on your
            > web page?
            >
            > 3. Do you deny that the Grand Canyon is a hardrock canyon?
            >
            > 4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded into
            > relatively soft sediment?
            >
            > 5. Do you deny that we observe geologic layers that show
            > intense folding and crumbling?
            >
            > 6. Do you think it's okay to use rhetoric for the purpose
            > of misleading readers into believing something that is
            > not true?
            >
            > 7. Is Rick Presley a professional geologist?
            >
            > 8. Do you think it is correct to describe a person who
            > is either seriously ignorant of or deliberately ignoring
            > facts about geology taught in basic geology courses (in
            > high school and college) as a "knowledgeable student of
            > geology"?
            >
            > 9. Do you deny that sedimentary layers are not laid down
            > in the form of a dome?
            >
            > 10. Do you deny that we have earthquakes and floods today?
            >
            > 11. Do you deny that what researchers of the Monterey Bay
            > area are talking about is earthquakes and floods just like
            > the earthquakes and floods that we have now?
            >
            > 12. Do you think it's okay to ignore the facts when
            > the facts show that claims you have promoted are in error?

            -----------------------------------------
          • Todd S. Greene
            [Observe how you re supposed to do it. Note that in the future I will refer some creationists to this particular post of mine, because I want them to see me
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              [Observe how you're supposed to do it. Note that in the future I will
              refer some creationists to this particular post of mine, because I
              want them to see me show them by example how this is supposed to be done.]

              Hi Rick,

              Thanks for pointing this out. I stand corrected. My use of the word
              "gorge" has been wrong. I suspect that way back when this word slipped
              into my usage (when talking about Mt. St. Helens) through
              unintentional corruption of my mind from reading the word in young
              earth creationist propaganda and not realizing its actual meaning (and
              thus not realizing their false usage of that word just like they
              falsely use so many other words about so many other things).

              Anyway, I came up with the following reference information:

              Glossary of Hydrology
              http://books.google.com/books?id=if-PaNVS7cAC

              | gorge: (a) A narrow, deep valley with nearly vertical
              | rocky walls, enclosed by mountains, smaller than a
              | canyon, and more steep-sided than a ravine; especially
              | a restricted, steep-walled part of a canyon. (b) A
              | narrow defile or passage between hills or mountains.

              | gulley: (a) A very small valley, such as a small ravine
              | in a cliff face, or a long, narrow hollow or channel
              | worn in earth or unconsolidated material (as on a
              | hillside) by running water and through which water runs
              | only after a rain or the melting of ice or snow; it is
              | smaller than gulch.

              | gully erosion: Erosion of soil or soft rock material by
              | running water that forms distinct, narrow channels that
              | are larger and deeper than rills and that usually carry
              | water only during and immediately after heavy rains or
              | following the melting of ice or snow.

              I will be emailing Buff soon about the correction to question #4.

              By the way, did you email him a copy of your post here?

              - Todd Greene


              --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #14312):
              |[snip]
              > As I pointed out on the Exploring the Christian Faith list,
              > no amount of playing around with words is going to make
              > Loowit Canyon a hardrock canyon. It doesn't matter what
              > anybody says, if you go to Mount St. Helens you will find
              > a gully washed out of unconsolidated volcanic ash and mud
              > (part of which is already beginning to slough off and
              > fill in, by the way). It has no similarity to the real
              > Grand Canyon, despite the fact that young-earthers are
              > all gaga over it.
              >
              > One poignant detail about this discussion with Buff is
              > that Buff Scott, Jr., formerly a Church of Christ preacher,
              > is one who claims to have "come out" of organized religion;
              > but Buff has brought the legalistic mindset for which the
              > Church of Christ is known out with him. Buff is arguing
              > like a lawyer over this very simple matter; he obviously
              > thinks that it makes no difference what the truth is so
              > long as he can convince the jury to buy his story.
              >
              > Sorry, Buff, but Loowit Canyon and the Grand Canyon have
              > nothing in common, other than being caused by erosion.
              >
              > By the way, Todd, you ask:
              >
              >> 4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge eroded
              >> into relatively soft sediment?
              >
              > Todd, I will deny that Mount St. Helens is a gorge!
              |[snip]
            • Todd S. Greene
              Hi Buff, Rick Hartzog has just informed me - quite correctly - that I have misworded question #4 and also been misusing the word gorge in reference to what
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Buff,

                Rick Hartzog has just informed me - quite correctly - that I have
                misworded question #4 and also been misusing the word "gorge" in
                reference to what is at Mt. St. Helens, that is in instead correctly
                referred to as a gully. Therefore I'm writing to you at this time
                specifically to correct my erroneous use of the word "gorge" in
                reference to the gully at Mt. St. Helens that young earth creationists
                are talking about (and that Peter Frenzen was talking about). So every
                time you have seen me use "gorge" you should change that to "gully."

                In particular, you should note that question #4 that I asked you
                SHOULD BE stated as follows:

                4. Do you deny that what is at Mt. St. Helens is a gully eroded into
                relatively soft sediment?

                Please note this correction to the wording of the question.

                - Todd Greene
              • rlbaty50
                Regarding the May 2000 National Geographic quote of Peter Frenzen featured by Buff Scott, Jr. on his webpage, Todd S. Greene quotes ... Indeed, it has been
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Regarding the May 2000 National Geographic quote of Peter Frenzen
                  featured by Buff Scott, Jr. on his webpage, Todd S. Greene quotes
                  Buff Scott, Jr. as claiming:

                  > I (Buff Scott, Jr.) quoted his
                  > (Peter Frenzen's) statement exactly
                  > as it appeared.

                  To which Todd replied:

                  > No, in fact you didn't. You added a word
                  > that is not in the original.

                  > Robert Baty pointed that out to you years
                  > ago...

                  Indeed, it has been years since it was pointed out to Buff Scott, Jr.
                  and others that the quote ascribed to the National Geographic on
                  Buff's webpage is not accurate; that "one" word being added that is
                  not in the National Geographic quote.

                  Elsewhere recently, I think it was the case that Buff was claiming it
                  was all so easy to "look it up". Yet, after years, Buff Scott, Jr.
                  has apparently not looked it up, noted his error, explained his
                  error, or corrected his error.

                  Rick recently noted:

                  > In the Maury_and_Baty Files section is a
                  > photocopy of the quote from National
                  > Geographic -- it doesn't have the
                  > "one".

                  I just checked again, and it is the case that the Files section of
                  this discussion list does have what is alleged to be a photocopy of
                  the actual quote of Peter Frenzen, in its broader context, as taken
                  from the May 2000 National Geographic.

