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

Re: Eclipse33 v. "Goliath of GRAS" via The Huffington Post!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/bill-nye-creationists-creation-museum-ray-comfort_n_1849375.html (3) From: Eclipse33 Time/Date: 11:16 AM MT on
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/bill-nye-creationists-creation-museum-ray-comfort_n_1849375.html

      (3)

      From: Eclipse33
      Time/Date: 11:16 AM MT on 09/16/2012

      I said

      > "Your interpretation of the evidence is not empirical"

      and gave an example.

      (4)

      From: Eclipse33
      Time/Date: 11:01 AM MT on 9/17/2012

      I took a look.

      I'll stand by my statement.

      Your argument has serious flaws.

      It would be pointless discuss it.

      Hufpo modererators deleted my original response.

      (5)

      From: Robert Baty
      Time/Date: 11:49 AM MT on 09/17/2012

      Eclipse33:

      There are no serious flaws in my argument as you propose.

      It would NOT be pointless to discuss it, and the subject
      is open to discussion at my place.

      As you note, there are problems with the moderation, and
      other matters, here that limits the discussion.

      One of the points to be made in such a discussion of your
      problems with the argument, is to note with more specificity,
      your problems with the argument.

      I can understand if you prefer to "run"!

      See you at my place, or not.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

      -------------------------------------------
      -------------------------------------------
    • eclipse_360
      I m here, so go on. THEN (D), the interpretation of the text by some is wrong. vs Your interpretation of the evidence is not empirical Defend your position.
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 21, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm here, so go on.

        THEN (D), the interpretation of the text by some is wrong.

        vs

        "Your interpretation of the evidence is not empirical"

        Defend your position.


        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/bill-nye-creationists-creation-museum-ray-comfort_n_1849375.html
        >
        > (3)
        >
        > From: Eclipse33
        > Time/Date: 11:16 AM MT on 09/16/2012
        >
        > I said
        >
        > > "Your interpretation of the evidence is not empirical"
        >
        > and gave an example.
        >
        > (4)
        >
        > From: Eclipse33
        > Time/Date: 11:01 AM MT on 9/17/2012
        >
        > I took a look.
        >
        > I'll stand by my statement.
        >
        > Your argument has serious flaws.
        >
        > It would be pointless discuss it.
        >
        > Hufpo modererators deleted my original response.
        >
        > (5)
        >
        > From: Robert Baty
        > Time/Date: 11:49 AM MT on 09/17/2012
        >
        > Eclipse33:
        >
        > There are no serious flaws in my argument as you propose.
        >
        > It would NOT be pointless to discuss it, and the subject
        > is open to discussion at my place.
        >
        > As you note, there are problems with the moderation, and
        > other matters, here that limits the discussion.
        >
        > One of the points to be made in such a discussion of your
        > problems with the argument, is to note with more specificity,
        > your problems with the argument.
        >
        > I can understand if you prefer to "run"!
        >
        > See you at my place, or not.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/
        >
        > -------------------------------------------
        > -------------------------------------------
        >
      • rlbaty50
        ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28702 ... Welcome! Glad to see you come around for a visit and some chat. The context for your
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 21, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28702
          "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:

          > I'm here, so go on.
          >
          >> THEN (D), the interpretation of
          >> the text by some is wrong.
          >
          > vs
          >
          >> "Your interpretation of the evidence
          >> is not empirical"
          >
          > Defend your position.

          Welcome! Glad to see you come around for a visit and some chat.

          The context for your invitation, though you are welcome to take up whatever interests you here, was my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I make for it; a simple argument and its related critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

          I will proceed with guiding you through the exercise in a separate thread I will post as soon as possible.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • eclipse_360
          Please include a definition of empirical evidence you feel is correct for our discussion. Thanks
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 22, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Please include a definition of "empirical evidence" you feel is correct for our discussion.

            Thanks


            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28702
            > "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@> wrote:
            >
            > > I'm here, so go on.
            > >
            > >> THEN (D), the interpretation of
            > >> the text by some is wrong.
            > >
            > > vs
            > >
            > >> "Your interpretation of the evidence
            > >> is not empirical"
            > >
            > > Defend your position.
            >
            > Welcome! Glad to see you come around for a visit and some chat.
            >
            > The context for your invitation, though you are welcome to take up whatever interests you here, was my "Goliath of GRAS" and the claims I make for it; a simple argument and its related critical thinking exercise with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
            >
            > I will proceed with guiding you through the exercise in a separate thread I will post as soon as possible.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty
            >
          • PIASAN@aol.com
            From: eclipse_360 Please include a definition of empirical evidence you feel is correct for our discussion. Pi: First, a welcome to the discussion(s), such
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 22, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              From: eclipse_360
              Please include a definition of "empirical evidence" you feel is correct for our
              discussion.
               
              Pi:
              First, a welcome to the discussion(s), such as they may be .....
               
              I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
               
              1)  Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.
              2)  The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago specifically:
                    a)  The absence of an identified flood strata.
                    b)  Failure to identify a source of the water.
                    c)  The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                    d)  A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
               
              IMO, physics is far more a problem for a literal Genesis than evolution ever could be.
               
               
            • eclipse_360
              Ok, Here is the prime reason evolutionist fail, and believe such nonsense. I asked for a definition for empirical evidence . Instead I get a response that is
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 23, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Ok, Here is the prime reason evolutionist fail, and believe such nonsense.

                I asked for a definition for "empirical evidence". Instead I get a response that is a clearly a atrawman.

                Please define "empirical evidence" or provide a link to you best definition.


                Thanks,

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: eclipse_360
                > Please include a definition of "empirical evidence" you feel is correct for our
                > discussion.
                >
                >
                > Pi:
                > First, a welcome to the discussion(s), such as they may be .....
                >
                > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                >
                > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.
                > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago specifically:
                > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                >
                > IMO, physics is far more a problem for a literal Genesis than evolution ever could be.
                >
              • PIASAN@aol.com
                Eclipse: Ok, Here is the prime reason evolutionist fail, and believe such nonsense. Pi: My rejection of a literal Genesis is based on direct observational
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 23, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Eclipse:
                  Ok,  Here is the prime reason evolutionist fail, and believe such nonsense. 
                   
                  Pi:
                  My rejection of a literal Genesis is based on direct observational evidence, as outlined below.
                   
                   
                   

                  Eclipse:
                  I asked for a definition for "empirical evidence". Instead I get a response that
                  is a clearly a atrawman.
                   
                   
                  Pi:
                  The definition provided by Robert works fine for me.  I have no interest in playing semantic games.  For that reason, I provided a couple examples of empirical evidence that cause me to reject Genesis literalism (YEC).
                   
                   
                  Eclipse:
                  Please define "empirical evidence" or provide a link to you best definition.
                   
                  Pi:
                  I'll simply use the one provided by Robert.  As I said, that one works fine for me:
                  "The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an observation or experiment."
                   
                  Eclipse
                  Thanks,
                   
                  Pi:
                  You're welcome.  Now, can we get to a substantive discussion of the relevant evidence?  Or do you prefer playing more games with semantics?
                   
                   
                   
                   


                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: eclipse_360
                  > Please include a definition of "empirical evidence" you feel is correct for
                  our
                  > discussion.
                  >
                  >
                  > Pi:
                  > First, a welcome to the discussion(s), such as they may be .....
                  >
                  > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                  >
                  > 1)  Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light
                  years.
                  > 2)  The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                  specifically:
                  >       a)  The absence of an identified flood strata.
                  >       b)  Failure to identify a source of the water.
                  >       c)  The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                  >       d)  A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                  >
                  > IMO, physics is far more a problem for a literal Genesis than evolution ever
                  could be.
                  >





                • rlbaty50
                  ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28733 ... I am hopeful that a substantive discussion may result, Pi. ...
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 23, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28733
                    PIASAN@... wrote to Eclipse33, in part:

                    > The definition (for "empirical") provided
                    > by Robert works fine for me.
                    >
                    >> "The word empirical denotes information
                    >> acquired by means of observation or
                    >> experimentation. [1] Empirical data is
                    >> data produced by an observation or experiment."
                    >>
                    >> Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
                    >
                    > Now, can we get to a substantive discussion of
                    > the relevant evidence?

