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

Buff's Mt. St. Helens Issues Review!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    I had a little time and was musing over Buff s problem with that canyon on Mt. St. Helens. Here again is Buff s claim (yep, still on his webiste today,
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I had a little time and was musing over Buff's problem with that canyon
      on Mt. St. Helens. Here again is Buff's claim (yep, still on his
      webiste today, November 22, 2003):

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

      > Mount St. Helens vs. The Grand Canyon

      > Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980.

      > Some years later, a monument scientist
      > examined the hardrock canyon, created
      > by the eruption, and remarked,

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

      > Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student
      > of geology, says, "Pretty convincing
      > evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't
      > take millions of years to form.

      > If you can research it out, Mount St.
      > Helens has proven to be a huge
      > geologic laboratory that has overturned
      > a great many uniformitarian
      > assumptions."

      > Those of you who believe the Grand
      > Canyon was formed over a period of
      > millions of years should re-examine
      > your evidence by examining the
      > canyon formed by the eruption of Mount
      > St. Helens. (If you're interested in viewing
      > my material on "God's Timetable For
      > Creation," click on "Creation" toward the
      > end of this feature.)
       
      Not be all that well-versed in such things, my summary of issues may
      leave some out and some of mine may need a little modification.

      Here goes:

      1. Buff says that the monument scientist
      was examining a "hardrock" canyon when he made the quip that follows. I
      guess that is what gets folks off to a wrong start. Where did Buff get
      that? The monument scientist referenced is Peter Frenzen. As I
      previously noted, Peter, a botanist by profession - not a geologist,
      indicated to me that he knew the canyon was NOT a "hardrock" canyon and
      that his comment was intended to contrast "hardrock" canyons with the
      St. Helens canyon being inspected.

      2. While not named, for reasons Buff has yet to fully reveal (remember
      those secret letters Buff is holding), Peter Frenzen's comments are
      given with an apparent slight modification. My copy of the article
      where the quote is given as a caption to a picture indicates that the
      word "one" is not in the quote in the magazine. What is Buff's story
      behind that? It further confuses the issue under consideration and
      helps lead to Buff's erroneous conclusion concerning the comment.

      3. By not mentioning the author of the first quote and then throwing in
      Rick Presley, there may be a tendency by some to confuse Rick Presley as
      having something to do with the quote from the National Geographic
      article.

      4. I got the distinct impression that the canyon in question was not
      formed by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, but eroded in the years
      following. A poor choice of words by Buff, the alleged reformer, who
      says the eruption formed the canyon???

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • rlbaty50
      ... What gives? Here it is now November 25, 2003, about 9:30 p.m. according to the clock on the wall here, and Buff s website still has that report on it. I
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote, in part:
        >
        >
        > http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html
        >
        > Mount St. Helens vs. The Grand Canyon
        >
        > Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980.
        >
        > Some years later, a monument scientist
        > examined the hardrock canyon, created
        > by the eruption, and remarked,
        >
        > "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be
        > thousands, even hundreds of thousands
        > of years old. But this one was cut in less
        > than a decade." (National Geographic,
        > May, 2000).
        >
        > Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student
        > of geology, says, "Pretty convincing
        > evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't
        > take millions of years to form.
        >
        > If you can research it out, Mount St.
        > Helens has proven to be a huge
        > geologic laboratory that has overturned
        > a great many uniformitarian
        > assumptions."
        >
        > Those of you who believe the Grand
        > Canyon was formed over a period of
        > millions of years should re-examine
        > your evidence by examining the
        > canyon formed by the eruption of Mount
        > St. Helens. (If you're interested in viewing
        > my material on "God's Timetable For
        > Creation," click on "Creation" toward the
        > end of this feature.)
        >  

        What gives?

        Here it is now November 25, 2003, about 9:30 p.m. according to the
        clock on the wall here, and Buff's website still has that report on
        it.

        I thought someone by now would have gotten to Buff and he would have
        demonstrated what little moral consequence he might have left in
        making his decisions (see Bert's recent article on that) and that
        promotion would have been deleted or at least revised on his website.

        Could it be that Buff hasn't any moral conscience left and so is
        content to leave that on his website?

        Anybody else thought to contact Peter Frenzen (the "monument
        scientist" Buff refers to but doesn't name) about Buff's use of
        Peter's comment and Buff's apparent addition of that little
        word "one" to the quote?