                  For those who may question the accuracy of the photocopy, as Buff
                  apparently recognizes, it is easy enough to visit a library or other
                  such source and look up the May 2000 National Geographic to confirm
                  the claims of Rick, Todd and myself regarding the fact that Buff's
                  quote adds "one" word to the National Geographic quote attributed to
                  Peter Frenzen. From there it is also quite simple to review the
                  historical record to confirm that Buff Scott, Jr. was advised of his
                  error a long, long time ago and he, last I checked, had taken no
                  action to admit so simple a factual error, explain it, or correct it.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • Robert Baty
                  For those who may not be members of this list with access to the files section wherein is a photocopy of the Peter Frenzen reference from the May 2000 National
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    For those who may not be members of this list with access to the files section wherein is a photocopy of the Peter Frenzen reference from the May 2000 National Geographic which Buff Scott, Jr. has been misquoting for years despite being clearly advised of his error, the message archives here may be publicly reviewed for a history of the development of this issue.

                    Following are links to a few relevant messages regarding this important history.

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2878

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2887

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2894

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2898

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2929

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2934

                    In part, the above referenced messages provide information regarding my direct contact with Peter Frenzen and Buff Scott, Jr., as well as my development of the facts regarding Buff's refusal admit, explain and correct his failure to quote the National Geographic correctly.

                    It appears appropriate here for me to ask Buff Scott, Jr. the same sort of question I recently asked Jerry McDonald.

                    Buff Scott, Jr., will you now admit, explain and correct your false representation of the May 2000 National Geographic quote attributed to Peter Frenzen?

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty


                    --------------My Previous Message---------

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14317

                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: April 9, 2008

                    Re: Hey, Mr. Canyon!

                    Regarding the May 2000 National Geographic quote of Peter Frenzen
                    featured by Buff Scott, Jr. on his webpage, Todd S. Greene quotes Buff Scott, Jr. as claiming:

                    > I (Buff Scott, Jr.) quoted his
                    > (Peter Frenzen's) statement exactly
                    > as it appeared.

                    To which Todd replied:

                    > No, in fact you didn't. You added a
                    > word that is not in the original.

                    > Robert Baty pointed that out to
                    > you years ago...

                    Indeed, it has been years since it was pointed out to Buff Scott, Jr.
                    and others that the quote ascribed to the National Geographic on
                    Buff's webpage is not accurate; that "one" word being added that is
                    not in the National Geographic quote.

                    Elsewhere recently, I think it was the case that Buff was claiming it
                    was all so easy to "look it up". Yet, after years, Buff Scott, Jr.
                    has apparently not looked it up, noted his error, explained his
                    error, or corrected his error.

                    Rick recently noted:

                    > In the Maury_and_Baty Files section is a
                    > photocopy of the quote from National
                    > Geographic -- it doesn't have the
                    > "one".

                    I just checked again, and it is the case that the Files section of
                    this discussion list does have what is alleged to be a photocopy of
                    the actual quote of Peter Frenzen, in its broader context, as taken
                    from the May 2000 National Geographic.

                    For those who may question the accuracy of the photocopy, as Buff
                    apparently recognizes, it is easy enough to visit a library or other
                    such source and look up the May 2000 National Geographic to confirm
                    the claims of Rick, Todd and myself regarding the fact that Buff's
                    quote adds "one" word to the National Geographic quote attributed to
                    Peter Frenzen. From there it is also quite simple to review the
                    historical record to confirm that Buff Scott, Jr. was advised of his
                    error a long, long time ago and he, last I checked, had taken no
                    action to admit so simple a factual error, explain it, or correct it.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

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



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • w_w_c_l
                    ... Well, that s just great, Todd -- now you ve *really* messed up. As if any of these young-earth preachers are going to be following any examples set by
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                      <greeneto@...> wrote (in part):
                      >
                      > [Observe how you're supposed to do it. Note that
                      > in the future I will refer some creationists to
                      > this particular post of mine, because I want them
                      > to see me show them by example how this is supposed
                      > to be done.]
                      >
                      > Hi Rick,
                      >
                      > Thanks for pointing this out. I stand corrected...

                      Well, that's just great, Todd -- now you've *really*
                      messed up. As if any of these young-earth preachers are
                      going to be following any examples set by someone who
                      has "no basis of objective morality".

                      Todd, you asked:

                      > By the way, did you email [Buff] a copy of your post here?

                      No, but please feel free to send him the links to the
                      messages in this thread. I gave Buff the address to
                      the list when I invited him to come by -- I figure he
                      knows where to find me if he has anything to say, and
                      I'm a little pressed for time right now to be trying to
                      carry on one-on-one discussions in personal e-mails.

                      I think your own discussion with Buff Scott's Grand
                      Canyon claims is very much demonstrative of all the
                      running thither-and-yon Buff will engage in just so
                      he never has to actually talk about geology -- whether
                      of the Grand Canyon or Mount St. Helens or the Monterey
                      Bay Canyon.

                      One thing that's kind of funny though, is that in this
                      same article where he misquotes monument scientist
                      Peter Frenzen in National Geographic, he has a section
                      titled "National Geographic Screws Up Again", talking
                      about what idiots they are for not ascribing the same
                      catastrophic forces to the formation of the Grand Canyon
                      that they do for Monterey Canyon.

                      http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html

                      All in all, though, there is SO much wrong with Buff's
                      Grand Canyon article that fooling around with that one
                      little misquote is just a distraction from all the other
                      very serious errors.

                      Buff says, at the beginning of the article, "Allow me to
                      tell you why I take this position. It takes only a little
                      bit of logic."

                      More like, none at all.



                      Rick Hartzog
                      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


                      P.S. Don't miss seeing Buff's article on petrified wood
                      (http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/PetrifiedWood.html)
                      for more of the same type of logic: Wood can petrify
                      rapidly, therefore Arizona's Painted Desert and Petrified
                      Forest are only a few thousand years old.
                    • w_w_c_l
                      ... One thing I didn t mention is that Buff Scott, Jr. had my e-mail address on a list for multiple mailings and had asked if he could send me his newsletter,
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 10, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Todd had asked:

                        > > By the way, did you email [Buff] a copy of your post here?

                        And I replied, in part:

                        > No, but please feel free to send him the links to the
                        > messages in this thread. I gave Buff the address to
                        > the list when I invited him to come by -- I figure he
                        > knows where to find me if he has anything to say, and
                        > I'm a little pressed for time right now to be trying to
                        > carry on one-on-one discussions in personal e-mails.

                        One thing I didn't mention is that Buff Scott, Jr. had my
                        e-mail address on a list for multiple mailings and had
                        asked if he could send me his newsletter, "Reformation
                        Rumblings". I had asked that he remove my e-mail address
                        from his list and apparently he had, so that is one of the
                        reasons I didn't want to engage Buff in any personal
                        correspondence.

                        I've heard from others that if you send Buff any personal
                        e-mail he puts you on his mailing list, and once he gets you
                        on his list it's hard to get him to take you off.

                        But after I posted the above comments I got a message in
                        my inbox from "James C. Doan" -- it was Buff's latest
                        issue of "Reformation Rumblings" -- and it began as follows:

                        | Am I coming over too harshly in my writings? Am I too
                        | direct — too bold? Am I coming across as being right,
                        | regardless? Am I failing to listen to others? Do I
                        | insult, scorn? Well, a few of my readers think so.
                        | Consequently, I have decided to give these questions
                        | some more space, even though they have been dealt with
                        | before.

