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

Ken Ham & Mark Looy Today: "Baty is an exceptional case!"

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/12/07/feedback-responding-to-atheist-logic ... I almost fell out of my chair when I read that! Readers of the
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/12/07/feedback-responding-to-atheist-logic

      > Feedback: Responding to the Logic of an Atheist
      >
      > by Mark Looy, AiG–U.S.
      > December 7, 2012
      >
      > (excerpt)
      >
      > Thank you for your email.
      >
      > We appreciate opportunities to engage our
      > detractors in meaningful dialogue.

      I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!

      Readers of the Maury_and_Baty list have reason to believe that is simply not true for Ken Ham, via his agent Mark Looy, has explicitly refused to engage me in a simple, meaningful, substantive exchange regarding important public issues and Ken Ham's positions related thereto; and that within the last 30 days.

      See:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29674

      (I do understand how it is that Ham and Looy can use their word games to try and distinguish their claim from my personal, empirical experience.)

      Run, Ken Ham, run!
      See Ken Ham run!

      My invitation remains outstanding and I am the one actually demonstrating an appreciation for an opportunity to engage Ken Ham, or his surrogate, in a meaningful dialogue in order to have Ken Ham explicitly confirm that my representations of his positions on the "Goliath of GRAS" are accurate.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • bucksburg
      Robert, I ll get back to you on if A then B shortly, but in my review of Logic today I came across the Fallacy of Equivocation. Ken Ham, Mark Looy have just
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Robert,
        I'll get back to you on if A then B shortly, but in my review of Logic today I came across the Fallacy of Equivocation. Ken Ham, Mark Looy have just provided us with two examples thereof.

        Daniel

        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/12/07/feedback-responding-to-atheist-logic
        >
        > > Feedback: Responding to the Logic of an Atheist
        > >
        > > by Mark Looy, AiG–U.S.
        > > December 7, 2012
        > >
        > > (excerpt)
        > >
        > > Thank you for your email.
        > >
        > > We appreciate opportunities to engage our
        > > detractors in meaningful dialogue.
        >
        > I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!
        >
        > Readers of the Maury_and_Baty list have reason to believe that is simply not true for Ken Ham, via his agent Mark Looy, has explicitly refused to engage me in a simple, meaningful, substantive exchange regarding important public issues and Ken Ham's positions related thereto; and that within the last 30 days.
        >
        > See:
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29674
        >
        > (I do understand how it is that Ham and Looy can use their word games to try and distinguish their claim from my personal, empirical experience.)
        >
        > