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

Will Ken Ham Debate Me & My "Goliath of GRAS"!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    (Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham. I publicly
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      (Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham. I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to come out from under his desk and explicitly debate or concede the claims I make regarding his positions on my "Goliath of GRAS". Ken Ham remains in hiding. I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response! - RLBaty)

      http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/10/25/will-he-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

      Will He Debate?

      October 25, 2012
      By Ken Ham

      (excerpts)

      A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as "Bill Nye the Science Guy" (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye's harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube.

      We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a formal invitation.

      I wanted to let you know that a few weeks ago, we sent a letter to Mr. Nye in Seattle (and also to his agent in New York City), suggesting that he participate in a creation-evolution debate.

      You see, we had heard through a nationally known reporter with the secular media that Mr. Nye had agreed in principle to debate with one of our PhD scientists.

      The reporter told us that Mr. Nye's had indicated that if his expenses would be covered, he would seriously consider a debate.

      In our letter to Nye, we suggested that the debate theme could be something like,

      > "Which model of origins, creation or evolution,
      > is confirmed by observational science?"

      (and we have offered him the opportunity
      to come up with an alternative topic).

      We are awaiting Nye's response.

      We can be hesitant about debating a person like Giberson who calls himself a Christian (while being an evolutionist) because such a debate might make secularists happy to see Christians arguing again.

      But because the theistic evolutionists are becoming more and more aggressive, and their views are infiltrating Christian colleges, seminaries, and leading churches, I think it's time we engage more of these compromising Christians in a very public way.

      It doesn't have to be Dr. Giberson. He would be a logical first choice because of his constant anti-creationist writings, but we would welcome the opportunity to consider debating any well-known theistic evolutionist.

      Thanks for stopping by,

      Ken Ham

      ----------------------------------
      ----------------------------------
    • rlbaty50
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse (excerpts) Report newsworthy media stories We have access to all the major science
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

        (excerpts)

        Report newsworthy media stories

        We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched the topic.

        If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts" field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

        Web Address:

        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

        Your EMail:

        > RLBaty@...

        Pertinent Excerpts:

        > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
        > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
        > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
        >
        > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
        > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
        > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
        > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
        >
        > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
        >
        > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
        >
        >> - RLBaty

        Comments or Explanation:

        > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
        > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
        > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
        > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
        > and the claims I make for it.
        >
        > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
        > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
        > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

        Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
        Time: About 10:20 PM MT

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

        Thank you

        Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.

        -----------------------------------------------
        -----------------------------------------------
      • rlbaty50
        From: Mark Looy To: Robert Baty Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories I am out of the office and rarely
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Mark Looy
          To: Robert Baty
          Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012

          Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories

          I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email.

          I will be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday.

          If you are with the media, you can call our Dallas-based
          publicists (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany.

          Our staff receptionist can be reached during business
          hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).

          Thank you.
          Mark

          mark looy
          chief communications officer
          mlooy@...
          phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
          fax: (859) 727-2299
          answersingenesis.org

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

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

          http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

          (excerpts)

          Report newsworthy media stories

          We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are
          likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to
          post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched
          the topic.

          If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this
          media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts"
          field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

          Web Address:

          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

          Your EMail:

          > RLBaty@...

          Pertinent Excerpts:

          > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
          > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
          > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
          >
          > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
          > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
          > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
          > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
          >
          > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
          >
          > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
          >
          >> - RLBaty

          Comments or Explanation:

          > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
          > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
          > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
          > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
          > and the claims I make for it.
          >
          > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
          > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
          > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

          Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
          Time: About 10:20 PM MT

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

          Thank you

          Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the
          appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon
          as possible.

          -----------------------------------------------
          -----------------------------------------------
        • rlbaty50
          I spoke with Carlotta, the staff receptionist recommended by Mark Looy, who referred me to Troy. I left a message on the answering machine for Troy. I was
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I spoke with Carlotta, the staff receptionist recommended by Mark Looy, who referred me to Troy.

            I left a message on the answering machine for Troy.

            I was trying to find out if I was going to have to wait until Mark Looy returns before I could expect a reply or if someone else might be covering for him and respond sooner.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            From: Mark Looy
            To: Robert Baty
            Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012

            Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories

            I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email.

            I will be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday.

            If you are with the media, you can call our Dallas-based
            publicists (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany.

            Our staff receptionist can be reached during business
            hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).

            Thank you.
            Mark

            mark looy
            chief communications officer
            mlooy@...
            phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
            fax: (859) 727-2299
            answersingenesis.org

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

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

            (excerpts)

            Report newsworthy media stories

            We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are
            likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to
            post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched
            the topic.

            If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this
            media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts"
            field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

            Web Address:

            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

            Your EMail:

            > RLBaty@...

            Pertinent Excerpts:

            > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
            > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
            > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
            >
            > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
            > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
            > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
            > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
            >
            > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
            >
            > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
            >
            >> - RLBaty

            Comments or Explanation:

            > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
            > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
            > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
            > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
            > and the claims I make for it.
            >
            > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
            > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
            > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

            Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
            Time: About 10:20 PM MT

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

            Thank you

            Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the
            appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon
            as possible.

            -----------------------------------------------
            -----------------------------------------------
          • rlbaty50
            http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/10/25/will-he-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+Worl
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/10/25/will-he-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

              Ken's article includes this reference to Karl Giberson's recent article on The Huffington Post:

              > In a recent commentary in Huffington Post,
              > he (Karl Giberson) took a swipe at Congressman
              > Paul Broun of Georgia, who rejects evolution.
              > He also wrote negatively about AiG and me in that
              > commentary.