                        Well, I figured if I was on his list anyway I might as
                        well answer him:

                        | Buff:
                        |
                        | Why don't you share this with your readers?:
                        |
                        |
                        |
                        | > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 18:56:23 -0800 (PST)
                        | > From: "James C. Doan" <mudhollow28@...>
                        | > Subject: RICK HARTZOG'S DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
                        | > To: [I have removed the list of recipients.]
                        | >
                        | > Exploring List: I have now resigned from your destructive
                        | > Forum, but not before I read destructive Rick Hartzog's
                        | > piece on the Grand Canyon experience. This so-called
                        | > "Christian" is about as full of dog dung as they get, for
                        | > he sounds like he was there when the Earth and the Grand
                        | > Canyon were created! So to enlighten each one of you on
                        | > his destructive and (apparently) atheistic rhetoric, I'm
                        | > including the Grand Canyon feature he referred to (as though
                        | > it were from Satan). You be the judge.---Buff.
                        | >
                        | > ----------------
                        |
                        |
                        | One of the people Buff Scott, Jr. sent the above message
                        | out to was Keith Sisman (you all know Keith, don't you?),
                        | who replied:
                        |
                        | ----------------
                        |
                        | Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:49:01 -0000 (GMT)
                        | Subject: Re: RICK HARTZOG'S DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
                        | From: "Keith Sisman" <Keith@...>
                        | To: "James C. Doan" <mudhollow28@...>
                        | CC: [I have removed the list of recipients.]
                        |
                        |
                        | James, Coal and others,
                        |
                        | Rick is either an atheist or agnostic. This was pointed out
                        | to Coal sometime back when I left Coal's Hell-bound list
                        | (hence Coal).
                        |
                        | Have a great day, Keith
                        |
                        |
                        | ----------------
                        |
                        | And Buff wrote back:
                        |
                        | ----------------
                        |
                        |
                        |
                        | Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:32:28 -0800 (PST)
                        | From: "James C. Doan" <mudhollow28@...>
                        | Subject: Re: RICK HARTZOG'S DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
                        | To: Keith@...
                        | CC: [I have removed the list of recipients.]
                        |
                        |
                        | Keith, you are absolutely correct. A few years ago, when
                        | Rick gave me a lot of static about my views on the Grand
                        | Canyon and creatrion, I judged him then to be either an
                        | atheist or, as you said, an agnostic. I'm more convinced
                        | than ever now that my judgment was correct.
                        |
                        | And by the way, the way Exploring is managed, and the kind
                        | of behavior permitted, I look for others to be forced off
                        | the list besides you, Kristin, me, and probably others I
                        | don't know about. Take care.---Buff.
                        |
                        |
                        | --------------------
                        |
                        |
                        | Just for the record -- not that it matters any I don't
                        | suppose, since apparently both of them think they can go
                        | around making any kind of claims they want to -- I have
                        | never given Buff Scott, Jr. any static about anything
                        | before now. I have never written to him nor, as far as I
                        | know, have I ever been on any list where he was a member
                        | (but, if he is sending out messages under the name of
                        | "James C. Doan", I guess you never can tell).
                        |
                        | So how could Buff have judged me to be either an atheist
                        | or agnostic a few years ago? Nice guy that I am, always
                        | ready to give someone the benefit of the doubt, I am going
                        | to assume that this claim is through Buff's carelessness
                        | and/or ignorance -- maybe he has me mixed up with someone
                        | else -- rather than being a deliberate lie like some of
                        | his claims on his webpage about the Grand Canyon. As I
                        | wrote to the ETCF list (#25811), Buff has probably never
                        | even heard of me before now.
                        |
                        | And poor Keith. Poor poor Keith. His only defense for
                        | all his lies is to lie some more. But it's all finally
                        | starting to catch up to him now. Isn't it, Keith? And
                        | just for the record, just like Buff Scott, Jr., Sisman
                        | wasn't "forced off" the ETCF list -- THEY RAN AWAY!
                        |
                        | Somebody tried to ask them some questions about some of
                        | their claims and THEY BAILED! Just like the last time,
                        | just like every time, just like every other one of their
                        | fellows who put out deliberate lies to hustle people into
                        | accepting their "theology"!
                        |
                        | THEY RUN!
                        |
                        | Rather than correct their false claims, they accuse you
                        | of being an atheist, back over their shoulder, while
                        | they're RUNNING AWAY as fast as their little legs will
                        | carry them!
                        |
                        | It's catching up to you, Sisman! And you've brought
                        | David P. Brown and his "contenders" down with you!
                        |
                        |
                        |
                        | Rick Hartzog
                        | Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                        |
                        |
                        |
                        | > -------------- - <snip> - --------------
                        | >
                        | > I'm not going to post Buff's article here just yet --
                        | > but I figure since he sent it to me (and a number of
                        | > other people) I might as well critique it.
                        | >
                        | > I had forgotten how bad it was!
                        | >
                        | > But I don't know where Buff gets the idea that I
                        | > sound as if I was there when the Grand Canyon was
                        | > created; the only thing I have really said about
                        | > Buff's article on the "Exploring the Christian Faith"
                        | > list is that Buff deliberately misquotes Frenzen in
                        | > the National Geographic article (by adding that little
                        | > word "one"), that this error was pointed out to him a
                        | > number of years ago, and that the gully at Mount
                        | > St. Helens is *not* a "hardrock canyon". These facts
                        | > are easily obtained by other means besides being present
                        | > when the Grand Canyon was formed.
                        | >
                        | > Nor do I see how pointing out such simple and evident
                        | > facts constitutes "destructive and (apparently) atheistic
                        | > rhetoric". Surely Buff is not implying that productive,
                        | > theistic rhetoric is dependent upon one's ability to
                        | > ignore the obvious?
                        | >
                        | > I'll get around to critiquing Buff's article in a couple
                        | > of days, maybe, but I just wanted to pass along the above
                        | > message he had affixed and sent out to about 18 people.
                        | >
                        | > If Buff was worried about Yahoo! groups being "spiritually
                        | > destructive", it sounds like he may have gotten out of here
                        | > just in time!
                        | >
                        | >
                        | >
                        | > Rick Hartzog
                        | > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                        |
                        |
                        | from:
                        | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14261


                        I'll be sure to keep the list apprised of any answers
                        I may receive.


                        Rick
                      • Todd S. Greene
                        ... Wow, Buff, apparently your memory is so shot these days that you ve completely and conveniently forgotten the profusion of irrational, bigoted,
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 14, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- "Buff Scott, Jr." <renewal@...> wrote:
                          > Todd:
                          >
                          > I didn't ask for your analysis of me, but since you gave
                          > it anyway, I'll give my analysis of you prior to
                          > answering your questions,

                          Wow, Buff, apparently your memory is so shot these days that you've
                          completely and conveniently forgotten the profusion of irrational,
                          bigoted, prejudice-pandering red herring rhetoric that you filled your
                          previous emails to me with while avoiding/evading discussing anything
                          actually relevant to the geology of the Grand Canyon.

                          > which contradicts your
                          > strong implication earlier that I would be ignoring them.