                    I am hopeful that a substantive discussion may result, Pi.

                    I am also reminded of something Eclipse33 said in his introduction; which I think is a key element to how your discussion with him and his performance in the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise might play out:

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28707
                    "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:

                    > But to be clear,
                    > the Bible is the context to view evidence.

                    That's reminiscent of something I remember reading on Ken Ham's website (with parenthetical addition for clarity):

                    http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

                    > By definition, no apparent, perceived
                    > or claimed evidence in any field,
                    > including history and chronology,
                    > can be valid if it contradicts
                    > (Ken Ham's interpretation of)
                    > the scriptural record.
                    >
                    >> AIG Statement of Faith

                    Is that what "Eclipse33" is getting at; or does he have a different approach to the issues than Ken Ham?

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • eclipse_360
                    ... There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory is
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 23, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                      > >
                      > > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.

                      There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory is that the universe expanded faster than light. So empirical evidence contradicts your understanding of your observation.

                      > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                      > specifically:
                      > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.

                      Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                      Again empirical data contradicts your belief.

                      > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.

                      Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is not evidence that it had no source.

                      > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.

                      Same position as b.

                      > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.

                      Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                    • PIASAN@aol.com
                      ... years. Eclipse: There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 23, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Pi (previously):
                        > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                        > >
                        > > 1)  Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light 
                        years.
                         
                        Eclipse:
                        There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in
                        temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem.  The most accepted theory
                        is that the universe expanded faster than light.  So empirical evidence
                        contradicts your understanding of your observation.
                         
                        Pi:
                        You'll have to do a lot better than that.
                         
                        First, I've said nothing at all about the Big Bang.  This is because at 13.7 billion years ago, it's much farther back than I need to go to demonstrate YEC is wrong.
                         
                        However, since you have chosen to bring up the "inflationary period" I will point out the same "most accepted theory" says that period began around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10e-36) of a second after the Big Bang and ended at about 10e-32 seconds (about ten billionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.  The universe expanded to about one meter across. 
                         
                        That doesn't help you much when empirical evidence confirms the speed of light was within 0.001% the presently observed value when it left galaxies some 12 billion light years from Earth.  (Paul Davies, et. al., Nature, August, 2002).  YEC made a lot of noise about that one, but I see it as 0.001% down and only about 199,999,999.999% to go.
                         
                        Then we have the galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye at about 2.4 million light years.  This galaxy is blue shifted indicating it is moving toward us.
                         
                        Finally, we have supernova Sn1987a, the most distant object ever measured by direct trigonometry at a mere 167,000+ light years.... right next door by astronomical standards.  The decay curve of Co-56 in the spectra of that event is consistent with that observed on Earth today showing the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what we see today.
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                         

                        Pi (previously):
                        > > 2)  The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                        > specifically:
                        > >       a)  The absence of an identified flood strata.
                        Eclipse:
                        Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils
                        have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from
                        exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                        Again empirical data contradicts your belief.
                         
                        Pi:
                        Once again, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
                         
                        The empirical evidence confirms these fossils are the result of multiple events, not a single global flood.  Geologists are pretty good at identifying flood strata.  No one has ever confirmed a layer resulting from a single flood event.
                         
                         
                         

                        Pi (previously):
                        > >       b)  Failure to identify a source of the water.
                        Eclipse:
                        Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is
                        not evidence that it had no source.
                         
                        Pi:
                        Extraordinary claims (like a global flood) require extraordinary evidence.  Expecting someone to provide a source of water for a flood hardly rises to the level of an extraordinary request.
                         
                        That's OK... all of the creation "science" proposals suffer from the same (lethal) flaw.  Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the surface of the planet.  In short, a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.
                         
                         
                         

                        Pi (previously):
                        > >       c)  The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                        Eclipse:
                        Same position as b.
                         
                        Pi:
                        Likewise.

                         
                         
                         
                        Pi (previously)
                        > >       d)  A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                        Eclipse:
                        Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                        Pi:
                        We could begin with hull flexure.  I suggest we hold off on these issues until after it is established there was, in fact, a global flood.  Without the flood, an Ark is not needed.

                         
                      • Todd Greene
                        I daresay that any person who seriously believes that just our Milky Way galaxy alone is smaller than 12,000 light years across has no business even discussing
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I daresay that any person who seriously believes that just our Milky Way galaxy alone is smaller than 12,000 light years across has no business even discussing science, because by making such a statement they have thereby proved that they are horribly scientifically illiterate. (And then, of course, besides just our own Milky Way galaxy there are the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of other galaxies in the universe beyond the Milky Way.) Clearly, "eclipse_360", you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

                          - Todd Greene


                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:
                          > > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                          > > >
                          > > > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.
                          >
                          > There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory is that the universe expanded faster than light. So empirical evidence contradicts your understanding of your observation.
                          >
                          > > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                          > > specifically:
                          > > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                          >
                          > Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                          > Again empirical data contradicts your belief.
                          >
                          > > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                          >
                          > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is not evidence that it had no source.
                          >
                          > > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                          >
                          > Same position as b.
                          >
                          > > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                          >
                          > Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                          >
                        • eclipse_360
                          ... The inflation theory has no empirical evidence to support it. In fact , it only presents more problems. So clearly you are not making a decision based on
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Pi:
                            > You'll have to do a lot better than that.
                            >

                            The inflation theory has no empirical evidence to support it. In fact , it only presents more problems. So clearly you are not making a decision based on evidence.


                            > First, I've said nothing at all about the Big Bang. This is because at 13.7 billion years ago, it's much farther back than I need to go to demonstrate YEC is wrong.

                            Yet another problem faced by evolutionist. Your disconnected theories require a lot of faith that they actually occurred and provide a consistent empirical sequence of events.


                            > However, since you have chosen to bring up the "inflationary period" I will point out the same "most accepted theory" says that period began around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10e-36) of a second after the Big Bang and ended at about 10e-32 seconds (about ten billionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. The universe expanded to about one meter across.
                            > Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html#c5

                            Again, there is no evidence to support inflation and only present more problems.

                            >
                            > That doesn't help you much when empirical evidence confirms the speed of light was within 0.001% the presently observed value when it left galaxies some 12 billion light years from Earth. (Paul Davies, et. al., Nature, August, 2002). YEC made a lot of noise about that one, but I see it as 0.001% down and only about 199,999,999.999% to go.
                            >
                            The horizon problem contradicts that evidence so it is not empirical.

                            > Then we have the galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye at about 2.4 million light years. This galaxy is blue shifted indicating it is moving toward us.
                            >
                            So, Is the consistent with the big bang?

                            > Finally, we have supernova Sn1987a, the most distant object ever measured by direct trigonometry at a mere 167,000+ light years.... right next door by astronomical standards. The decay curve of Co-56 in the spectra of that event is consistent with that observed on Earth today showing the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what we see today.
                            > Reference: http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
                            >
                            Again, there is no
                            >
                            >
                            > Pi (previously):
                            > > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                            > > specifically:
                            > > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                            >

                            >
                            > Pi:
                            > Once again, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
                            >
                            > The empirical evidence confirms these fossils are the result of multiple events, not a single global flood. Geologists are pretty good at identifying flood strata. No one has ever confirmed a layer resulting from a single flood event.

                            No, strata dating provides dates that suggest they may have been separate flood events. That same dating makes soft tissue possible after millions of years. It also allows for wood with cellulose to survive millions of years. So, empirical evidence suggest that the dates do not reflect a wall clock unit of time. In outher words the dates are wrong for reflecting the true age.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Pi (previously):
                            > > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                            >
                            > Eclipse:
                            > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is
                            > not evidence that it had no source.
                            >
                            > Pi:
                            > Extraordinary claims (like a global flood) require extraordinary evidence. Expecting someone to provide a source of water for a flood hardly rises to the level of an extraordinary request.