              Here's the link and excerpts from Giberson's article on The Huffington Post:

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

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/is-evolution-satans-great-lie_b_1951873.html

              Is Evolution Satan's Great Lie?

              By Karl Giberson
              October 15, 2012

              Many fundamentalists have drawn connections between
              evolution and Satan.

              Ken Ham, who heads the world's large anti-evolution
              organization, Answers in Genesis, titled his now-classic
              attack on scientific theories of origins,

              > "The Lie: Evolution."

              A serpent graced the cover of the first edition of the
              book. Ham suggests that modern proponents of evolution
              -- which would include Francis Collins and myself, as
              well as our atheist colleagues, Richard Dawkins and
              Jerry Coyne -- are the "false teachers" predicted in
              the Bible. Our appearance, spreading the lie of evolution,
              is a signal that the apocalypse is near.

              Henry Morris, who almost single-handedly created the modern creationist movement, outlined the argument in great detail
              in his 1989 book

              > "The Long War Against God:
              > The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Controversy."

              In a book praised by fundamentalist publications and endorsed
              by religious leaders, Morris outlines in considerable detail
              how Satan has been using evolution for millennia to subvert
              the Gospel.

              In this scenario, supported with countless footnotes and other scholarly apparatus, Darwin is not the originator of evolution.

              Darwin, argues Morris, was nothing more than a "catalyst for a revival of ancient paganism, coming at just the right time in
              history to bring to fruition a revolt against God for which
              many in Western Europe had been preparing for over a century."

              Morris suggests that Satan delivered the theory of evolution
              to Nimrod when they met on the Tower of Babel.

              Ham and Morris are two of the most important and influential fundamentalist leaders of the past half-century.

              Their arguments appear with great regularity in Sunday School classrooms, youth group workshops, and even in the syllabi of
              courses at fundamentalist schools like Liberty University and
              Bob Jones University.

              Responding effectively to what look like crazy rants from
              people like Broun requires that we understand that, whatever
              we think of the rant, the viewpoint is widespread and shared
              by many of America's religious leaders.

              Evolution and the Big Bang will never win the allegiance of
              America's millions of fundamentalists on the basis of evidence.

              This conflict is a culture war pitting good against evil and
              the stakes are much higher.

              ---------------------------------------------
              ---------------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              Troy Lacey of Answers in Genesis returned my call and I explained the situation to him (i.e., I had submitted a message via the AiG website to which Mark Looy
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Troy Lacey of Answers in Genesis returned my call and I explained the situation to him (i.e., I had submitted a message via the AiG website to which Mark Looy auto-responded that he may not get to it for awhile because he's out of the office for a couple of weeks and I was wanting to find out more about the prospects in light of the referrals made by Mark in his auto-reply.).

                Troy indicated that if I emailed him the information he would respond or get the information to someone who could respond.

                So, I did.

                We'll see if I get any further specific, explicit response from Ken Ham, Mark Looy, Troy Lacey or another AiG representative.

                I will post my email to Troy Lacey later as it may become relevant to preserving a historical record of the present developments.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                I spoke with Carlotta, the staff receptionist recommended by Mark Looy, who
                referred me to Troy.

                I left a message on the answering machine for Troy.

                I was trying to find out if I was going to have to wait until Mark Looy returns
                before I could expect a reply or if someone else might be covering for him and
                respond sooner.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                From: Mark Looy
                To: Robert Baty
                Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012

                Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories

                I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email.

                I will be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday.

                If you are with the media, you can call our Dallas-based
                publicists (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany.

                Our staff receptionist can be reached during business
                hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).

                Thank you.
                Mark

                mark looy
                chief communications officer
                mlooy@...
                phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
                fax: (859) 727-2299
                answersingenesis.org

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

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

                (excerpts)

                Report newsworthy media stories

                We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are
                likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to
                post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched
                the topic.

                If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this
                media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts"
                field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

                Web Address:

                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

                Your EMail:

                > RLBaty@...

                Pertinent Excerpts:

                > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
                > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
                > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
                >
                > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
                > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
                > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
                > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
                >
                > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
                >
                > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
                >
                >> - RLBaty

                Comments or Explanation:

                > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
                > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
                > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
                > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                > and the claims I make for it.
                >
                > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
                > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
                > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

                Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                Time: About 10:20 PM MT

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

                Thank you

                Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the
                appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon
                as possible.

                -----------------------------------------------
                -----------------------------------------------
              • w_w_c_l
                Robert, I encourage you to keep tooting your horn until you get someone s attention. You may not get the debate but it might generate some discussions about
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 25, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Robert,

                  I encourage you to keep tooting your horn until you get someone's
                  attention. You may not get the debate but it might generate some
                  discussions about logic and "thinking correctly". As you've always
                  said, your "Goliath" is there, implicitly or explicitly, everywhere
                  creation science is discussed. It would be interesting to see how
                  a creationist leader approaches the problem, after seeing so many
                  followers fall ignominiously before it.

                  Here's some info about Lacey on the Creation Conversations forum:
                  http://www.creationconversations.com/page/ask-the-expert-troy-lacey?

                  Jason Lisle has also been a resident expert there.

                  Read this:

                  | "Perhaps the most significant power of the
                  | creation worldview is that it makes science
                  | possible. Only in a universe that is upheld
                  | in a logical and uniform fashion by the power
                  | of God would we expect to be able to make
                  | testable predictions about future conditions.
                  | Only in the biblical worldview can we be assured
                  | that the cycles of nature will be in the future
                  | as they have been in the past (Genesis 8:22).
                  | All science is predicated upon this crucial
                  | presupposition."
                  --Dr. Jason Lisle
                  http://www.creationconversations.com/page/archived-ask-the-expert-dr-1

                  Now is that or is that not Uniformitarianism?

                  Here's a question: If "creationist uniformitarianism" is no
                  different than "godless uniformitarianism", does that mean
                  creationists are godless?

                  Lisle has some remarks about logic you may find peculiar, too.

                  I've given a little thought to that idea of "Eastwooding" your
                  adversaries that don't show up. Maybe in Ken Ham's case all
                  you'll need is an empty chair with a placard hanging over the
                  back, asking "Were you there?"

                  You can answer the question at length, allow the placard to
                  respond, and answer the question some more, from an entirely
                  different angle.

                  Maybe point out the flaws in his "worldview presuppositionalism"
                  nonsense.

                  "What's that, Mr. Ham? Why, yes, yes, I was there. The question
                  is, where were you?"

                  That sort of thing. Could be fun.



                  w_w_c_l



                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Troy Lacey of Answers in Genesis returned my call and I explained the situation to him (i.e., I had submitted a message via the AiG website to which Mark Looy auto-responded that he may not get to it for awhile because he's out of the office for a couple of weeks and I was wanting to find out more about the prospects in light of the referrals made by Mark in his auto-reply.).
                  >
                  > Troy indicated that if I emailed him the information he would respond or get the information to someone who could respond.
                  >
                  > So, I did.
                  >
                  > We'll see if I get any further specific, explicit response from Ken Ham, Mark Looy, Troy Lacey or another AiG representative.
                  >
                  > I will post my email to Troy Lacey later as it may become relevant to preserving a historical record of the present developments.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Robert Baty
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  > "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
                  >
                  > I spoke with Carlotta, the staff receptionist recommended by Mark Looy, who
                  > referred me to Troy.
                  >
                  > I left a message on the answering machine for Troy.
                  >
                  > I was trying to find out if I was going to have to wait until Mark Looy returns
                  > before I could expect a reply or if someone else might be covering for him and
                  > respond sooner.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  > Robert Baty
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  > "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: Mark Looy
                  > To: Robert Baty
                  > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                  >
                  > Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories
                  >
                  > I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email.
                  >
                  > I will be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday.
                  >
                  > If you are with the media, you can call our Dallas-based
                  > publicists (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany.
                  >
                  > Our staff receptionist can be reached during business
                  > hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).
                  >
                  > Thank you.
                  > Mark
                  >
                  > mark looy
                  > chief communications officer
                  > mlooy@...
                  > phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
                  > fax: (859) 727-2299
                  > answersingenesis.org
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  > "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
                  >
                  > http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse
                  >
                  > (excerpts)
                  >
                  > Report newsworthy media stories
                  >
                  > We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are
                  > likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to
                  > post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched
                  > the topic.
                  >
                  > If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this
                  > media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts"
                  > field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:
                  >
                  > Web Address:
                  >
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187
                  >
                  > Your EMail:
                  >
                  > > RLBaty@...
                  >
                  > Pertinent Excerpts:
                  >
                  > > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
                  > > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
                  > > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
                  > >
                  > > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
                  > > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
                  > > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
                  > > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
                  > >
                  > > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
                  > >
                  > > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
                  > >
                  > >> - RLBaty
                  >
                  > Comments or Explanation:
                  >
                  > > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
                  > > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
                  > > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
                  > > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                  > > and the claims I make for it.
                  > >
                  > > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
                  > > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
                  > > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".
                  >
                  > Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                  > Time: About 10:20 PM MT
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Thank you
                  >
                  > Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the
                  > appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon
                  > as possible.
                  >
                  > -----------------------------------------------
                  > -----------------------------------------------
                  >
                • rlbaty50
                  (I have not received a further response from Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Troy Lacey, or a designate. As I indicated earlier, following is the message I
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 26, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    (I have not received a further response from Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Troy Lacey, or a designate. As I indicated earlier, following is the message I emailed to Troy Lacey of Answers in Genesis in response to his request regarding this matter. - RLBaty)

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

                    To: Troy Lacey
                    Email: correspondence@...
                    From: Robert Baty
                    Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 16:20:41 -0400

                    Subject: As requested by Troy Lacey!

                    Troy,

                    Following my name below are the three references from today showing my inquiry sent to AiG via Mark Looy, the confirmation, and the auto-reply from Mark indicating he would not be around for a couple of weeks.

                    I followed up directly with AiG and you in an effort to be responsive to Mark's suggestions and try to find out about the prospects of a definitive response regarding this important public issue involving Ken Ham and the context of his repeated public challenges to others he disagrees with.

                    For a little more background I note that I have for years had supporters of Ken Ham make reference to him as if he could do more and/or better than they were doing in dealing with the fundamental issues. Of course, they never were able to get Ken Ham to involve himself in such matters (I think they never tried). It would not be uncommon for them to refer me to Ken Ham as if I could get him to respond directly and help them with their problems.

                    In recent weeks, in light of all the public efforts regarding the Bill Nye matter, I decided to challenge Ken Ham, or his appointed surrogate, to explicitly acknowledge that I have been accurately representing Ken Ham's positions regarding my claims regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" argument and exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters. My recent postings on the matter to Ken Ham's/AiG's FaceBook pages have been deleted. Previous attempts to get a response via the AiG website have been unsuccessful.