        Anybody doubt my report about my contact with Peter Frenzen about
        that?? Just curious how my credibility may be holding up on such
        things.

        Hey, you might even want to ask Peter Frenzen to confirm or deny my
        contact and the propriety of my representations.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • rlbaty50
        ... Nelta, I noticed that post of yours about David Willis and so thought to ask you a question since you appear to get around a lot more than I do and have a
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
          >
          > http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html
          >
          > "But this one was cut in less than a decade."
          > (National Geographic, May, 2000).

          Nelta,

          I noticed that post of yours about David Willis and so thought to ask
          you a question since you appear to get around a lot more than I do
          and have a little more in the way of opportunity to ask Buff one our
          outstanding questions involving a public issue he has raised and
          thought to involve himself in.

          Above is an excerpt from Buff's website where he alleges that he is
          quoting from a National Georgraphic article. While not mentioned in
          Buff's reference, the person who allegedly is responsible for the
          quote is Peter Frenzen.

          The thing is, according to the copy of the article I obtained from
          the library, the quote (actually a caption to a picture) reads, in
          relevant part:

          > "But this was cut in less than a decade."

          I shouldn't have to explain to you how significant it may be that a
          single, little word appears to have been added to the quote. That
          word appears to be "one".

          So, Nelta, howse about you try and ask Buff about his actual claim
          and about that "one" that appears to be added. We'd really like to
          get the full story about that. Please document your request to Buff
          and any reply. Please make it clear to Buff that this is "for the
          record". After all, we're trying to make a little "young-earth,
          creation-science" history here.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Nelta Brock
          Nah!! You know I do not get involved with such as that. A good moderator stays out of such things.:-) Nelta
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Nah!! You know I do not get involved with such as that. A good
            moderator stays out of such things.:-)

            Nelta


            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
            > >
            > > http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html
            > >
            > > "But this one was cut in less than a decade."
            > > (National Geographic, May, 2000).
            >
            > Nelta,
            >
            > I noticed that post of yours about David Willis and so thought to ask
            > you a question since you appear to get around a lot more than I do
            > and have a little more in the way of opportunity to ask Buff one our
            > outstanding questions involving a public issue he has raised and
            > thought to involve himself in.
            >
            > Above is an excerpt from Buff's website where he alleges that he is
            > quoting from a National Georgraphic article. While not mentioned in
            > Buff's reference, the person who allegedly is responsible for the
            > quote is Peter Frenzen.
            >
            > The thing is, according to the copy of the article I obtained from
            > the library, the quote (actually a caption to a picture) reads, in
            > relevant part:
            >
            > > "But this was cut in less than a decade."
            >
            > I shouldn't have to explain to you how significant it may be that a
            > single, little word appears to have been added to the quote. That
            > word appears to be "one".
            >
            > So, Nelta, howse about you try and ask Buff about his actual claim
            > and about that "one" that appears to be added. We'd really like to
            > get the full story about that. Please document your request to Buff
            > and any reply. Please make it clear to Buff that this is "for the
            > record". After all, we're trying to make a little "young-earth,
            > creation-science" history here.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty
          • Todd S. Greene
            ... Hi, Nelta. I m only writing to point out the fact that you *did* get involved with such a thing as this (with Buff s purposeful misrepresentation of the
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 26, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty, Nelta Brock wrote (post #2915):
              > Nah!! You know I do not get involved with such as that. A good
              > moderator stays out of such things.:-)

              Hi, Nelta.

              I'm only writing to point out the fact that you *did* get involved
              with such a thing as this (with Buff's purposeful misrepresentation
              of the National Geographic article). You got involved when I brought
              the whole issue into the open and challenged Buff for his
              misrepresentation. Then the man proceeded to lie about the whole
              thing, and he is still to this day purposely pushing his
              misrepresentation and obstinately refusing to correct his error. You
              then banned me from your discussion group *for telling the truth*.
              Thus, *as moderator* you did *not* stay out of such things, and you
              should not pretend that you did.

              You and I both know that you have not done the right thing on this
              score, and I'm not going to just let you whitewash yourself out of
              this.

              Regards,
              Todd S. Greene
              http://www.creationism.cc/
            • Nelta Brock
              Hi Todd, First off I never try to whitewash myself. Next you know I have always liked you. AND it was not your belief on the Old earth stuff that caused
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 26, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Todd,

                First off I never try to "whitewash" myself. Next you know I have
                always liked you. AND it was not your belief on the Old earth stuff
                that caused the trouble. GAF is a Christian discussion list. People
                were "rising up in arms" not because of your belief in the old earth
                but in the fact that you are a proclaimed atheist. I have always
                hoped you would "come back to the Lord" for I cannot understand how
                anyone can once be in God's family and then simply "throw it all away."

                I will admit that if so many were not objecting I would have left
                things as they were. Jim Hopkins (the moderator and co-owner of GAF,)
                who was out of town when all that happened, agreed with me about
                taking you off the list because of its being a Christian discussion
                list.

                Some where simply leaving and others going to do so. So look at it
                this way. GAF is a place for members of the Church of Christ to
                discuss their differences. Old earth is one of those differences, and
                members of the Church of Christ have a right on there to discuss that
                question. But what about an atheist who says he does not believe in
                God NOR the inspiration of the scriptures being on a Christian list
                when it had a purpose.....Church of Christ members discussing their
                differences?

                Well, that is about all I can say about it, Todd. So is it my fault?
                I think not.

                BTW if anyone wants to join GAF just send a post to:

                GospelAdvocatingForum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Nelta



                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                <greeneto@y...> wrote:
                > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Nelta Brock wrote (post #2915):
                > > Nah!! You know I do not get involved with such as that. A good
                > > moderator stays out of such things.:-)
                >
                > Hi, Nelta.
                >
                > I'm only writing to point out the fact that you *did* get involved
                > with such a thing as this (with Buff's purposeful misrepresentation
                > of the National Geographic article). You got involved when I brought
                > the whole issue into the open and challenged Buff for his
                > misrepresentation. Then the man proceeded to lie about the whole
                > thing, and he is still to this day purposely pushing his
                > misrepresentation and obstinately refusing to correct his error. You
                > then banned me from your discussion group *for telling the truth*.
                > Thus, *as moderator* you did *not* stay out of such things, and you
                > should not pretend that you did.
                >
                > You and I both know that you have not done the right thing on this
                > score, and I'm not going to just let you whitewash yourself out of
                > this.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Todd S. Greene
                > http://www.creationism.cc/
              • Todd S. Greene
                ... Hi, Nelta. ... You need to remove that from your home page since it is a lie. I discuss issues related to what *members of the Church of Christ themselves*
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Nelta Brock wrote (post #2917):
                  > Hi Todd,
                  >
                  > First off I never try to "whitewash" myself. Next you know I have
                  > always liked you. AND it was not your belief on the Old earth
                  > stuff that caused the trouble. GAF is a Christian discussion list.
                  > People were "rising up in arms" not because of your belief in the
                  > old earth but in the fact that you are a proclaimed atheist. I
                  > have always hoped you would "come back to the Lord" for I cannot
                  > understand how anyone can once be in God's family and then
                  > simply "throw it all away."
                  >
                  > I will admit that if so many were not objecting I would have left
                  > things as they were. Jim Hopkins (the moderator and co-owner of
                  > GAF,) who was out of town when all that happened, agreed with me
                  > about taking you off the list because of its being a Christian
                  > discussion list.
                  >
                  > Some where simply leaving and others going to do so. So look at it
                  > this way. GAF is a place for members of the Church of Christ to
                  > discuss their differences. Old earth is one of those differences,
                  > and members of the Church of Christ have a right on there to
                  > discuss that question. But what about an atheist who says he does
                  > not believe in God NOR the inspiration of the scriptures being on
                  > a Christian list when it had a purpose.....Church of Christ
                  > members discussing their differences?
                  >
                  > Well, that is about all I can say about it, Todd. So is it my
                  > fault? I think not.

                  Hi, Nelta.

                  This is what it says on the "GospelAdvocatingForum" home page:

                  | This list is not limited to Church of Christ
                  | members, but is open to EVERYONE who has a desire
                  | to discuss the scriptures with others.

                  You need to remove that from your home page since it is a lie.

                  I discuss issues related to what *members of the Church of Christ
                  themselves* teach about scripture. I purposely do not discuss atheism
                  in your group.