                            Another fatal mistake made by evolutionist, our evidence is that same. Meaning evolutionary world view thinks that plate tectonics can raise mountain over millions of years. (against empirical evidence) Flood theory says the same type of motion can raise mountains in hours. Same evidence difference in conclusions. Evolutionary view only presents more problem.


                            >
                            > That's OK... all of the creation "science" proposals suffer from the same (lethal) flaw. Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the surface of the planet. In short, a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.
                            >

                            Ah, which brings us back to the ark and the genetic damage from the event. Evolutionist view that same evidence as proof of common descent. That will fall also just like junk DNA did.

                            Evidence is against evolution is abundant.

                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Pi (previously):
                            > > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                            >
                            > Eclipse:
                            > Same position as b.
                            >
                            > Pi:
                            > Likewise.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Pi (previously)
                            > > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                            >
                            > Eclipse:
                            > Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                            >
                            > Pi:
                            > We could begin with hull flexure. I suggest we hold off on these issues until after it is established there was, in fact, a global flood. Without the flood, an Ark is not needed.
                            >
                          • rlbaty50
                            ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28756 ... I think, Eclipse33, that you take the same or similar position of Goldsmith, which may be
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28756
                              "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote in part & conclusion:

                              > Evidence against evolution is abundant.

                              I think, Eclipse33, that you take the same or similar position of Goldsmith, which may be acceptable.

                              That is, "evidence" is neutral on the matter and must be interpreted; like the Word of God has to be interpreted and may be interpreted with varying degrees of accuracy.

                              In that context, and in conjunction with and the context of your problems with the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise, I note the following previous comments you have made which may help further in understanding your problems with the issues here:

                              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Eclipse33?page=1&action=comments&display=all&sort=newest

                              (Just a sampling!)

                              (1)

                              September 4, 2012 at 14:39:33

                              > "(T)he evidence should be viewed
                              > in the Biblical context not an
                              > evolutionary context..."

                              (2)

                              January 22, 2012 at 16:57:07

                              > "I completely understand evolution."

                              (3)

                              February 4, 2012 at 14:10:59

                              > "The Bible is not a science book.
                              >
                              > It is the context to view scientific
                              > evidence.
                              >
                              > If the evidence seems to contradict
                              > the Bible then it is the understanding
                              > of the evidence that is wrong, not the
                              > Bible.
                              >
                              > I have explained this to you many times,
                              > soon I hope it will sink in with you."

                              (4)

                              May 12, 2012 at 20:19:51

                              > I agree the Bible is NOT a scientific
                              > document, but the Bible is still
                              > without error.
                              >
                              > While some choose to interpret scientific
                              > data in a manor that gives the illusion
                              > of an error.
                              >
                              > Those views fall with time and the Bible
                              > still remains true, without changing.
                              >
                              > Evolution is failing, and will most
                              > likely fall completely this decade.
                              >
                              > The Bible will still be error free."

                              (5)

                              May 15, 2012 at 23:13:57

                              > "You seem to be rambling.
                              > My beliefs are certainly Bible based.
                              >
                              > I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
                              >
                              > I have studied for a long time.
                              >
                              > A few rules:
                              >
                              > The Bible is true.
                              >
                              > If something is making it appear false
                              > then you are interpreting it incorrectly.
                              >
                              > The Bible can not contradict itself.
                              >
                              > If is appears to contradict, then your
                              > understanding is wrong."

                              I think that is further confirmation that my representation of the fundamental position taken by typical young-earth creation-science promoters and which goes to explain why it is that they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                              Here it is again for ready reference:

                              > We, young-earth creation-science promoters,
                              > have our interpretation of the Bible as to
                              > the age of stuff, and that trumps any other
                              > evidence and its interpretation to the
                              > contrary.
                              >
                              >> Affirm: Eclipse33, Ken Ham, et al!

                              However, I do appreciate and look forward to the scientific discussions between Eclipse33, Pi, Todd, et al.

                              Also, this observation should not prevent Eclipse33 from pursuing and successfully completing the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise as framed in a separate subject thread here.

                              Sincerely,
                              Robert Baty
                            • eclipse_360
                              Once again you confirm my position. In a neutural view of the Gras both of my D options are valid. If I was biased, I would reject your D. I do not. I hope
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Once again you confirm my position.

                                In a neutural view of the "Gras" both of my D options are valid. If I was biased, I would reject your D. I do not. I hope you understand that BOTH are valid options. The two Ds also make them different.


                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28756
                                > "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@> wrote in part & conclusion:
                                >
                                > > Evidence against evolution is abundant.
                                >
                                > I think, Eclipse33, that you take the same or similar position of Goldsmith, which may be acceptable.
                                >
                                > That is, "evidence" is neutral on the matter and must be interpreted; like the Word of God has to be interpreted and may be interpreted with varying degrees of accuracy.
                                >
                                > In that context, and in conjunction with and the context of your problems with the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise, I note the following previous comments you have made which may help further in understanding your problems with the issues here:
                                >
                                > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Eclipse33?page=1&action=comments&display=all&sort=newest
                                >
                                > (Just a sampling!)
                                >
                                > (1)
                                >
                                > September 4, 2012 at 14:39:33
                                >
                                > > "(T)he evidence should be viewed
                                > > in the Biblical context not an
                                > > evolutionary context..."
                                >
                                > (2)
                                >
                                > January 22, 2012 at 16:57:07
                                >
                                > > "I completely understand evolution."
                                >
                                > (3)
                                >
                                > February 4, 2012 at 14:10:59
                                >
                                > > "The Bible is not a science book.
                                > >
                                > > It is the context to view scientific
                                > > evidence.
                                > >
                                > > If the evidence seems to contradict
                                > > the Bible then it is the understanding
                                > > of the evidence that is wrong, not the
                                > > Bible.
                                > >
                                > > I have explained this to you many times,
                                > > soon I hope it will sink in with you."
                                >
                                > (4)
                                >
                                > May 12, 2012 at 20:19:51
                                >
                                > > I agree the Bible is NOT a scientific
                                > > document, but the Bible is still
                                > > without error.
                                > >
                                > > While some choose to interpret scientific
                                > > data in a manor that gives the illusion
                                > > of an error.
                                > >
                                > > Those views fall with time and the Bible
                                > > still remains true, without changing.
                                > >
                                > > Evolution is failing, and will most
                                > > likely fall completely this decade.
                                > >
                                > > The Bible will still be error free."
                                >
                                > (5)
                                >
                                > May 15, 2012 at 23:13:57
                                >
                                > > "You seem to be rambling.
                                > > My beliefs are certainly Bible based.
                                > >
                                > > I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
                                > >
                                > > I have studied for a long time.
                                > >
                                > > A few rules:
                                > >
                                > > The Bible is true.
                                > >
                                > > If something is making it appear false
                                > > then you are interpreting it incorrectly.
                                > >
                                > > The Bible can not contradict itself.
                                > >
                                > > If is appears to contradict, then your
                                > > understanding is wrong."
                                >
                                > I think that is further confirmation that my representation of the fundamental position taken by typical young-earth creation-science promoters and which goes to explain why it is that they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
                                >
                                > Here it is again for ready reference:
                                >
                                > > We, young-earth creation-science promoters,
                                > > have our interpretation of the Bible as to
                                > > the age of stuff, and that trumps any other
                                > > evidence and its interpretation to the
                                > > contrary.
                                > >
                                > >> Affirm: Eclipse33, Ken Ham, et al!
                                >
                                > However, I do appreciate and look forward to the scientific discussions between Eclipse33, Pi, Todd, et al.
                                >
                                > Also, this observation should not prevent Eclipse33 from pursuing and successfully completing the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise as framed in a separate subject thread here.
                                >
                                > Sincerely,
                                > Robert Baty
                                >
                              • rlbaty50
                                ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28765 ... Eclipse33: I understand you are evading dealing with your problems (blundering) regarding
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28765
                                  "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:

                                  > Once again you confirm my position.
                                  >
                                  > In a neutral view of the "GRAS" both
                                  > of my D options are valid.
                                  >
                                  > If I was biased, I would reject your D.
                                  >
                                  > I do not.
                                  >
                                  > I hope you understand that BOTH are valid
                                  > options. The two Ds also make them different.