                    Supporters of Ken Ham have typically had considerable trouble dealing with and admitting to the truth of the three simple claims I make in the exercise; three simple claims which I have reason to believe that Ken Ham will not publicly dispute but has yet to publicly, explicitly acknowledge. It would help out his supporters if he would explicitly admit to these things or publicly discuss his problems with them with me. Here's the 3 simple claims I make and which I think Ken Ham agrees:

                    1.

                    My argument is so constructed that if its premises
                    are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
                    (i.e., it is logically valid).

                    2.

                    The major premise of my argument, given the
                    stipulations and the force and effect of sound,
                    biblical, common-sense reasoning, is true.

                    3.

                    Ken Ham rejects the truth of the minor premise
                    because he has his interpretation of the Bible
                    regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any
                    other evidence and its interpretation to the
                    contrary.

                    It's really rather simple stuff that Ken's supporters have struggled with for years regarding me and my little argument.

                    There's no tricks.

                    Just a simple, logically valid exercise that deals with the fundamental issues facing young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                    Regardless of one's position on the matter, now would be a good time for Ken Ham to acknowledge the matter and either explicitly agree that I have represented him accurately on the issues involving my argument and exercise or deal directly with me to identify and explain any exceptions he may take to my representations of his positions.

                    I look forward to receiving a legitimate, responsive answer to this inquiry, for the record.

                    Thanks your for your serious consideration to this serious, public matter.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty

                    (1)

                    http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

                    (excerpts)

                    Report newsworthy media stories

                    We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched the topic.

                    If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts" field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

                    Web Address:

                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

                    Your EMail:

                    > RLBaty@...

                    Pertinent Excerpts:

                    > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
                    > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
                    > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
                    >
                    > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
                    > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
                    > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
                    > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
                    >
                    > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
                    >
                    > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
                    >
                    >> - RLBaty

                    Comments or Explanation:

                    > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
                    > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
                    > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
                    > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                    > and the claims I make for it.
                    >
                    > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
                    > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
                    > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

                    Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                    Time: About 10:20 PM MT

                    (2)

                    Thank you

                    Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message
                    has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message
                    requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.

                    (3)

                    From: mlooy@...
                    To: RLBaty@...
                    Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories
                    Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:19:02 +0000

                    I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email. I will
                    be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday. If you are with
                    the media, you can call our Dallas-based publicists
                    (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany. Our staff receptionist
                    can be reached during business hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).

                    Thank you. Mark

                    mark looy
                    chief communications officer
                    mlooy@...
                    phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
                    fax: (859) 727-2299
                    answersingenesis.org

                    --------------------------------------
                    --------------------------------------
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... Sincerely, Robert Baty ... rlbaty50 wrote: (I have not received a further response from Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Troy Lacey, or a
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 26, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Troy Lacey has responded as shown below and I followed up with a thank you note advising him I would wait for Mark Looy to reply and also suggested that he forward his evaluation and the information to Ken Ham for his direct response:

                      > From: Troy Lacy
                      > EMail: Correspondence@...
                      > To: Robert Baty
                      > Date: Friday, October 26, 2012 19:11:48 +0000
                      >
                      > Subject: RE: Your "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                      >
                      > Hello again Robert.
                      >
                      > I've reviewed the information you sent in, and
                      > am convinced that Mark Looy is the person who
                      > needs to respond.
                      >
                      > I realize this means that a delay will ensue
                      > before you receive an answer, since he is out
                      > of the office until November 9th, but as CCO,
                      > this type of query comes under Mark's responsibility.
                      >
                      > I hope this has been helpful,
                      >
                      > Troy Lacey

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      ------------------Previous Message------------------

                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                      (I have not received a further response from Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Troy
                      Lacey, or a designate. As I indicated earlier, following is the message I
                      emailed to Troy Lacey of Answers in Genesis in response to his request regarding
                      this matter. - RLBaty)

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

                      To: Troy Lacey
                      Email: correspondence@...
                      From: Robert Baty
                      Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 16:20:41 -0400

                      Subject: As requested by Troy Lacey!

                      Troy,

                      Following my name below are the three references from today showing my inquiry
                      sent to AiG via Mark Looy, the confirmation, and the auto-reply from Mark
                      indicating he would not be around for a couple of weeks.

                      I followed up directly with AiG and you in an effort to be responsive to Mark's
                      suggestions and try to find out about the prospects of a definitive response
                      regarding this important public issue involving Ken Ham and the context of his
                      repeated public challenges to others he disagrees with.

                      For a little more background I note that I have for years had supporters of Ken
                      Ham make reference to him as if he could do more and/or better than they were
                      doing in dealing with the fundamental issues. Of course, they never were able
                      to get Ken Ham to involve himself in such matters (I think they never tried).
                      It would not be uncommon for them to refer me to Ken Ham as if I could get him
                      to respond directly and help them with their problems.

                      In recent weeks, in light of all the public efforts regarding the Bill Nye
                      matter, I decided to challenge Ken Ham, or his appointed surrogate, to
                      explicitly acknowledge that I have been accurately representing Ken Ham's
                      positions regarding my claims regarding my "Goliath of GRAS" argument and
                      exercise in critical thinking with emphasis on young-earth creation-science
                      promoters. My recent postings on the matter to Ken Ham's/AiG's FaceBook pages
                      have been deleted. Previous attempts to get a response via the AiG website have
                      been unsuccessful.