                          You were ignoring them before, while writing a whole bunch of red
                          herring rhetoric having nothing whatsoever to do with discussing
                          issues relevant to the geology of the Grand Canyon.

                          I do appreciate the fact that you are now - finally - actually
                          addressing the questions/issues, and I have no problem at all saying
                          so since you are now doing it.

                          > Let it be
                          > said that I have no intention of belaboring your pet
                          > project with you,

                          I already know that you have no intention of dealing with the
                          geological facts. You already told me this in a previous post.

                          > which is, in
                          > essence, to denounce all that the God of creation has
                          > done and how He has done it in His creative work.

                          There you go again falsely pretending that geological science doesn't
                          even exist, falsely pretending that geology is merely part of a
                          worldwide atheistic conspiracy. You are totally wrong for two
                          different reasons:

                          (1) In fact, virtually every single professional geologist in the
                          world who believes in the Christian God just like you do disagrees
                          with you. Related to this is the fact that most of the people who
                          believe in the Christian God just like you do (whether they are
                          geologists or not) also disagree with you, and accept the geological
                          fact that the earth has been around far, far longer than just 6,000
                          years or so. (In fact, there are far more Christians who accept the
                          geological fact of the antiquity of the earth than there are young
                          earth creationists.) Thus, when you pretend these people don't exist
                          in your rhetoric, you merely demonstrate how delusional your rhetoric is.

                          (2) Geology is *science*, just like chemistry, physics, astronomy,
                          meteorology, and so on. Scientific research is conducted without any
                          reference to belief in God. In terms of *science*, what is studied,
                          for example, is the physical mechanisms involved in causing it to
                          rain, or involved in weather patterns, and the like. Whether a person
                          believes in God or doesn't believe in God is completely irrelevant to
                          science.

                          > You are so embroiled
                          > in your hobby that it is unlikely Satan himself could
                          > dislodge you.

                          I'm not the one "embroiled" in attacking geology based on ignorance of
                          geology motivated by an empirically false religious dogma, and pushing
                          factual errors and irrational rhetoric motivated by the same. That's
                          all you, Buff.

                          >> "You have extreme difficulty dealing with subjects on a
                          >> rational basis because you are extremely bigoted and
                          >> your prejudice corrupts your mind so much that instead
                          >> of dealing with issues rationally by dealing with the
                          >> relevant facts in a logical manner you,"

                          Yes - that's a statement I made BASED ON THE CONTENT OF YOUR PREVIOUS
                          EMAILS to me on this topic.

                          > instead, resort to
                          > distorting and twisting the facts to suit your own fancy
                          > and hobby.

                          Exactly what you've been doing.

                          > For decades, I
                          > have dealt with your kind and I've always run into the
                          > same irresponsible problems-distortions, twistings,
                          > denials, reckless rhetoric.

                          This is exactly what we're observing about you. I have indeed dealt
                          with young earth creationists for over twenty years, and you've just
                          stated a concise accurate description of how young earth creationists
                          operate. Indeed, whenever we get you guys into court us critics always
                          prove the truth of this description, and the court decisions show it.
                          Additionally, young earth creationism doesn't even exist in
                          professional science today (and has not existed in professional
                          science in over 150 years). I have the facts on my side. All you have
                          is "sour grapes" empty rhetoric.

                          > Atheists have nothing
                          > to lose, so why not lie, twist, and distort?

                          As already pointed out, this has nothing to do with atheism. In fact,
                          most people who believe in God, indeed, most people who believe in
                          your Christian God, disagree with your young earth creationism dogma.

                          However, atheists accept the scientific facts. Young earth
                          creationists don't. So we already know who it is who is lying,
                          twisting, and distorting everything in sight.

                          > After all, there
                          > is no standard of morals, no hell, no heaven, and nothing
                          > but endless space after this life ends.

                          We are observing by your own behavior who it is who has the inferior
                          morals.

                          > No, we believers are not promising your kind "pie in the
                          > sky when you die," for we are convinced you and your kind
                          > will receive the shock of eternity immediately after
                          > exhaling your final breath.

                          Most believers accept the geological fact of the antiquity of the
                          earth, and thus reject your religious dogma of young earth creationism
                          because it is factually wrong. So your rhetoric is false based it's
                          based on a delusion fabricated by young earth creationists.

                          > Now that we have accurately and/or inaccurately analyzed
                          > each other, I will give my attention to your questions.
                          >
                          > TODD:
                          >> 1. Do you think it's okay to take people out of context
                          >> and misrepresent what they are talking about?
                          >
                          > No, so please cease misrepresenting the God of creation.
                          > He says it plainly. You distort and misrepresent what He
                          > has spoken.

                          You didn't answer the question, but instead changed the subject.

                          Secondly, you are not God, Buff. I have been addressing your numerous
                          errors and irrational remarks. I haven't been discussing God in the least.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 2. When are you going to correct your false
                          >> representation of Peter Frenzen's statement on your web
                          >> page?
                          >
                          > Here is what I have on my Website: "Mount St. Helens
                          > erupted on May 18, 1980. Some years later, a monument
                          > scientist examined the hardrock canyon,

                          The gully at Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon. The National
                          Geographic article does not say that the gully at Mt. St. Helens is a
                          hardrock canyon. Peter Frenzen did not say that the gully at Mt. St.
                          Helens is a hardrock canyon.

                          > created by the
                          > eruption,

                          The gully was not created by the eruption. The gully was created by
                          erosion of the sediment produced by the eruption.

                          > and remarked, 'You'd
                          > expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds
                          > of thousands of years old. But this one was cut in less
                          > than a decade' (National Geographic, May, 2000).

                          The word "one" is not in the sentence. The Frenzen quote is "You'd
                          expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands
                          of years old. But this was cut in less than a decade." Frenzen is
                          stating a *contrast* between a hardrock canyon and the gully at Mt.
                          St. Helens precisely because it isn't a hardrock canyon. The sediment
                          produced by the eruption was eroded into a large gully in less than a
                          decade, but it takes thousands of years to erode a canyon into rock.
                          This is the point.

                          > Rick Presley, a
                          > knowledgeable student of geology,

                          Presley is not a knowledgeable student of geology.

                          > says, 'Pretty convincing
                          > evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't take millions of
                          > years to form. If you can research it out, Mount St.
                          > Helens has proven to be a huge geologic laboratory that
                          > has overturned a great many uniformitarian assumptions.'"

                          Of course, since the gully at Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon,
                          and since the Grand Canyon *is* a hardrock canyon, Presley is merely
                          demonstrating his ignorance. (Thus demonstrating that he is not a
                          "knowledgeable student of geology.")

                          > You say I added the word "one."

                          Yes, you added the word "one."

                          > I'd have to
                          > see that issue of National Geographic again to agree or
                          > disagree with your charge. I think I can check it out.

                          Good, look it up. My charge is correct.

                          > "One" is irrelevant,
                          > for even without it the statement reveals the same
                          > message.

                          It changes the nuance of the reference Frenzen was making.

                          > Frenzen himself used
                          > the term "hardrock," as per the issue under discussion.