                                  Eclipse33:

                                  I understand you are evading dealing with your problems (blundering) regarding Step #2 of the exercise and continue to chase rabbits having to do with Step #3.

                                  We will get to your interests in Step #3 if and when you can successfully complete Step #2.

                                  As I have said, I am quite familiar with your rejection of the truth of (C).

                                  That, however, is not relevant to Step #2.

                                  That you blunder so over a simple, true, hypothetical statement is a further indication as to why such young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                                  Are you going to return to the subject thread set aside for your participation in the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and deal openly and honestly with the Step #2 issue?

                                  I hope so! You are close to completing Step #2 successfully, despite the on-going blundering, and I do hope you can complete Step #2 so that we can deal with the more substantive Step #3.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Robert Baty

                                  ------The "Goliath of GRAS" Argument & Stipulations-----------

                                  MAJOR PREMISE:

                                  > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
                                  > everything began over a period
                                  > of six days, and
                                  >
                                  > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
                                  > interpreted by some to mean it
                                  > was six 24-hour days occurring
                                  > a few thousand years ago, and
                                  >
                                  > IF (C); there is empirical
                                  > evidence that some thing is
                                  > actually much older than a
                                  > few thousand years,
                                  >
                                  > THEN (D); the interpretation of
                                  > the text by some is wrong.

                                  MINOR PREMISE:

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

                                  CONCLUSION:

                                  > (D); The interpretation of the
                                  > text by some is wrong.

                                  Basic Stipulations:

                                  > "God's word" - communication from
                                  > God in words that are not wrong.

                                  > "Interpreted by some" - what some
                                  > folks think it means and what thinking
                                  > might be wrong.

                                  > "Empirical evidence that some thing is
                                  > actually much older than a few thousand
                                  > years..." - some thing is more than a
                                  > few thousand years old and we can so
                                  > determine from evidence and its
                                  > interpretation independent of "the text".

                                  > "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                • eclipse_360
                                  How is your babeling relevant? Is there a specific claim you want to make?
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    How is your babeling relevant? Is there a specific claim you want to make?

                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > I daresay that any person who seriously believes that just our Milky Way galaxy alone is smaller than 12,000 light years across has no business even discussing science, because by making such a statement they have thereby proved that they are horribly scientifically illiterate. (And then, of course, besides just our own Milky Way galaxy there are the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of other galaxies in the universe beyond the Milky Way.) Clearly, "eclipse_360", you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
                                    >
                                    > - Todd Greene
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@> wrote:
                                    > > > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.
                                    > >
                                    > > There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory is that the universe expanded faster than light. So empirical evidence contradicts your understanding of your observation.
                                    > >
                                    > > > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                                    > > > specifically:
                                    > > > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                                    > >
                                    > > Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                                    > > Again empirical data contradicts your belief.
                                    > >
                                    > > > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                                    > >
                                    > > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is not evidence that it had no source.
                                    > >
                                    > > > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                                    > >
                                    > > Same position as b.
                                    > >
                                    > > > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                                    > >
                                    > > Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • eclipse_360
                                    I ve never heard this before Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the surface of the planet. Please explain.
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I've never heard this before " Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the surface of the planet."

                                      Please explain.



                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pi (previously):
                                      > > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light
                                      > years.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Eclipse:
                                      > There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in
                                      > temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory
                                      > is that the universe expanded faster than light. So empirical evidence
                                      > contradicts your understanding of your observation.
                                      >
                                      > Pi:
                                      > You'll have to do a lot better than that.
                                      >
                                      > First, I've said nothing at all about the Big Bang. This is because at 13.7 billion years ago, it's much farther back than I need to go to demonstrate YEC is wrong.
                                      >
                                      > However, since you have chosen to bring up the "inflationary period" I will point out the same "most accepted theory" says that period began around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10e-36) of a second after the Big Bang and ended at about 10e-32 seconds (about ten billionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. The universe expanded to about one meter across.
                                      > Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html#c5
                                      >
                                      > That doesn't help you much when empirical evidence confirms the speed of light was within 0.001% the presently observed value when it left galaxies some 12 billion light years from Earth. (Paul Davies, et. al., Nature, August, 2002). YEC made a lot of noise about that one, but I see it as 0.001% down and only about 199,999,999.999% to go.
                                      >
                                      > Then we have the galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye at about 2.4 million light years. This galaxy is blue shifted indicating it is moving toward us.
                                      >
                                      > Finally, we have supernova Sn1987a, the most distant object ever measured by direct trigonometry at a mere 167,000+ light years.... right next door by astronomical standards. The decay curve of Co-56 in the spectra of that event is consistent with that observed on Earth today showing the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what we see today.
                                      > Reference: http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pi (previously):
                                      > > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                                      > > specifically:
                                      > > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                                      >
                                      > Eclipse:
                                      > Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils
                                      > have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from
                                      > exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                                      > Again empirical data contradicts your belief.
                                      >
                                      > Pi:
                                      > Once again, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
                                      >
                                      > The empirical evidence confirms these fossils are the result of multiple events, not a single global flood. Geologists are pretty good at identifying flood strata. No one has ever confirmed a layer resulting from a single flood event.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pi (previously):
                                      > > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                                      >
                                      > Eclipse:
                                      > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is
                                      > not evidence that it had no source.
                                      >
                                      > Pi:
                                      > Extraordinary claims (like a global flood) require extraordinary evidence. Expecting someone to provide a source of water for a flood hardly rises to the level of an extraordinary request.
                                      >
                                      > That's OK... all of the creation "science" proposals suffer from the same (lethal) flaw. Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the surface of the planet. In short, a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pi (previously):
                                      > > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                                      >
                                      > Eclipse:
                                      > Same position as b.
                                      >
                                      > Pi:
                                      > Likewise.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pi (previously)
                                      > > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                                      >
                                      > Eclipse:
                                      > Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                                      >
                                      > Pi:
                                      > We could begin with hull flexure. I suggest we hold off on these issues until after it is established there was, in fact, a global flood. Without the flood, an Ark is not needed.
                                      >
                                    • rlbaty50
                                      Eclipse33, I saw where you went deleted your message and I have now deleted mine (I was in the process of deleting both of them). I am reposting below the two
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Eclipse33,

                                        I saw where you went deleted your message and I have now deleted mine (I was in the process of deleting both of them).

                                        I am reposting below the two deleted messages without the references to that name dropped in by accident.

                                        (1)

                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28768
                                        "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:

                                        Robert Baty:

                                        > I understand you are evading dealing
                                        > with your problems (blundering) regarding
                                        > Step #2 of the exercise and continue to
                                        > chase rabbits having to do with Step #3.
                                        >
                                        > We will get to your interests in Step #3
                                        > if and when you can successfully complete
                                        > Step #2.
                                        >
                                        > As I have said, I am quite familiar with
                                        > your rejection of the truth of (A).
                                        >
                                        > That, however, is not relevant to Step #2.
                                        >
                                        > That you blunder so over a simple, true,
                                        > hypothetical statement is a further
                                        > indication as to why such young-earth
                                        > creation-science promoters have failed in
                                        > their scientific pretensions and legal
                                        > challenges.
                                        >
                                        > Are you going to return to the subject thread
                                        > set aside for your participation in the
                                        > "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and deal openly
                                        > and honestly with the Step #2 issue?
                                        >
                                        > I hope so! You are close to completing Step
                                        > #2 successfully, despite the on-going
                                        > blundering, and I do hope you can complete
                                        > Step #2 so that we can deal with the more
                                        > substantive Step #3.
                                        >
                                        > Sincerely,
                                        > Xxxx Xxxx

                                        Again, your personnal view appears.