                      Supporters of Ken Ham have typically had considerable trouble dealing with and
                      admitting to the truth of the three simple claims I make in the exercise; three
                      simple claims which I have reason to believe that Ken Ham will not publicly
                      dispute but has yet to publicly, explicitly acknowledge. It would help out his
                      supporters if he would explicitly admit to these things or publicly discuss his
                      problems with them with me. Here's the 3 simple claims I make and which I think
                      Ken Ham agrees:

                      1.

                      My argument is so constructed that if its premises
                      are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom
                      (i.e., it is logically valid).

                      2.

                      The major premise of my argument, given the
                      stipulations and the force and effect of sound,
                      biblical, common-sense reasoning, is true.

                      3.

                      Ken Ham rejects the truth of the minor premise
                      because he has his interpretation of the Bible
                      regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any
                      other evidence and its interpretation to the
                      contrary.

                      It's really rather simple stuff that Ken's supporters have struggled with for
                      years regarding me and my little argument.

                      There's no tricks.

                      Just a simple, logically valid exercise that deals with the fundamental issues
                      facing young-earth creation-science promoters and why they have failed in their
                      scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

                      Regardless of one's position on the matter, now would be a good time for Ken Ham
                      to acknowledge the matter and either explicitly agree that I have represented
                      him accurately on the issues involving my argument and exercise or deal directly
                      with me to identify and explain any exceptions he may take to my representations
                      of his positions.

                      I look forward to receiving a legitimate, responsive answer to this inquiry, for
                      the record.

                      Thanks your for your serious consideration to this serious, public matter.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty

                      (1)

                      http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/sendmail.aspx?TopicID=MediaResponse

                      (excerpts)

                      Report newsworthy media stories

                      We have access to all the major science journals and newspapers, so we are
                      likely to be well aware of the latest pro-evolution propaganda. AiG will try to
                      post responses as quickly as possible, but only after we have fully researched
                      the topic.

                      If you wish to submit a media item, enter the web address of the page where this
                      media item can be found, list the important excerpts in the "Pertinent excerpts"
                      field, and any additional information in the "Comments or explanation" field:

                      Web Address:

                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29187

                      Your EMail:

                      > RLBaty@...

                      Pertinent Excerpts:

                      > Looks like more hypocrisy from the proprietor of
                      > the Creation Museum of Kentucky and Answers in
                      > Genesis and the proposed Ark Encounter, Ken Ham.
                      >
                      > I publicly and formally challenged Ken Ham to
                      > come out from under his desk and explicitly debate
                      > or concede the claims I make regarding his positions
                      > on my "Goliath of GRAS".
                      >
                      > Ken Ham remains in hiding.
                      >
                      > I am still waiting for Ken Ham's response!
                      >
                      >> - RLBaty

                      Comments or Explanation:

                      > Ken Ham ran from my earlier invitations and deleted
                      > my proposals. I am still waiting for Ken Ham to
                      > explicitly acknowledge that I have accurately represented
                      > his positions regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                      > and the claims I make for it.
                      >
                      > Ken Ham would do well to admit my accurate representations
                      > that so many of his supporters have been stumbling and
                      > bumbling over before he proposes to take on the "big boys".

                      Date Submitted: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                      Time: About 10:20 PM MT

                      (2)

                      Thank you

                      Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message
                      has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message
                      requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible.

                      (3)

                      From: mlooy@...
                      To: RLBaty@...
                      Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories
                      Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:19:02 +0000

                      I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email. I will
                      be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday. If you are with
                      the media, you can call our Dallas-based publicists
                      (972-267-1111) and ask for Melany. Our staff receptionist
                      can be reached during business hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).

                      Thank you. Mark

                      mark looy
                      chief communications officer
                      mlooy@...
                      phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
                      fax: (859) 727-2299
                      answersingenesis.org

                      --------------------------------------
                      --------------------------------------
                    • rlbaty50
                      Rick, I think your discussion (see copy following my name below) actually implies that in order to properly engage the Goliath of GRAS exercise, one really
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 27, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rick,

                        I think your discussion (see copy following my name below) actually "implies" that in order to properly engage the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise, one really needs to decide which he is willing to risk; the interpretation proposed, or the veracity of the claimed, infallible, inerrant, true "Word of God".

                        The minority (e.g., Jerry D. McDonald, et al) seem to be willing to put the Bible at risk as the "Word of God" instead of their interpretation thereof.

                        The "Goliath of GRAS" is designed for those who choose to risk their interpretation rather than give up the Bible or some other claimed "Word of God".

                        However, as you probably remember, the "Family of GRAS" has an argument designed for those who want to risk the Bible or some other alleged "Word of God" over the age of stuff.

                        I don't think Ken Ham is that "explicit" in his statement of faith.

                        That is why I usually include a parenthetical explaining that it's not really referencing the "scriptural record" but rather "Ken Ham's interpretation of the scriptural record".

                        I am open to having Ken Ham "explicitly" clarify the issue as to him; openly and honestly.

                        I will be more than glad to adjust my representations of Ken Ham's position and document that he proposes to put the Bible at risk as the "Word of God" over the age of stuff rather than just his interpretation; if that be the case.

                        Of course, that should not affect his logical analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS" argument and successful completion of the exercise.

                        It would just mean that the "Goliath of GRAS" argument is not Ken's position; Ken's position would be reflected in the related "Goliath of GRAS" argument wherein the Bible is placed at risk as the "Word of God".

                        Come out, come out, Ken Ham!

