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

Re: Hey, Mr. Canyon!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.