                                        (2)

                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28771
                                        "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28768
                                        "eclipse_360" wrote in response to my posting to him:

                                        > Sincerely,
                                        > Xxxx Xxxx
                                        >
                                        > Again, your personal view appears.

                                        What's with the "Xxxx Xxxx" reference???

                                        My positions on the "Goliath of GRAS"/young-earth creation-science issues have
                                        never been hidden.

                                        Are you going to return to the subject thread set up for you to further pursue a
                                        completion of the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and your present problems over Step
                                        #2?

                                        Can you deal openly and honestly with your problems in rejecting, to date, the
                                        truth of the major premise, based on the stipulations and the force and effect
                                        of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning?

                                        Will you?

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Robert Baty

                                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28767
                                        "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote, in part:

                                        Eclipse33:

                                        I understand you are evading dealing with your problems (blundering) regarding
                                        Step #2 of the exercise and continue to chase rabbits having to do with Step #3.

                                        We will get to your interests in Step #3 if and when you can successfully
                                        complete Step #2.

                                        As I have said, I am quite familiar with your rejection of the truth of (C).

                                        That, however, is not relevant to Step #2.

                                        That you blunder so over a simple, true, hypothetical statement is a further
                                        indication as to why such young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in
                                        their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                                        Are you going to return to the subject thread set aside for your participation
                                        in the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and deal openly and honestly with the Step #2
                                        issue?

                                        I hope so! You are close to completing Step #2 successfully, despite the
                                        on-going blundering, and I do hope you can complete Step #2 so that we can deal
                                        with the more substantive Step #3.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Robert Baty

                                        ------The "Goliath of GRAS" Argument & Stipulations-----------

                                        MAJOR PREMISE:

                                        > IF (A); God's word (the text) says
                                        > everything began over a period
                                        > of six days, and
                                        >
                                        > IF (B); God's word (the text) is
                                        > interpreted by some to mean it
                                        > was six 24-hour days occurring
                                        > a few thousand years ago, and
                                        >
                                        > IF (C); there is empirical
                                        > evidence that some thing is
                                        > actually much older than a
                                        > few thousand years,
                                        >
                                        > THEN (D); the interpretation of
                                        > the text by some is wrong.

                                        MINOR PREMISE:

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

                                        CONCLUSION:

                                        > (D); The interpretation of the
                                        > text by some is wrong.

                                        Basic Stipulations:

                                        > "God's word" - communication from
                                        > God in words that are not wrong.

                                        > "Interpreted by some" - what some
                                        > folks think it means and what thinking
                                        > might be wrong.

                                        > "Empirical evidence that some thing is
                                        > actually much older than a few thousand
                                        > years..." - some thing is more than a
                                        > few thousand years old and we can so
                                        > determine from evidence and its
                                        > interpretation independent of "the text".

                                        > "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

                                        ----------------------------------------------
                                        ----------------------------------------------
                                      • eclipse_360
                                        Lets reboot this thread: Goliath of GRAS which is: The major premise of the Goliath of GRAS , proposes a world in which three things are true; (A), (B), &
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Lets reboot this thread:

                                          "Goliath of GRAS" which is:
                                          The major premise of the "Goliath of GRAS", proposes a world in which three things are true;
                                          (A), (B), & (C).

                                          If so, the major premise proposes a conclusion that can be drawn from the existence of such three things; that is (D) which must also be true or it becomes unsound.


                                          { ( A&b&c) then q} = { p then q }

                                          If q is true = Modus Ponens
                                          If q is false = Modus Tollens



                                          Given the argument:
                                          { IF (A); God's word (the text) says everything began over a period of six days, and
                                          IF (B); God's word (the text) is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and
                                          IF (C); there is empirical evidence that something is actually much older than a few thousand years, }

                                          Problem:
                                          D1. "The interpretation of the text is wrong" (Which makes B, therefore p, False. Because B is a interpretation that is now false)
                                          or
                                          D2. "The interpretation that the evidence is empirical is wrong"
                                          Both are valid and true, and keep "Goliath of GRAS" as being logically valid.

                                          World views collide; Your world view will determine which of the Ds is selected as true.

                                          Test of C:
                                          Since empirical was given as a condition for C. It can be tested:
                                          If there is other empirical evidence that contradicts C then C is not empirical and is false.
                                          Given the argument, Then D2 is the only possible choice.

                                          If there is no empirical evidence that contradicts C. Then C can be viewed as empirical and the interpretation of the text is wrong.
                                          Given the argument. However, D1 interpretation of the text being false makes interpretation of the text in B false making all of p false.

                                          What am I missing?




                                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/bill-nye-creationists-creation-museum-ray-comfort_n_1849375.html
                                          >
                                          > (1)
                                          >
                                          > From: Eclipse33
                                          > Date/Time: Friday, September 14, 2012 @ 4:26 PM MT
                                          >
                                          > Your premise is wrong.
                                          >
                                          > Since the word of God is without error:
                                          >
                                          > (A)
                                          >
                                          > God's word (the text) says everything
                                          > began over a period of six days, and
                                          >
                                          > (B)
                                          >
                                          > God's word is interpreted by some to mean
                                          > it was six 24-hour days occurring a few
                                          > thousand years ago, and
                                          >
                                          > (C)
                                          >
                                          > there is empirical evidence that some
                                          > thing is actually much older than a
                                          > few thousand years.
                                          >
                                          > Conclusion:
                                          >
                                          > Your interpretation of the evidence is
                                          > not empirical.
                                          >
                                          > Example:
                                          >
                                          > A Radiometric age, is not verifiable by
                                          > observation. only the test can be observed.
                                          > There is no empirical evidence that any
                                          > sample meets the required minimum age to
                                          > be radiometrically dated.
                                          >
                                          > (2)
                                          >
                                          > From: Robert Baty
                                          > Date/Time: Friday, September 14, 2012 @ 4:47 PM MT
                                          >
                                          > To Eclipse33,
                                          >
                                          > My "Goliath of GRAS" argument has two premises;
                                          > a major premise and a minor premise.
                                          >
                                          > The truth claims made for the major and minor
                                          > premises don't matter if the argument is not
                                          > so constructed that if the premises are true
                                          > the conclusion will follow as true therefrom
                                          > (e.g., is logically valid).
                                          >
                                          > Do you, Eclipse, accept the proposition that
                                          > the argument is logically valid.
                                          >
                                          > If so, the truth of the minor premise doesn't
                                          > matter if the major premise, given the stipulations
                                          > and the force and effect of sound, biblical,
                                          > common-sense reasoning, is not true.
                                          >
                                          > Do you, Eclipse, accept the truth of the major
                                          > premise?
                                          >
                                          > If so, then we can deal with your problem with
                                          > the minor premise, but I think you've already
                                          > tipped your hand on that.
                                          >
                                          > Also, I would suggest a better venue for discussing
                                          > the argument and having your take part in the
                                          > "Goliath of GRAS" critical thinking exercise would
                                          > be at my place if you care to visit and engage the
                                          > matter there.
                                          >
                                          > I'll turn a light on for you.
                                          >
                                          > Here's the address:
                                          >
                                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/
                                          >
                                          > See you there, or not!
                                          >
                                          > Sincerely,
                                          > Robert Baty
                                          >
                                        • PIASAN@aol.com
                                          ... Eclipse: The inflation theory has no empirical evidence to support it. In fact , it only presents more problems. So clearly you are not making a decision
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 24, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Pi:
                                            > You'll have to do a lot better than that.