                          Frenzen did not say that the gully at Mt. St. Helens is a hardrock
                          canyon. Nothing else in the National Geographic article says the gully
                          is a hardrock canyon. And besides that, we know for a fact that the
                          gully is not a hardrock canyon. This is the point.

                          > Did he or
                          > did he not write the statement above?

                          He made the statement above (without the word "one" in it). He did not
                          say the gully was a hardrock canyon.

                          > If he did,
                          > I have not misrepresented him.

                          Frenzen did not say the gully is a hardrock canyon. You are portraying
                          him as having said that. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING
                          HIS WORDS. This is the point.

                          > If National Geographic
                          > misquoted him, he and you should contact them instead of
                          > accusing me of misrepresentation.

                          Frenzen did not say the gully is a hardrock canyon. The National
                          Geographic article does not say the gully is a hardrock canyon. The
                          article does not represent Frenzen as saying that the gully is a hard
                          canyon.

                          Your misrepresentation of Peter Frenzen's statement is all you, Buff.
                          This is the point.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 3. Do you deny that the Grand Canyon is a hardrock
                          >> canyon?
                          >
                          > No.
                          >
                          > TODD:
                          >> 4. Do you deny that Mt. St. Helens is a gorge [you
                          >> changed that to "gully" in another letter] eroded into
                          >> relatively soft sediment?

                          The question as I originally stated is clearly stated in error, but in
                          fact it has two errors in it, the second error being a more subtle
                          error. Previously I gave you the correct wording of the question:

                          4. Do you deny that what is at Mt. St. Helens is a gully eroded into
                          relatively soft sediment?

                          First of all, the obvious error was that I inadvertently jumbled up
                          the words to refer to Mt. St. Helens itself as a "gorge." Obviously
                          Mt. St. Helens is not a gorge or gully but is the mountain where the
                          gully is located that we're talking about. That's the obvious error
                          just by looking at the question as I worded it originally.

                          Second, regarding the more subtle error, here is what I explained in
                          the following post in the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion group:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/14314

                          | Hi Rick,
                          |
                          | Thanks for pointing this out. I stand corrected. My use
                          | of the word "gorge" has been wrong. I suspect that way
                          | back when this word slipped into my usage (when talking
                          | about Mt. St. Helens) through unintentional corruption of
                          | my mind from reading the word in young earth creationist
                          | propaganda and not realizing its actual meaning (and thus
                          | not realizing their false usage of that word just like
                          | they falsely use so many other words about so many other
                          | things).
                          |
                          | Anyway, I came up with the following reference
                          | information:
                          |
                          | Glossary of Hydrology
                          | http://books.google.com/books?id=if-PaNVS7cAC
                          |
                          || gorge: (a) A narrow, deep valley with nearly vertical
                          || rocky walls, enclosed by mountains, smaller than a
                          || canyon, and more steep-sided than a ravine; especially
                          || a restricted, steep-walled part of a canyon. (b) A
                          || narrow defile or passage between hills or mountains.
                          |
                          || gully: (a) A very small valley, such as a small ravine
                          || in a cliff face, or a long, narrow hollow or channel
                          || worn in earth or unconsolidated material (as on a
                          || hillside) by running water and through which water runs
                          || only after a rain or the melting of ice or snow; it is
                          || smaller than gulch.
                          |
                          || gully erosion: Erosion of soil or soft rock material by
                          || running water that forms distinct, narrow channels that
                          || are larger and deeper than rills and that usually carry
                          || water only during and immediately after heavy rains or
                          || following the melting of ice or snow.

                          This is why I corrected the wording of the question to:

                          4. Do you deny that what is at Mt. St. Helens is a gully eroded into
                          relatively soft sediment?

                          > I deny it
                          > extensively!

                          And therein lies the problem. You are factually wrong.

                          > Even Frenzen and
                          > National Geographic called it hardrock.

                          No, they did not call it a hardrock canyon.

                          > Argue with them,
                          > not me.

                          They did not call it a hardrock canyon. But you represent it as a
                          hardrock canyon, which is factually wrong. That's why I'm arguing with
                          you, not them.

                          > Since it is
                          > hardrock,

                          Except it is not a hardrock canyon. You are in error.

                          > the intelligent mind
                          > can easily see how wrong you hardcore (or is it
                          > hardrock?) evolutionists are.

                          This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with geology. So
                          here we see you slipping up with your delusional young earth
                          creationist silliness that geological science doesn't exist but is
                          merely part of a worldwide evolutionist conspiracy.

                          The fact that the gully at Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon,
                          but has been eroded into sediment from the eruption (not rock) is
                          exactly what proves how clueless you young earth creationists really
                          are in your rhetoric.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 5. Do you deny that we observe geologic layers that show
                          >> intense folding and crumbling?
                          >
                          > I'm not exactly familiar with this "folding and
                          > crumbling" bit.

                          Thank you for acknowledging that you are ignorant of the geology.

                          > I think I
                          > know what you mean, but no need guessing.

                          That's right, no need guessing. Anyone who really knew anything about
                          geology wouldn't have to guess. This is the point.

                          > But whatever you
                          > mean, it does not change the makeup of the hardrock gorge
                          > at Mt. St. Helens.

                          You did not answer the question.

                          Also, you are taking my question out of context. My question has
                          nothing to do with Mt. St. Helens. It has to do with other erroneous
                          statements you made about geology, that I addressed in a previous
                          email to you, where you falsely pretend that geologists do not
                          empirically observe the folding and crumbling of rock due to plate
                          tectonics forces. But as you acknowledge here, your erroneous
                          statements are based on your own personal ignorance of the subject.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 6. Do you think it's okay to use rhetoric for the
                          >> purpose of misleading readers into believing something
                          >> that is not true?
                          >
                          > We both have used rhetoric, especially you.

                          First of all, you did not answer the question.

                          Second, here is the pattern displayed in discussion between you and me:

                          I have made correct statements based on facts, and I have specifically
                          referred to these facts in my discussion. In other words, I have made
                          claims AND IN DISCUSSION I HAVE ACTED TO BACK UP MY CLAIMS.

                          You, on the other hand, have issued all kinds of rhetoric from your
                          keyboard that is (1) completely irrelevant to dealing with the
                          geological facts, (2) you almost never even attempt to back up
                          anything you claim, and (3) in numerous cases I have already shown
                          your statements to be either illogical and/or factually incorrect.

                          > (See your letter
                          > below.)

                          My letter below is an example of what I just pointed out. Thank you
                          for mentioning it.

                          > No one should
                          > mislead readers, so I suggest you change your tactics
                          > (there goes rhetoric again!).

                          Exactly! There goes your rhetoric again, since the record shows quite
                          clearly the pattern I just pointed out.

                          I do have to thank you for giving us yet another example of the
                          misleading nature of young earth creationist rhetoric. Also, for
                          showing how defiant young earth creationists are against changing
                          their rhetorical tactics of misrepresenting everything in sight.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 7. Is Rick Presley a professional geologist?
                          >
                          > Contact him at <richard.presley@...> and ask him.
                          > Are you a professional geologist? If yes, let's have your
                          > credentials.