                        The world is awaiting your confrontation, open and honest, with me and my "Family of GRAS"!

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty

                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29222
                        "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                        PIASAN@... wrote:

                        > I don't know how you can get much more
                        > explicit than this:
                        >
                        >> "By definition, no apparent, perceived
                        >> or claimed evidence in any field, including
                        >> history and chronology, can be valid if it
                        >> contradicts the scriptural record"
                        >>
                        >> Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

                        I think I can accept that proposition myself,
                        given the plain meaning of words:

                        If p, then ~q.

                        If
                        Contradiction
                        Then
                        Not Valid.

                        Which implies by logical necessity:

                        If
                        Valid
                        Then
                        Not Contradiction.

                        If q, then ~p.

                        Would Ken Ham disagree with that?

                        If the word of God implies truth, then
                        nothing that is false can be the word of God
                        and nothing that is true can contradict the
                        word of God.

                        We do not have to know whether God exists or
                        whether there is any such thing as the word of God
                        to accept the truth of that statement.

                        I presume Mr. Ham would affirm it as well?

                        If the "scriptural record" is taken to be the written
                        word of God, then no false claim can be supported by
                        scripture, nor can any false claim be propagated from
                        scripture without contradicting the scriptural record,
                        that is, the word of God, that is, the Truth.

                        If Ken Ham is with us so far, here is where we need
                        to watch our step. The definitions are narrow and some
                        of the rocks are slippery, but we have to get across.

                        We are trying to get to God. We have to get there
                        by Truth. And we have the scriptures to guide us.

                        We also have the means, and scripture tells us to use
                        them, of testing claims to see whether they are so,
                        and we are to reject the false and hold fast to that
                        which is true.

                        Now this seems most reasonable. But this may be where
                        Ken Ham slips.

                        Any claim about the world that we know to be false
                        does not originate with the word of God.

                        We don't even have to know what particular scriptural
                        record is being appealed to -- if the claim is false
                        it is not the word of God and that is that.

                        How can a false claim about the word of God be a true
                        claim about the word of God?

                        Furthermore, there is much we know about the world
                        without discernible reference in the scriptural record.
                        The children of Israel weren't told to "examine the
                        scriptures" to see if a prophet were speaking for God;
                        they were told to see if the thing came to pass.

                        If the scriptural record is being rightly divided, it
                        will not contradict truth. If we have accepted that
                        Genesis is God's word, then we need to treat it as such,
                        rather than insisting right from the beginning on
                        dividing it in such a way that the world knows, from
                        God's own Creation, to be false.

                        Are you with me, Ken?

                        Rick Hartzog
                        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

                        ----------------------------------------
                        ----------------------------------------
                      • rlbaty50
                        There s an app for that! (1) Application #1: Interpretation Risked: ... (2) Application #2: Bible as Word of God Risked: ... Ken Ham, which argument
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 27, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There's an "app" for that!

                          (1) Application #1: Interpretation Risked:

                          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.

                          (2) Application #2: Bible as "Word of God" Risked:

                          MAJOR PREMISE:

                          > IF (A); The Bible (the text) says
                          > everything began over a period
                          > of six days, and
                          >
                          > IF (B); it really means
                          > that 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 Bible is wrong.

                          MINOR PREMISE:

                          > (A); The Bible (the text) says
                          > everything began over a period
                          > of six days,
                          >
                          > (B); it really means
                          > that 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 Bible 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.

                          Ken Ham, which argument represents your personal and professional view?

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • w_w_c_l
                          ... Yes, I suppose it does imply that, but I m not sure that Ken Ham has that option open to him based on the way he has framed the argument. Compromisers are
                          Message 12 of 15 , Oct 27, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                            > Rick,
                            >
                            > I think your discussion (see copy following my
                            > name below) actually "implies" that in order to
                            > properly engage the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise,
                            > one really needs to decide which he is willing
                            > to risk; the interpretation proposed, or the
                            > veracity of the claimed, infallible, inerrant,
                            > true "Word of God".

                            Yes, I suppose it does imply that, but I'm not sure
                            that Ken Ham has that option open to him based on
                            the way he has framed the argument.

                            Compromisers are the same thing as atheists as far
                            as he's concerned; there is no middle ground between
                            the young-earth interpretation of the Bible and
                            full-blown godlessness.

                            (He is wrong about that, of course, but that doesn't
                            matter -- it is *rhetorically effective* and gets
                            emotion going his way, so much easier to get the
                            target audience chanting when we just pretend those
                            brothers and sisters in Christ who take a different
                            view of Genesis don't really exist.)


                            > The minority (e.g., Jerry D. McDonald, et al) seem
                            > to be willing to put the Bible at risk as the "Word
                            > of God" instead of their interpretation thereof.

                            By his rhetoric Ken Ham may have logically obligated
                            himself to be among that minority.


                            > The "Goliath of GRAS" is designed for those who
                            > choose to risk their interpretation rather than
                            > give up the Bible or some other claimed "Word of
                            > God".
                            >
                            > However, as you probably remember, the "Family of
                            > GRAS" has an argument designed for those who want
                            > to risk the Bible or some other alleged "Word of
                            > God" over the age of stuff.
                            >
                            > I don't think Ken Ham is that "explicit" in his
                            > statement of faith.

                            Theologically, Ken Ham may not in fact be mature
                            enough to engage "Goliath" in any meaningful way,
                            above and beyond the meanings we may have already
                            derived from evaluating the arguments of those
                            who have fled from it in the past.