                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            The inflation theory has no empirical evidence to support it.  In fact , it only
                                            presents more problems.  So clearly you are not making a decision based on
                                            evidence.
                                             
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Clearly, you have had some success in raising straw man arguments.  I'm putting a stop to that right now.
                                             
                                            Both the inflation theory and the Big Bang are irrelevant to my rejection of Genesis literalism.  That rejection is based on our ability to see objects far beyond what we should be able to observe in a universe only 6000 years old.
                                             
                                            It's really very simple.  Time = distance / velocity.  We know the distances and we know the velocity.  Calculating the time is easy. YEC have tried, with no success attacking the evidence of all three factors.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             

                                            Pi (previously)
                                            > First, I've said nothing at all about the Big Bang.  This is because at 13.7
                                            billion years ago, it's much farther back than I need to go to demonstrate YEC
                                            is wrong.
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Yet another problem faced by evolutionist. Your disconnected theories require a
                                            lot of faith that they actually occurred and provide a consistent empirical
                                            sequence of events.
                                             
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Just present any empirical evidence you have showing how we can observe objects billions of light years from Earth in a universe only a few thousand years old.
                                             
                                             


                                            Pi (previously)
                                            > However, since you have chosen to bring up the "inflationary period" I will
                                            point out the same "most accepted theory" says that period began around a
                                            trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth (10e-36) of a second after the Big
                                            Bang and ended at about 10e-32 seconds (about ten billionths of a trillionth of
                                            a trillionth of a second.  The universe expanded to about one meter across. 
                                            > Reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html#c5
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Again, there is no evidence to support inflation and only present more problems.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Irrelevant to our ability to observe objects more than 6000 light years from Earth.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             


                                            > Pi (previously):
                                            > That doesn't help you much when empirical evidence confirms the speed of light
                                            was within 0.001% the presently observed value when it left galaxies some 12
                                            billion light years from Earth.  (Paul Davies, et. al., Nature, August, 2002). 
                                            YEC made a lot of noise about that one, but I see it as 0.001% down and only
                                            about 199,999,999.999% to go.
                                            >
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            The horizon problem contradicts that evidence so it is not empirical.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            In what way does the horizon problem show the distance to the objects observed by Davies was not 12 billion light years?  In what way does the horizon problem refute Davies finding that the speed of light when it left those galaxies was within 0.001% of the current measured value?  How does the horizon problem keep the light from those galaxies from needing 12 billion years to reach Earth?  Please provide references.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                            Pi (previously):
                                            > Then we have the galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the
                                            unaided eye at about 2.4 million light years.  This galaxy is blue shifted
                                            indicating it is moving toward us.
                                            >
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            So, Is the consistent with the big bang?
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            The big bang is irrelevant.  It is consistent with a universe far older than 6,000 (or so) years.
                                             
                                             
                                             


                                            > Finally, we have supernova Sn1987a, the most distant object ever measured by
                                            direct trigonometry at a mere 167,000+ light years.... right next door by
                                            astronomical standards.  The decay curve of Co-56 in the spectra of that event
                                            is consistent with that observed on Earth today showing the speed of light at
                                            the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what we see today.
                                            > Reference: http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
                                            >
                                            Again, there is no

                                            >
                                            > Pi (previously):
                                            > > > 2)  The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago

                                            > > specifically:
                                            > > >       a)  The absence of an identified flood strata.
                                            >

                                            >
                                            > Pi:
                                            > Once again, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
                                            >
                                            > The empirical evidence confirms these fossils are the result of multiple
                                            events, not a single global flood.  Geologists are pretty good at identifying
                                            flood strata.  No one has ever confirmed a layer resulting from a single flood
                                            event.
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            No, strata dating provides dates that suggest they may have been separate flood
                                            events.  That same dating makes soft tissue possible after millions of years. It
                                            also allows for wood with cellulose to survive millions of years. So, empirical
                                            evidence suggest that the dates do not reflect a wall clock unit of time. In
                                            outher words the dates are wrong for reflecting the true age.
                                            >
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Straw man.  I've said nothing about dating strata.  What I said is that geologists are pretty good at identifying strata that has resulted from a flood and no one has ever confirmed a layer resulting from a single global flood.... regardless of the alleged date.
                                             
                                            Even creationists are unable to tell which strata are pre-flood; result from the flood; and post-flood.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             

                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Pi (previously):
                                            > > >       b)  Failure to identify a source of the water.
                                            >
                                            > Eclipse:
                                            > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is

                                            > not evidence that it had no source.
                                            >
                                            > Pi:
                                            > Extraordinary claims (like a global flood) require extraordinary evidence. 
                                            Expecting someone to provide a source of water for a flood hardly rises to the
                                            level of an extraordinary request.
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Another fatal mistake made by evolutionist, our evidence is that same.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            You have presented no evidence.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Meaning
                                            evolutionary world view thinks that plate tectonics can raise mountain over
                                            millions of years. (against empirical evidence)
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            You mean like actual measurements of the motion?  Besides, in what way does this resolve your failure to meet the minimal requirement for supporting a flood story ..... a source of water?
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                             Flood theory says the same type
                                            of motion can raise mountains in hours.  Same evidence difference in
                                            conclusions.  Evolutionary view only presents more problem.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Still no water source?

                                             
                                             

                                            >Pi (previously): 
                                            > That's OK... all of the creation "science" proposals suffer from the same
                                            (lethal) flaw.  Each of them would release so much energy it would sterilize the
                                            surface of the planet.  In short, a flood would have been the least of Noah's
                                            problems.
                                            >
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Ah, which brings us back to the ark and the genetic damage from the event.
                                            Evolutionist view that same evidence as proof of common descent. That will fall
                                            also just like junk DNA did.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Another irrelevant straw man.  In what way does this address the fact that all of the creation science proposals would destroy all life on the surface of the planet?
                                             
                                             
                                            Eclipse:
                                            Evidence is against evolution is abundant.
                                             
                                            Pi:
                                            Irrelevant.  I'm discussing my reasons for rejecting a literal Genesis.

                                          • rlbaty50
                                            Pi, Eclipse33 has posted 7 short messages to the Huffington Post today regarding his complaints against evolution:
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 25, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Pi,

                                              Eclipse33 has posted 7 short messages to the Huffington Post today regarding his complaints against evolution:

                                              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Eclipse33?action=comments

                                              Eclipse33 earlier indicated he may not be able to handle this venue and the issues he has sought to address here.

                                              His return to the Huffington Post may be an indication that he's not going to be trying to carry his side of the conversations he started here.

                                              We will see.

                                              Sincerely,
                                              Robert Baty
                                            • PIASAN@aol.com
                                              From: rlbaty50 Pi, Eclipse33 has posted 7 short messages to the Huffington Post today regarding his complaints against evolution:
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 25, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                From: rlbaty50
                                                Pi,

                                                Eclipse33 has posted 7 short messages to the Huffington Post today regarding his
                                                complaints against evolution:

                                                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Eclipse33?action=comments

                                                Eclipse33 earlier indicated he may not be able to handle this venue and the
                                                issues he has sought to address here.
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                Pi:
                                                I'm not surprised.  It was quickly apparent he was in over his head.
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                              • Todd Greene
                                                Why YECs have no business trying to discuss science Based on discussion here, I took a look at the article about the ancient wood discovered in the volcanic
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 27, 2012
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Why YECs have no business trying to discuss science
                                                  Based on discussion here, I took a look at the article about the ancient wood discovered in the volcanic vent, and noticed the typically nonsensical rhetoric of a young earth creationist being spouted by "Eclipse33" there. In response to one of his posts I made a point about his rhetoric based on part of the rhetoric by "Eclipse33" here in the "Maury_and_Baty" group. "Eclipse33" tried using some back-pedaling rhetoric to soften the blow. But, hey, I'm used to young earth creationists trying to backpeddle from the inane silliness of the rhetoric they use trying to justify their false beliefs, so I was having none of it.