                          First of all, you did not answer the question.

                          Second, I have never once claimed to be a professional geologist.

                          However, I am knowledgeable enough about geology to know that the
                          gully at Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon, and to know that
                          there are many examples, right here in the United States, where we can
                          observe that rock has been folded and crumpled.

                          Any man, including Rick Presley, who would claim that the gully at Mt.
                          St. Helens is a hardrock canyon (and then also spout rhetoric based on
                          that erroneous claim) is doing nothing more than proving his ignorance.

                          You have falsely represented Presley as a "knowledgeable student of
                          geology." In other words, you just made it up to lend your quote of
                          him fake credibility. Young earth creationists use misleading rhetoric
                          like this all the time. This is the point.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 8. Do you think it is correct to describe a person who
                          >> is either seriously ignorant of or deliberately ignoring
                          >> facts about geology taught in basic geology courses (in
                          >> high school and college) as a "knowledgeable student of
                          >> geology"?
                          >
                          > Hmmmm, strange question.

                          You did not answer the question.

                          > Contact Richard Presley
                          > and find out what he is.

                          You did not answer the question.

                          > Rest assured he
                          > will hold you feet to the fire and blow your atheistic
                          > concepts away. Trust me on this.

                          You did not answer the question.

                          Additionally, this has nothing to do with atheism. There you go with
                          your silly irrational rhetoric again.

                          I do happen to completely trust your assessment that Rick Presley,
                          since he is a young earth creationist like you, uses all manner of
                          misleading, illogical, and factually wrong rhetoric, just like you do.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 9. Do you deny that sedimentary layers are not laid down
                          >> in the form of a dome?
                          >
                          > I know only that sedimentary layers are laid down both
                          > horizontally and vertically. I've seen them in the Grand
                          > Canyon. I'm an eye witness, for I have hiked the Canyon
                          > numerous times, and I've seem and examined both kind of
                          > layers. Evolutionists cannot adequately explain the
                          > vertical layers, as I note very precisely on
                          > www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html .

                          So apparently young earth creationists like you seriously believe that
                          the law of gravity has been suspended at various times.

                          Noted.

                          I have zero doubt that rock layers are tipped at various angles by
                          geological forces. Rock isn't sediment. Of course, as we have already
                          observed by your statements, you don't even know the difference
                          between sediment and rock.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 10. Do you deny that we have earthquakes and floods
                          >> today?
                          >
                          > Silly question. Of course not. I'm not that far out
                          > of the loop.

                          You're absolutely right, Buff, it is a silly question!

                          So now you need to explain why you implied in your article that
                          earthquakes and floods today do not exist. You cited some geologists
                          referring to some geological features as having been formed by
                          earthquakes and floods, then you pretended that earthquakes and floods
                          don't exist, so that what they were referring to must have been formed
                          by your religious myth of a worldwide flood.

                          I totally agree with you that it is completely silly to ignore the
                          existence of earthquakes and floods, but that's exactly what you did
                          in your rhetoric. Thank you for now acknowledging that it is silly to
                          ignore the fact that earthquakes and floods exist and that, thus,
                          geologists should recognize what the geological features produced by
                          such geological forces. This is the point.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 11. Do you deny that what researchers of the Monterey
                          >> Bay area are talking about is earthquakes and floods
                          >> just like the earthquakes and floods that we have now?
                          >
                          > I'll need to
                          > ask them,

                          Really?!?

                          Young earth creationist obtuseness apparently knows no bounds.

                          I look forward to you going "straight to the horse's mouth" and asking
                          them.

                          Of course, we already know that no matter what they tell you based on
                          the facts of geological science you're going to ignore them anyway -
                          because this is what we observe that you do. That isn't rhetoric, it's
                          the truth.

                          > but your question
                          > is irrelevant to the fact that the upheaval associated
                          > with Noah's global flood changed the earth's surface,
                          > creating some canyons and possibly covering over others.
                          > Raging flood waters, coupled with earthquakes and
                          > volcanoes (such as in Noah's flood), can do havoc with
                          > the earth's terrain (as noted in The Flood by Alfred M.
                          > Rehwinkel (1951). And it doesn't take millions and
                          > billions of years for this to occur. In Noah's flood it
                          > took only 40 days and 40 nights.

                          I have zero doubt that a worldwide flood would create havoc with the
                          earth's terrain. THIS IS PRECISELY THE POINT. WE DO NOT OBSERVE ANY
                          SUCH HAVOC AS WOULD BE PRODUCED BY A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. THIS IS THE POINT.

                          > But according to
                          > you evolutionists,

                          There you go with your silly young earth creationist conspiracy
                          rhetoric again. We're talking about geology, not evolution.

                          > it takes millions
                          > of years to cut out a hardrock canyon.

                          This is incorrect. It depends on the canyon. In fact, you have quoted
                          Peter Frenzen as saying, "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be
                          thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old." So not only have
                          you misrepresented him (the full quote), but you're ignoring something
                          he really did say.

                          > Hmmmm. The flow
                          > of the Nile has not cut out a canyon. Strange.

                          Only someone completely ignorant of geology would think it was
                          strange. It is excruciatingly obvious that canyons are cut into rock
                          in geological contexts that are quite different from the geological
                          context of a river delta.

                          Additionally, there's the fact that Nile River has indeed cut out
                          canyons in rock in other geological areas *before* the delta.

                          Whoops!

                          Thank you for demonstrating again that when it comes to geology, young
                          earth creationists don't know what they're talking about. This is the
                          point.

                          > And speaking of
                          > authors, I suggest that you examine Chapter 6 of Henry M.
                          > Morris' What Is Creation Science (1982, revised in 1987),
                          > for in this chapter he blows your geologic concept to
                          > pieces.

                          I own the book. Henry Morris is not a geologist. When I want to learn
                          about geology I read real geology books written by real geologists.

                          I have studied literally dozens of pseudoscientific claims by Morris
                          and know why (1) he is wrong, and thus (2) he is ignorant of geology
                          just like you other young earth creationists.

                          > Why don't you
                          > ask him for a public debate (if he's still living)?

                          Henry Morris is dead. Good riddance.

                          I don't need to debate the man to know that pseudoscientific claims he
                          has made in his books are wrong. All I need to do is study the
                          relevant science, and I have.

                          > But I doubt
                          > if he would be interested in taking on peeons.

                          You are correct. I totally agree with you. Not even once in his entire
                          life did Henry Morris ever do any professional scientific research for
                          young earth creationism and have such research published in a
                          professional science publication. Morris avoided science like the
                          plague. His attitude was that he believed what he believed regardless
                          of the scientific facts, so he ignored even doing any real science.
                          (Indeed, one of the belief statements of his Institute for Creation
                          Research is that young earth creationism must be true regardless of
                          the scientific facts.) This is the point.

                          > Also, go to
                          > Chapter III of Evolution: The Challenge Of The Fossil
                          > Record, by Duane T. Gish. He, too, will blow your skimpy
                          > logic to the wind.