                  You caved in to naked prejudice. And the fact is, I've been a member
                  of your group for a long time. The reason you were getting complaints
                  recently was because *I was telling the truth* about a Christian was
                  got caught lying, and people didn't want to hear this truth because
                  the context happened to be that it was an atheist who had done the
                  catching. They knew they had no basis on which to criticize what I
                  was pointing out (since I was pointing out *the truth*), so they did
                  the next best thing which was appeal to prejudice.

                  Incidentally, I just took a look at Buff Scott's Grand Canyon web
                  page (at 11/27/03 4:16 AM EST), and I see that the man is *still*
                  lying about the National Geographic article. So I note here that you
                  kick truth-telling atheists off of your list, but you allow blatantly
                  lying Christians to stay on without saying one word on the matter.
                  That *is* what is called a cover-up.

                  Good show.

                  Sincerely,
                  Todd S. Greene
                  http://www.creationism.cc/
                • rlbaty50
                  ...   This post has to do with Rick Presley. Buff on his website indicates a personal relationship with Rick Presley. A quick check came up ... Sounds like
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 28, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here again is that link and quote from Buff's website:

                    >
                    > http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html
                    >
                    > Mount St. Helens vs. The Grand Canyon
                    >
                    > Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980.
                    >
                    > Some years later, a monument scientist
                    > examined the hardrock canyon, created
                    > by the eruption, and remarked,
                    >
                    > "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be
                    > thousands, even hundreds of thousands
                    > of years old. But this one was cut in less
                    > than a decade." (National Geographic,
                    > May, 2000).
                    >
                    > Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student
                    > of geology, says, "Pretty convincing
                    > evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't
                    > take millions of years to form.

                    > If you can research it out, Mount St.
                    > Helens has proven to be a huge
                    > geologic laboratory that has overturned
                    > a great many uniformitarian
                    > assumptions."
                    > >
                    > Those of you who believe the Grand
                    > Canyon was formed over a period of
                    > millions of years should re-examine
                    > your evidence by examining the
                    > canyon formed by the eruption of Mount
                    > St. Helens. (If you're interested in viewing
                    > my material on "God's Timetable For
                    > Creation," click on "Creation" toward the
                    > end of this feature.)
                     
                    This post has to do with Rick Presley. Buff on his website indicates
                    a personal relationship with Rick Presley. A quick check came up
                    with a Rick Presley who describes himself as follows:

                    > I (Rick Presley) graduated from Indiana University in
                    > 1987 with a Bachelor of Science in Education with a major
                    > in biology. I taught biology, advanced biology, life science
                    > and physical science in a Christian School in Columbus, Ohio
                    > for five years. After the birth of my third child, I left
                    > the teaching field and worked as a lab technician and
                    > technical service representative in the chemical industry
                    > for over seven years. In 2000, I left the chemical industry
                    > to put both my biology and education backgrounds to work for
                    > the American Red Cross, Biomedical Services as an Education
                    > Coordinator.

                    Sounds like the same Rick Presley Buff is making reference to, but
                    that Rick Presley doesn't say anything about his expertise in
                    geology; something Buff touts Rick Presley as having.

                    I thought it kinda interesting.

                    Buff uses Peter Frenzen, a professionally trained botanist, and then
                    refers to Rick Presley for an interpretation of Peter's comment.

                    One might wonder if Rick Presley would now endorse Buff's use of
                    something Rick Presley is supposed to have said. One might wonder
                    also if Buff might have added a word to two or more to Rick's
                    comments; being that Buff has as much admitted to adding a word to
                    Peter's comment.

                    All things considered, I suspect that Peter might know more about
                    whether or not Loowit Falls Canyon is a "hardrock canyon" than Rick
                    Presley. I also supsect that Rick Presley's comments may not be
                    anymore than what they appear than what Buff has made out of Peter's
                    comment.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... That came from: http://www.creationequation.com/archives/WherestheArchitect.htm Interestingly enough, Brad Harrub, Ph.D. was spotted having articles on
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 28, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...>
                      wrote, in part:

                      > This post has to do with Rick Presley. Buff on his website
                      > indicates a personal relationship with Rick Presley.