                            But in that last sentence I should not mean "Ken
                            Ham the person," I should mean rather "Ken Ham the
                            face" -- the public persona of Ken Ham that *reflects
                            the theological maturity of the AiG supporters*.
                            Ken Ham himself may know better than some of the things
                            he has to say to maintain his level of support. We may
                            certainly hope so, at any rate.

                            And I guess that's the reason I used the proposition
                            from the statement of faith the way I did -- we don't
                            have to wait for Ken Ham to agree or disagree with
                            whether an argument is valid or what words mean or
                            indeed what his position is -- we have, as Pi points
                            out, the AiG's explicit statement -- which Ken Ham has
                            affirmed by default -- and we can begin making our logical
                            inferences from that.

                            But as far as your campaign with "Goliath" goes, at
                            some point, yes, we are going to need some kind of
                            official word from Ken Ham/AiG as to how he/they
                            would answer the question posed by that other family
                            member:

                            | "If it really was the case that some thing is more
                            | than 100,000 years old, would you say that,
                            | a) the Bible is wrong,
                            | or,
                            | b) the young-earth interpretation is wrong?"

                            Can Answers in Genesis really risk their interpretation?
                            I suppose that depends on the degree to which their
                            support structure is willing to risk that interpretation,
                            and whether evidence or logic or sound hermeneutics or
                            even the very "word of God" really has anything to do
                            with it.



                            Rick Hartzog
                            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


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

                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                            Rick,

                            I think your discussion (see copy following my name below) actually "implies"
                            that in order to properly engage the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise, one really
                            needs to decide which he is willing to risk; the interpretation proposed, or the
                            veracity of the claimed, infallible, inerrant, true "Word of God".

                            The minority (e.g., Jerry D. McDonald, et al) seem to be willing to put the
                            Bible at risk as the "Word of God" instead of their interpretation thereof.

                            The "Goliath of GRAS" is designed for those who choose to risk their
                            interpretation rather than give up the Bible or some other claimed "Word of
                            God".

                            However, as you probably remember, the "Family of GRAS" has an argument designed
                            for those who want to risk the Bible or some other alleged "Word of God" over
                            the age of stuff.

                            I don't think Ken Ham is that "explicit" in his statement of faith.

                            That is why I usually include a parenthetical explaining that it's not really
                            referencing the "scriptural record" but rather "Ken Ham's interpretation of the
                            scriptural record".

                            I am open to having Ken Ham "explicitly" clarify the issue as to him; openly and
                            honestly.

                            I will be more than glad to adjust my representations of Ken Ham's position and
                            document that he proposes to put the Bible at risk as the "Word of God" over the
                            age of stuff rather than just his interpretation; if that be the case.

                            Of course, that should not affect his logical analysis of the "Goliath of GRAS"
                            argument and successful completion of the exercise.

                            It would just mean that the "Goliath of GRAS" argument is not Ken's position;
                            Ken's position would be reflected in the related "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                            wherein the Bible is placed at risk as the "Word of God".

                            Come out, come out, Ken Ham!

                            The world is awaiting your confrontation, open and honest, with me and my
                            "Family of GRAS"!

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty

                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29222
                            "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:

                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                            PIASAN@... wrote:

                            > I don't know how you can get much more
                            > explicit than this:
                            >
                            >> "By definition, no apparent, perceived
                            >> or claimed evidence in any field, including
                            >> history and chronology, can be valid if it
                            >> contradicts the scriptural record"
                            >>
                            >> Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

                            I think I can accept that proposition myself,
                            given the plain meaning of words:

                            If p, then ~q.

                            If
                            Contradiction
                            Then
                            Not Valid.

                            Which implies by logical necessity:

                            If
                            Valid
                            Then
                            Not Contradiction.

                            If q, then ~p.

                            Would Ken Ham disagree with that?

                            If the word of God implies truth, then
                            nothing that is false can be the word of God
                            and nothing that is true can contradict the
                            word of God.

                            We do not have to know whether God exists or
                            whether there is any such thing as the word of God
                            to accept the truth of that statement.

                            I presume Mr. Ham would affirm it as well?

                            If the "scriptural record" is taken to be the written
                            word of God, then no false claim can be supported by
                            scripture, nor can any false claim be propagated from
                            scripture without contradicting the scriptural record,
                            that is, the word of God, that is, the Truth.

                            If Ken Ham is with us so far, here is where we need
                            to watch our step. The definitions are narrow and some
                            of the rocks are slippery, but we have to get across.

                            We are trying to get to God. We have to get there
                            by Truth. And we have the scriptures to guide us.

                            We also have the means, and scripture tells us to use
                            them, of testing claims to see whether they are so,
                            and we are to reject the false and hold fast to that
                            which is true.

                            Now this seems most reasonable. But this may be where
                            Ken Ham slips.

                            Any claim about the world that we know to be false
                            does not originate with the word of God.

                            We don't even have to know what particular scriptural
                            record is being appealed to -- if the claim is false
                            it is not the word of God and that is that.

                            How can a false claim about the word of God be a true
                            claim about the word of God?

                            Furthermore, there is much we know about the world
                            without discernible reference in the scriptural record.
                            The children of Israel weren't told to "examine the
                            scriptures" to see if a prophet were speaking for God;
                            they were told to see if the thing came to pass.

                            If the scriptural record is being rightly divided, it
                            will not contradict truth. If we have accepted that
                            Genesis is God's word, then we need to treat it as such,
                            rather than insisting right from the beginning on
                            dividing it in such a way that the world knows, from
                            God's own Creation, to be false.