                                                  There's part of my last post I had to edit out to fit within the post size limit. But I'll reproduce that edited out paragraph here: "You know you cannot actually deal with the extensive body of scientific facts such as this which prove that young earth creationist belief is utter rubbish, so you just ignore it and try in your rhetoric to pretend it doesn't exist by using red herring tactics such as trying to criticize some detailed nuance of Big Bang cosmology yet completely ignoring the fact that that's all irrelevant to your young earth creationist beliefs in particular. We can ignore the Big Bang. Indeed, we can ignore the entire rest of the universe and only look at just our own Milky Way galaxy itself. In astronomy we observe stars and globular clusters right in our own galaxy from tens of thousands of years ago, which proves that the religious belief that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago is absolutely false. The mere existence of our own galaxy, as it is, proves that young earth creationism is wrong."

                                                  As I pointed out in my previous post here on this, clearly, in regard to the actual science, "eclipse_360" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

                                                  From:
                                                  Redwood Fossil: Canada Diamond Mine Yields 50-Million-Year-Old Specimen
                                                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/redwood-fossil-50-million-canada_n_1906049.html

                                                  Here is the sequence of posts...

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

                                                  [Steve (Todd) Greene:]

                                                  "Eclipse33" recently revealed the fact that he seriously believes the entire universe no bigger than about 12,000 light-years across - which means that he thinks the entire universe is less than 10% of the diameter of just our own Milky Way galaxy! Which makes you wonder why people who are so horribly scientifically illiterate yet possess the attitude that they are so incredibly smarter than professional scientists that, say, the entire community of professional geologists and professional astronomers across the planet is all wrong and somehow these deluded individuals think they know better.

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

                                                  [Eclipse33:]

                                                  Actually, I never said that. As usual wild assumptions are made and false conclusions jumped to.

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

                                                  [Steve (Todd) Greene:]

                                                  What you said is that you deny the existence of any scientific evidence of observing stars beyond a distance of 6,000 light years. Seriously, anyone who uses rhetoric like that is merely proving that his degree of scientific illiteracy is so horrible that he has no business trying to discuss science. Such rhetoric must mean that "Eclipse" represents an eclipse of belief in religious dogma darkening knowledge about the real world we've acquired through scientific investigation of the real world itself.

                                                  The galaxy NGC 4183 was in the news yesterday, from the European Space Agency. This galaxy is similar in structure to our own Milky Way galaxy, but a little smaller, at about 80,000 light-years across. 80,000 years is a lot more than 6,000 years, or 12,000 years. Oh, but you young earth creationists have a much more serious problem than that. NGC 4183 is approximately 55,000,000 light-years from Earth, which means that what we are looking at is from 55 million years ago. You young earth creationists try to pretend the universe didn't even exist more than about 6,000 years ago, yet here we are witnessing a galaxy from 55 million years in the past.

                                                  Young earth creationists, merely by the act of believing in that empirically false religious doctrine, prove that they have no business trying to discuss science, because by that belief alone they demonstrate that they have sacrificed their rational thinking on the altar of religious dogma. You have less than zero credibility.


                                                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #28754):
                                                  > I daresay that any person who seriously believes that just
                                                  > our Milky Way galaxy alone is smaller than 12,000 light
                                                  > years across has no business even discussing science,
                                                  > because by making such a statement they have thereby proved
                                                  > that they are horribly scientifically illiterate. (And
                                                  > then, of course, besides just our own Milky Way galaxy
                                                  > there are the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of other galaxies in the
                                                  > universe beyond the Milky Way.) Clearly, "eclipse_360", you
                                                  > don't have a clue what you're talking about.
                                                  >
                                                  > - Todd Greene
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > I will present two that I think show Genesis literalism to be in error:
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > 1) Our ability to directly observe stars beyond a distance of 6000 light years.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > There is empirical evidence that the horizon of the universe is even in temperature and properties. aka The horizon problem. The most accepted theory is that the universe expanded faster than light. So empirical evidence contradicts your understanding of your observation.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > > 2) The lack of supporting evidence for a global flood some 4500 years ago
                                                  > > > specifically:
                                                  > > > > a) The absence of an identified flood strata.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Most fossils are created by instantaneous burial in mud. Most complete fossils have the "death pose" which empirical evidence proves is can result from exposure to fresh water at the time of death.
                                                  > > Again empirical data contradicts your belief.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > > b) Failure to identify a source of the water.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Good point. The Bible is also silent. But a lack of evidence for the source is not evidence that it had no source.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > > c) The lack of a space for these flood waters to go.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Same position as b.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > > d) A host of issues with the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Here you make a general statement. Please list the issues.
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                • rlbaty50
                                                  Todd, Thanks for letting us know about that. I had not noticed your HuffPo exchange with Eclipse33 and some here may have thought you were just not responsive
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 27, 2012
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Todd,

                                                    Thanks for letting us know about that. I had not noticed your HuffPo exchange with Eclipse33 and some here may have thought you were just not responsive to what he said about you here. I was wondering about that myself.

                                                    Maybe Eclipse33 will return here to further respond.
                                                    Maybe not.

                                                    (Todd, how did you like the scooter pictures?)

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                    Robert Baty

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

                                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28819
                                                    "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

                                                    Why YECs have no business trying to discuss science

                                                    Based on discussion here, I took a look at the article
                                                    about the ancient wood discovered in the volcanic vent,
                                                    and noticed the typically nonsensical rhetoric of a
                                                    young earth creationist being spouted by "Eclipse33" there.

                                                    In response to one of his posts I made a point about his
                                                    rhetoric based on part of the rhetoric by "Eclipse33"
                                                    here in the "Maury_and_Baty" group. "Eclipse33" tried
                                                    using some back-pedaling rhetoric to soften the blow.

                                                    But, hey, I'm used to young earth creationists trying to
                                                    backpeddle from the inane silliness of the rhetoric they
                                                    use trying to justify their false beliefs, so I was having
                                                    none of it.

                                                    There's part of my last post I had to edit out to fit
                                                    within the post size limit. But I'll reproduce that edited
                                                    out paragraph here:

                                                    > "You know you cannot actually deal with the
                                                    > extensive body of scientific facts such as
                                                    > this which prove that young earth creationist
                                                    > belief is utter rubbish, so you just ignore
                                                    > it and try in your rhetoric to pretend it doesn't
                                                    > exist by using red herring tactics such as trying
                                                    > to criticize some detailed nuance of Big Bang
                                                    > cosmology yet completely ignoring the fact that
                                                    > that's all irrelevant to your young earth
                                                    > creationist beliefs in particular. We can ignore
                                                    > the Big Bang. Indeed, we can ignore the entire
                                                    > rest of the universe and only look at just our
                                                    > own Milky Way galaxy itself. In astronomy we
                                                    > observe stars and globular clusters right in our
                                                    > own galaxy from tens of thousands of years ago,
                                                    > which proves that the religious belief that the
                                                    > universe was created around 6,000 years ago is
                                                    > absolutely false.
                                                    >
                                                    > The mere existence of our own galaxy, as it is,
                                                    > proves that young earth creationism is wrong."

                                                    As I pointed out in my previous post here on this, clearly,
                                                    in regard to the actual science, "eclipse_360" doesn't have
                                                    a clue what he's talking about.

                                                    From:

                                                    Redwood Fossil: Canada Diamond Mine Yields
                                                    50-Million-Year-Old Specimen

                                                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Eclipse33/redwood-fossil-50-million-canada_n_1906049_190588116.html

                                                    Here is the sequence of posts...

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

                                                    [Steve (Todd) Greene:]

                                                    "Eclipse33" recently revealed the fact that he seriously
                                                    believes the entire universe no bigger than about 12,000
                                                    light-years across - which means that he thinks the entire
                                                    universe is less than 10% of the diameter of just our own
                                                    Milky Way galaxy! Which makes you wonder why people who are
                                                    so horribly scientifically illiterate yet possess the
                                                    attitude that they are so incredibly smarter than professional scientists that, say, the entire community of professional
                                                    geologists and professional astronomers across the planet is
                                                    all wrong and somehow these deluded individuals think they
                                                    know better.

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

                                                    [Eclipse33:]

                                                    Actually, I never said that.

                                                    As usual wild assumptions are made and false
                                                    conclusions jumped to.