                      > A quick check came up with a Rick Presley who describes
                      > himself as follows:
                      >
                      > > I (Rick Presley) graduated from Indiana University in
                      > > 1987 with a Bachelor of Science in Education with a major
                      > > in biology. I taught biology, advanced biology, life science
                      > > and physical science in a Christian School in Columbus, Ohio
                      > > for five years. After the birth of my third child, I left
                      > > the teaching field and worked as a lab technician and
                      > > technical service representative in the chemical industry
                      > > for over seven years. In 2000, I left the chemical industry
                      > > to put both my biology and education backgrounds to work for
                      > > the American Red Cross, Biomedical Services as an Education
                      > > Coordinator.
                      >
                      That came from:

                      http://www.creationequation.com/archives/WherestheArchitect.htm

                      Interestingly enough, Brad Harrub, Ph.D. was spotted having articles
                      on that website as well. Small world, huh?

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • rlbaty50
                      I thought I would just summarize a little for reference. Following my name below are Buff s website link and quote and two others I found making similar
                      Message 10 of 10 , Dec 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I thought I would just summarize a little for reference. Following
                        my name below are Buff's website link and quote and two others I
                        found making similar claims. I guess if Buff were really the
                        reformer he alleges, he would separate himself from his YEC herd on
                        this one and get about correcting his false and misleading claims
                        about Peter Frenzen and Loowit Canyon.

                        You will note that only Buff has "one" in the quote allegedly coming
                        from Peter Frenzen, though all three claim to get their quote from
                        the same National Geographic article.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty

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

                        http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html
                        >
                        > Mount St. Helens vs. The Grand Canyon
                        >
                        > Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980.
                        >
                        > Some years later, a monument scientist
                        > examined the hardrock canyon, created
                        > by the eruption, and remarked,
                        >
                        > "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be
                        > thousands, even hundreds of thousands
                        > of years old. But this one was cut in less
                        > than a decade." (National Geographic,
                        > May, 2000).
                        >
                        > Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student
                        > of geology, says, "Pretty convincing
                        > evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't
                        > take millions of years to form.
                        >
                        > If you can research it out, Mount St.
                        > Helens has proven to be a huge
                        > geologic laboratory that has overturned
                        > a great many uniformitarian
                        > assumptions."
                        >
                        > Those of you who believe the Grand
                        > Canyon was formed over a period of
                        > millions of years should re-examine
                        > your evidence by examining the
                        > canyon formed by the eruption of Mount
                        > St. Helens. (If you're interested in viewing
                        > my material on "God's Timetable For
                        > Creation," click on "Creation" toward the
                        > end of this feature.)

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

                        http://www.creationism.org/caesar/slow_mtn.htm

                        > The May 2000 issue of National Geographic featured
                        > an article on this change of heart, referring to the
                        > Mt. St. Helens aftermath as "a crucible of creation"
                        > (Findley 112). The article, entitled "Nature on Fast
                        > Forward," noted that the rapid recovery of plant and
                        > animal life in the blast area "is a miniature fast-
                        > forward version of what happened over vast time frames
                        > of our planet's infancy, from primordial soup to the
                        > first wind-borne seeds" (Ibid.). Despite the blatant
                        > old-earth bias exhibited in that statement, the article
                        > continued to report how surprised scientists were at
                        > the rapid recovery of the blast area:

                        > > `All of us were surprised at the rate at which this
                        > > landscape was colonized again,' says ecologist David
                        > > Wood. `We were thinking, Gosh, how long is it going to
                        > > be before anything comes back here?'

                        > Within just a few years scientists found flora and fauna
                        > pioneering in the niches created by the eruption's various
                        > geologic disturbances (Ibid. 114 [italics original]).

                        > The Mt. St. Helens explosion not only demonstrated the
                        > scientific plausibility of an extremely rapid post-flood
                        > recovery of plants and animals, but of a catastrophic
                        > formation of geological features as well.

                        > The article quoted monument scientist Peter Franzen, who
                        > commented on the fact that Loowit Falls reshaped the north
                        > slope of the volcano into a canyon with surprising rapidity:

                        > > "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even
                        > > hundreds of thousands of years old. But this was cut in
                        > > less than a decade" (Ibid. 121).

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

                        http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

                        > Loowit Falls Canyon (pictured at right)

                        > > "Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the
                        > > north slope of the volcano. `You'd expect a hardrock
                        > > canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of
                        > > years old,' says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist,
                        > > `but this was cut in less than a decade.'
                        > > "National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.