                          Indeed, I owned the book for many years (since sometime in the late
                          1970s in fact), but I've lost it somewhere along the way several years
                          ago. I'm already well aware of many of the numerous factual errors and
                          illogical arguments made by Gish. Gish is also quite notorious for
                          lying to people, having blatant errors pointed out and explained to
                          him, and then without batting an eyelash continuing to promote these
                          known errors to audience for years and years. Gish is a great example
                          of the deceitful mindset endemic in the young earth creationist community.

                          > TODD:
                          >> 12. Do you think it's okay to ignore the facts when the
                          >> facts show that claims you have promoted are in error?
                          >
                          > Do you think it's okay to ignore the facts when the facts
                          > show that claims you have promoted are in error?

                          You did not answer the question.

                          Unlike you, I'm able to answer my own question immediately, without
                          pause, and without playing any games:

                          NO! Of course not.

                          > Final remarks: As
                          > noted at the beginning, I do not have time to carry on a
                          > prolonged discussion on evolution

                          I have not been discussing evolution in any way. More misleading
                          rhetoric from you.

                          > or on the
                          > makeup of the Grand Canyon.

                          Yes, I already know that you have every intention of deliberately
                          ignoring the geological facts about the Grand Canyon, as well as
                          deliberately ignoring many other facts of geology, and continuing to
                          promote factual errors about geology.

                          Indeed, you couldn't even give me a straight answer to question #12.

                          > However, if you
                          > have anything else to offer, I'll read it, but do not
                          > expect a reply. I asked you questions and you "answered"
                          > them. You asked me questions and I answered them.

                          In fact, you did NOT answer the following questions: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8,
                          and 12.

                          Also, in fact, you have deliberately ignored a number of facts that
                          show that your statements are wrong.

                          Again, I have zero doubt that you will deliberately ignore the facts
                          and continue to promote your errors. This is what young earth
                          creationists do. This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

                          > Enough, unless you
                          > go public and misrepresent me.
                          >
                          > -Buff.

                          And thus do you again demonstrate just how poorly you pay attention to
                          anything. Buff, I have told you repeatedly from the very beginning
                          that I am posting my responses publicly to the "Maury_and_Baty"
                          discussion group, as well as to other discussion groups. (It's also a
                          little interesting how you falsely insinuate that I have
                          misrepresented you in any way. How typical of you.) This is because
                          you provide such a great example of how young earth creationists
                          misrepresent everything in sight and are incompetent about dealing
                          with the scientific facts, as well as a great example of the attitude
                          young earth creationists have about promoting their errors quite
                          defiantly regardless of the facts.

                          - Todd Greene

                          > ---------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          > --- "James C. Doan" (Buff Scott) wrote:
                          >> Todd:
                          >>
                          >> Buff here. I'm going to work on your 12 questions today,
                          >> as I now have a little free time, but I need to request
                          >> a little info.
                          >>
                          >> In regards to my "misquoting" Frenzen on my Website, as
                          >> you claim, please explain exactly how I misquoted the
                          >> statement found in National Geographic. One of your
                          >> cohorts said the other day that I added a word to the
                          >> statement, which doesn't sound like me at all.
                          >>
                          >> I do not now have a copy of the issue Frenzen's statement
                          >> was posted in. I suspect I can look up a copy at my local
                          >> Library, but I want you, first of all, to tell me just
                          >> how I misrepresented him or misquoted his statement.
                          >>
                          >> Secondly, I'd like to know what drew you away from the
                          >> God of the scriptures and the Christian faith. Please
                          >> don't give me a long history, as I don't have time to
                          >> decipher it. Just explain what prompted you to abandon
                          >> that which you once believed.
                          >>
                          >> Also, send your replies to Renewal@... instead
                          >> of to this address. I think you might possibly have
                          >> Renewal@... blocked. Check it out and see. See
                          >> you later, hopefully.
                          >>
                          >> ---Buff.
                          >
                          >
                          > From: Todd Greene
                          > To: Buff Scott
                          > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:13 PM
                          > Subject: Re: Hey, Mr. Canyon!
                          >
                          > Buff,
                          >
                          > You added the word "one" to the quote of Peter Frenzen
                          > given in the National Geographic article. Robert Baty
                          > pointed that out to you something like two years ago or
                          > so. That's a side issue, but you have indeed added the
                          > word.
                          >
                          > Second, I have already explained to you NUMEROUS TIMES
                          > how you are misrepresenting what Frenzen stated. Thank
                          > you for admitting that you have been ignoring what I've
                          > already pointed out to you a number of times (both
                          > recently as well as in the past). The gully at Mt. St.
                          > Helens is not a hardrock canyon. Period. Do you
                          > comprehend this fact, Buff? Frenzen is *contrasting* the
                          > gully at Mt. St. Helens, which was formed in soft
                          > sediment, with a hardrock canyon, BECAUSE the gully at
                          > Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon.
                          >
                          > Buff, do you comprehend the fact that the gully at Mt.
                          > St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon?
                          >
                          > In regard to your personal questions about me, I have
                          > nothing to say at this time, because (1) they are
                          > completely irrelevant to the issues we're discussing, and
                          > (2) I know for a fact, based on previous emails you've
                          > written to me, that you have extreme difficulty dealing
                          > with subjects on a rational basis because you are
                          > extremely bigoted and your prejudice corrupts your mind
                          > so much that instead of dealing with issues rationally by
                          > dealing with the relevant facts in a logical manner you
                          > instead love to change the subject with all sorts of red
                          > herring rhetoric about atheism or homosexuals or whatever
                          > else you don't like, none of which has anything
                          > whatsoever to do with the geological facts that you are
                          > ignoring.
                          >
                          > Finally, I want to remind you that I reworded question #4
                          > because my original wording of the question was
                          > incorrect.
                          >
                          > - Todd Greene
                        • rlbaty50
                          Regarding the addition of the word one to the National Geographic ... All these years and Buff Scott, Jr. is just now getting around to indicating he thinks
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 14, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Regarding the addition of the word "one" to the National Geographic
                            reference from Buff Scott, Jr., Todd quotes Buff as now writing:

                            > I'd have to see that issue of National Geographic
                            > again to agree or disagree with your charge.

                            > I think I can check it out.

                            He then quotes Buff as saying:

                            > "One" is irrelevant, for even without it
                            > the statement reveals the same message.

                            All these years and Buff Scott, Jr. is just now getting around to
                            indicating he thinks he can check his reference?

                            Well, we'll see what he comes up with.

                            While it may be that the "one", like what is in the hand of a certain
                            statue, is irrelevant, and that one might fuss about the meaning of a
                            certain statement, the issue has become less about the possible
                            meaning of the statement, with or without the "one", and more about
                            the character of the "one" who has spent years refusing to admit an
                            error, explain an error, and correct his error on so simple a matter
                            of fact.

                            And this after all those sermons about how important even something so
                            simple as a single word may be.

                            Todd, do keep us advised as to Buff's further attention to this most
                            simple matter.