                            Are you with me, Ken?

                            Rick Hartzog
                            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

                            ----------------------------------------
                            ----------------------------------------
                          • Ray Ausban
                            Speaking of Ken Ham:   1) Does Ham think if people do not believe the universe was created in six (24 hour) days, then they are damned?   I am trying to
                            Message 13 of 15 , Oct 27, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Speaking of Ken Ham:
                               
                              1) Does Ham think if people do not believe the universe was created in six (24 hour) days, then they are damned?
                               
                              I am trying to understand the Creationist mind set. Any insights?

                               

                              From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
                              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:45 AM
                              Subject: [M & B] Re: Will Ken Ham Debate Me & My "Goliath of GRAS"!
                               
                              There's an "app" for that!

                              (1) Application #1: Interpretation Risked:

                              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.

                              (2) Application #2: Bible as "Word of God" Risked:

                              MAJOR PREMISE:

                              > IF (A); The Bible (the text) says
                              > everything began over a period
                              > of six days, and
                              >
                              > IF (B); it really means
                              > that 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 Bible is wrong.

                              MINOR PREMISE:

                              > (A); The Bible (the text) says
                              > everything began over a period
                              > of six days,
                              >
                              > (B); it really means
                              > that 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 Bible 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.

                              Ken Ham, which argument represents your personal and professional view?

                              Sincerely,
                              Robert Baty

                            • rlbaty50
                              In browsing about in researching Ray s recent query, I ran across this from Ken Ham:
                              Message 14 of 15 , Oct 27, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In browsing about in researching Ray's recent query, I ran across this from Ken Ham:

                                http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/11/03/do-old-earthers-and-young-earthers-agree-on-anything/

                                > We do not tie salvation to the age of the earth,
                                > but we do tie biblical authority to the age of
                                > the earth.
                                >
                                > (W)e recognize that the gospel message comes
                                > from the Word of God, and if the Word is
                                > compromised, it can lead to (and has lead to)
                                > doubt that turns into unbelief.
                                >
                                > The results of such undermining of God's Word
                                > are set out clearly in our book, Already Gone,
                                > which I urge you all to read.

                                Sounds like he's trying to say its not a salvation issue but it is a salvation issue; but that might lead us into that "once saved, always saved" Calvinism discussion and other related matters.

                                In this post, I wanted to opine that the above indicates that Ken Ham might actually choose the minority position previously discussed regarding which "Family of GRAS" argument actually represents his position. The above indicates that Ken Ham is proposing that if stuff is actually older than a few thousand years then it's the Bible that has to be rejected as the "Word of God" (i.e., the "authoritative Word of God").

                                It will be nice if we can get Ken Ham to be "explicit" in choosing his argument.

                                It shouldn't affect his ability to "explicitly" recognize the logical validity of the arguments, the truth of the major premises, and why he rejects the truth of the minor premises.

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty

                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                                "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                                There's an "app" for that!

                                (1) Application #1: Interpretation Risked:

                                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.

                                (2) Application #2: Bible as "Word of God" Risked:

                                MAJOR PREMISE:

                                > IF (A); The Bible (the text) says
                                > everything began over a period
                                > of six days, and
                                >
                                > IF (B); it really means
                                > that 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 Bible is wrong.

                                MINOR PREMISE:

                                > (A); The Bible (the text) says
                                > everything began over a period
                                > of six days,
                                >
                                > (B); it really means
                                > that 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 Bible 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.

                                Ken Ham, which argument represents your personal and professional view?

                                Sincerely,
                                Robert Baty
                              • rlbaty50
                                ... and ... No word yet! Will they continue to run, or openly, honestly provide Ken Ham s official, public answer to those simple questions? Sincerely, Robert
                                Message 15 of 15 , Nov 12, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Remember this:

                                  > From: Mark Looy
                                  > To: Robert Baty
                                  > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012
                                  >
                                  > Subject: Automatic reply: Report newsworthy media stories
                                  >
                                  > I am out of the office and rarely accessing my email.
                                  >
                                  > I will be back from vacation on Nov. 9, a Friday.
                                  >
                                  > If you are with the media, you can call our
                                  > Dallas-based publicists (972-267-1111) and ask for
                                  > Melany.
                                  >
                                  > Our staff receptionist can be reached during business
                                  > hours at ext. 400 (859-727-2222).
                                  >
                                  > Thank you.
                                  > Mark
                                  >
                                  > mark looy
                                  > chief communications officer
                                  > mlooy@...
                                  > phone: (859) 727-2222 ext. 450
                                  > fax: (859) 727-2299
                                  > answersingenesis.org

                                  and

                                  > From: Troy Lacy
                                  > EMail: Correspondence@...
                                  > To: Robert Baty
                                  > Date: Friday, October 26, 2012
                                  >
                                  > Subject: RE: Your "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                                  >
                                  > Hello again Robert.
                                  >
                                  > I've reviewed the information you sent in, and
                                  > am convinced that Mark Looy is the person who
                                  > needs to respond.
                                  >
                                  > I realize this means that a delay will ensue
                                  > before you receive an answer, since he is out
                                  > of the office until November 9th, but as CCO,
                                  > this type of query comes under Mark's responsibility.
                                  >
                                  > I hope this has been helpful,
                                  >
                                  > Troy Lacey

                                  No word yet!

                                  Will they continue to run, or openly, honestly provide Ken Ham's official, public answer to those simple questions?

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