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

                                                    [Steve (Todd) Greene:]

                                                    What you said is that you deny the existence of any scientific evidence of observing stars beyond a distance of 6,000 light
                                                    years.

                                                    Seriously, anyone who uses rhetoric like that is merely proving
                                                    that his degree of scientific illiteracy is so horrible that he
                                                    has no business trying to discuss science.

                                                    Such rhetoric must mean that "Eclipse" represents an eclipse
                                                    of belief in religious dogma darkening knowledge about the real
                                                    world we've acquired through scientific investigation of the
                                                    real world itself.

                                                    The galaxy NGC 4183 was in the news yesterday, from the European Space Agency.

                                                    This galaxy is similar in structure to our own Milky Way galaxy,
                                                    but a little smaller, at about 80,000 light-years across.

                                                    80,000 years is a lot more than 6,000 years, or 12,000 years.

                                                    Oh, but you young earth creationists have a much more serious
                                                    problem than that. NGC 4183 is approximately 55,000,000
                                                    light-years from Earth, which means that what we are looking
                                                    at is from 55 million years ago.

                                                    You young earth creationists try to pretend the universe didn't
                                                    even exist more than about 6,000 years ago, yet here we are witnessing a galaxy from 55 million years in the past.

                                                    Young earth creationists, merely by the act of believing in
                                                    that empirically false religious doctrine, prove that they have
                                                    no business trying to discuss science, because by that belief
                                                    alone they demonstrate that they have sacrificed their rational thinking on the altar of religious dogma.

                                                    You have less than zero credibility.

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

                                                    Previous Greene v. Eclipse33 Maury_and_Baty Exchange:

                                                    (1)

                                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28754
                                                    Todd Greene wrote (post #28754):

                                                    > I daresay that any person who seriously believes
                                                    > that just our Milky Way galaxy alone is smaller
                                                    > than 12,000 light years across has no business
                                                    > even discussing science, because by making such
                                                    > a statement they have thereby proved that they
                                                    > are horribly scientifically illiterate. (And
                                                    > then, of course, besides just our own Milky Way
                                                    > galaxy there are the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of other
                                                    > galaxies in the universe beyond the Milky Way.)
                                                    >
                                                    > Clearly, "eclipse_360", you don't have a clue what
                                                    > you're talking about.
                                                    >
                                                    > - Todd Greene

                                                    (2)

                                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/28769
                                                    "eclipse_360" <nonsequitur34@...> wrote:

                                                    > How is your babeling relevant?
                                                    > Is there a specific claim you want to make?

                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                  • Todd Greene
                                                    Hi Robert, I think it s funny we re both getting into motorcycles in our older years. (Of course, I don t actually know about what you did with motorcycles
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 27, 2012
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi Robert,

                                                      I think it's funny we're both getting into motorcycles in our "older" years. (Of course, I don't actually know about what you did with motorcycles in years past. You've just never mentioned it.)

                                                      I actually got into it "accidentally". (It has to do with a personal matter, concerning having my driver's license suspended when I got behind in child support when I was unemployed - which ticks me off to no end that that's actually part of the law, but I'm not getting into that subject.) An acquaintance a couple of years ago informed me that you didn't need a driver's license for a 50cc scooter. And my biking days were born! Once I started I got bit by the bug, and now I actually regret only getting into at almost 50 years old. So many years wasted!

                                                      The pictures look fantastic! When are you starting up your video blogging YouTube channel? "Biking adventures in the Colorado outback." Without spending $200 or $300 for a higher end digital video camera, most of the decent digital cameras today ($120 to $80 or even less) can do decent video, for considerable lengths of time. And the Windows operating system comes with a basic video editing program automatically installed that you can use. Just a thought.

                                                      About getting out there? I would like to, but whether I'll get to it is another matter. I've probably previously mentioned my wanting to move to Arizona. Recently my thoughts along that line have changed, and I'm setting my sights on Florida, somewhere in the Miami area, and my current thinking is that I'll do that probably in a little over 12 months or so (it may be more like 18 months or so; obviously it depends on me acquiring a decent job there). As I'm getting older, I realize my move will probably be my last, in regard to general area, and I came to realize I'd rather be in proximity to the ocean, along with great weather in the six months around winter. (I'm sick of Michigan.)

                                                      Regards,
                                                      Todd Greene
                                                    • rlbaty50
                                                      Todd, Glad you liked the pictures. I probably won t be trading up to anything more exotic as to filming my feeble exploits in the hills. I guess you could
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 27, 2012
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Todd,

                                                        Glad you liked the pictures.

                                                        I probably won't be trading up to anything more exotic as to filming my feeble exploits in the hills.

                                                        I guess you could ascribe my activities as part of my second childhood.

                                                        Scooters are very big around here, and I can get around town as well as up into the hills for some fun.

                                                        I got the one, my first ever, about 2 years ago, and then got the second one when my youngest daughter expressed an interest. So, I've got a pair of them and keep one at my place and one at her place up near Storm Mountain which is about half way to Estes Park up the Big Thompson Canyon.

                                                        We've got that 50cc rule here as well; those scooters can even use the bicycle lane.

                                                        Lots of the real motorcycle riders around here are old guys. My neighbor is 72 and built his own first bike when he was 13 (so he says). I think his current Kawasaki 1,000 or so is about 15 years old. One of his friends here is 85 and has a real nice looking, red Honda GoldWing he still rides. . . .very carefully.

                                                        I'll keep a light on for you should you just happen to make it out this way.

                                                        So far, I've logged about 6,000 miles between the two scooters.

                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        Robert Baty
                                                      • Todd Greene
                                                        I have almost 9,500 miles on my Kymco Sting 50, in just a little over two years (2 years, 2 weeks). Of course, it s not only my main transportation, it s my
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 27, 2012
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          I have almost 9,500 miles on my Kymco Sting 50, in just a little over two years (2 years, 2 weeks). Of course, it's not only my main transportation, it's my only transportation. When I move up, the Yamaha FZ6R will become my main transport.


                                                          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Todd,
                                                          >
                                                          > Glad you liked the pictures.
                                                          >
                                                          > I probably won't be trading up to anything more exotic as to filming my feeble exploits in the hills.
                                                          >
                                                          > I guess you could ascribe my activities as part of my second childhood.
                                                          >
                                                          > Scooters are very big around here, and I can get around town as well as up into the hills for some fun.
                                                          >
                                                          > I got the one, my first ever, about 2 years ago, and then got the second one when my youngest daughter expressed an interest. So, I've got a pair of them and keep one at my place and one at her place up near Storm Mountain which is about half way to Estes Park up the Big Thompson Canyon.
                                                          >
                                                          > We've got that 50cc rule here as well; those scooters can even use the bicycle lane.
                                                          >
                                                          > Lots of the real motorcycle riders around here are old guys. My neighbor is 72 and built his own first bike when he was 13 (so he says). I think his current Kawasaki 1,000 or so is about 15 years old. One of his friends here is 85 and has a real nice looking, red Honda GoldWing he still rides. . . .very carefully.
                                                          >
                                                          > I'll keep a light on for you should you just happen to make it out this way.
                                                          >
                                                          > So far, I've logged about 6,000 miles between the two scooters.
                                                          >
                                                          > Sincerely,
                                                          > Robert Baty
                                                          >
                                                        • rlbaty50
                                                          ... Sounds like you ve got plenty of experience and when you get that FZ6R you ll be looking for a nice road trip to break it in. It s only about 1,000 miles
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 28, 2012
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                                            "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

                                                            > I have almost 9,500 miles on my Kymco Sting 50,
                                                            > in just a little over two years (2 years, 2 weeks).
                                                            >
                                                            > When I move up, the Yamaha FZ6R will become my
                                                            > main transport.

                                                            Sounds like you've got plenty of experience and when you get that FZ6R you'll be looking for a nice road trip to break it in.

                                                            It's only about 1,000 miles from there to here, so you should be able to make it just fine!

                                                            I'll keep the light on for you!

                                                            Sincerely,
                                                            Robert Baty
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.