                            In so noting my interest in such a matter, I do not intend to distract
                            from the more "weightier" matters which Todd appears to have so
                            adequately addressed in his most recent post.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty
                          • Todd S. Greene
                            ... Hi Buff, If the Bible says something that is factually wrong, then it isn t a fact. In other words, you just used an irrational argument. In particular, if
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 15, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- "Buff Scott, Jr." <renewal@...> wrote:
                              > Todd, I already know that you have no intention of dealing
                              > with the biblical facts.

                              Hi Buff,

                              If the Bible says something that is factually wrong, then it isn't a
                              fact. In other words, you just used an irrational argument.

                              In particular, if the Bible really teaches that the universe and the
                              earth did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago (regarding which,
                              as a matter of fact, most Christians do *not* agree with you about),
                              then it teaches something that we know is factually wrong.

                              I do realize that young earth creationists to use this irrational
                              argument, that if the Bible says it then according to them what the
                              Bible says is right regardless of what the facts about the real world
                              are. In other words, young earth creationists believe what they
                              believe regardless of the facts. This is the point. I'm glad that you
                              openly acknowledge, as implied by your statement, that this is the
                              basic position that young earth creationists have.

                              > You already implied
                              > this in a previous post.

                              I certainly did imply that I accept the facts about the real world
                              that we discover by looking at the real world itself, regardless of
                              any claims made in any religious book. Indeed, I don't recall
                              specifically if I have stated this explicitly in my recent emails to
                              you, but I know that I have stated this explicitly numerous times in
                              my written discussions over the years.

                              The real world facts are what they are. If a religious book happens to
                              make empirical statements that correspond to the facts of reality,
                              then those statements are correct *because they correspond to the
                              facts of reality*. On the other hand, if a religious book happens to
                              make empirical statements that are contradicted by the facts of
                              reality, then those statements are wrong *because the real world facts
                              show that they are wrong*.

                              I appreciate you recognizing this about my fundamental position on
                              these issues, that it is the empirical facts about the real world that
                              dictate what the truth is.

                              > And there you go again, falsely pretending that biblical
                              > science doesn't even exist,

                              I don't need to pretend. It is a fact that "biblical science" doesn't
                              exist. Young earth creationism does not exist in professional science
                              today. That is an empirical fact.

                              > falsely pretending that
                              > the creative facts are merely part of a worldwide fairy
                              > tale conspiracy. You are totally wrong.

                              It is an empirical fact that young earth creationists falsely pretend
                              that young earth creationism is scientific. It is also an empirical
                              fact that young earth creationists have purposely conspired together
                              to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution by trying to
                              deceive people into thinking that young earth creationism is
                              scientific. This fact been proved in courts of law.

                              2005 Creationism Trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
                              [link may be line-wrapped]

                              Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
                              [link may be line-wrapped]

                              Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
                              Decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (12/20/2005)
                              http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/pamd/kitzmiller_342.pdf

                              1987 Creationism Trial (Edwards v. Aguillard)
                              U.S. Supreme Court Decision
                              http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html

                              1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas)
                              McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
                              http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/

                              Therefore, Buff, I have to thank you for continuing to demonstrate the
                              delusional nature of your young earth creationist rhetoric, showing
                              how you love to use rhetoric based on denying reality.

                              > In fact, virtually
                              > every single professional geologist in the world who
                              > believes in the Christian God agrees with me.

                              Here you're just lying, because I know you know better. (I know you
                              are not really that stupid.)

                              >> "The gully at Mt. St. Helens is not a hardrock canyon."
                              >
                              > Wrong.

                              Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the delusional nature of your
                              young earth creationist rhetoric.

                              >> "The National Geographic article does not say that the
                              >> gully at Mt. St. Helens is a hardrock canyon. Peter
                              >> Frenzen did not say that the gully at Mt. St. Helens is
                              >> a hardrock canyon."
                              >
                              > That's a lie, and you know it.

                              Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the delusional nature of your
                              young earth creationist rhetoric, and showing your attitude of
                              defiantly promoting factual errors.

                              > "Second, I have never once claimed to be a professional
                              > geologist."
                              >
                              > That makes you as dumb as me!

                              The record of our written discussion proves otherwise.

                              > Presley does not
                              > claim to be a professional geologist, but a knowledgeable
                              > one, just as you claim.

                              First of all, Presley is not a geologist, knowledgeable or otherwise.
                              Presley has never performed any professional research in geological
                              science in his life. The words you use here are just another
                              misrepresentation by you.

                              In regard to being knowledgeable about geology, I've already pointed
                              out that simple fact that anyone who would promote the idea that the
                              gully formed by the erosion of the *sediment* produced by the eruption
                              of Mt. St. Helens is a *hardrock canyon* does thereby (by the very act
                              of promoting such an obviously false claim) demonstrate the fact that
                              he is not knowledgeable about even basic geology.

                              Rather than showing that my point is wrong, you have instead
                              *confirmed* it by agreeing that Presley does make such an ignorant claim.

                              >> "WE DO NOT
                              >> OBSERVE ANY SUCH HAVOC AS WOULD BE PRODUCED BY A
                              >> WORLDWIDE FLOOD. THIS IS THE POINT.
                              >
                              > There are thousands of pieces of evidence of a global
                              > flood. Atheists deny them because then they would have
                              > to reconsider the Genesis account.

                              Your silly delusional rhetoric pretending that geological science
                              doesn't exist but that geology is merely part of a worldwide atheist
                              conspiracy is showing again. All professional geological scientists,
                              whether they are atheists, Christians, or anything else, know that the
                              geological features you refer to in the abstract are not produced by
                              flood.

                              I fully realize that young earth creationists, in their deep ignorance
                              of geology, pretend in their own minds that all kinds of geological
                              features not produced by flood were produced by flood, but
                              scientifically ignorant fantasies don't have anything to do with
                              reality. This point seems to have gone way over your head.

                              >> "I have studied
                              >> literally dozens of pseudoscientific claims by Morris
                              >> and know why (1) he is wrong, and thus (2) he is
                              >> ignorant of geology just like you other young earth
                              >> creationists."
                              >
                              > Everyone is ignorant of geology EXCEPT evolutionists and
                              > atheists!
                              >
                              > ---Buff.

                              Your silly delusional rhetoric pretending that geological science
                              doesn't exist but that geology is merely part of a worldwide atheist
                              conspiracy, or worldwide evolutionist conspiracy, is showing again. I
                              have not been discussing atheism at all. I have not been discussing
                              evolution at all. Moreover, I have only pointed this fact out to you
                              NUMEROUS times already, so here we observe that with the rhetoric you
                              love to use you are apparently very devoted to trying to lie to people
                              about this, always falsely pretending that the science of geology
                              doesn't exist and always falsely pretending that we're not talking
                              about the geological science that is relevant to this.

                              Just as I stated at the end of my previous email to you, thank you for
                              continuing to provide such a great example of how young earth
                              creationists misrepresent everything in sight and are incompetent
                              about dealing with the scientific facts, as well as showing the
                              attitude that young earth creationists have of promoting their errors
                              quite defiantly regardless of the facts.

                              - Todd Greene
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.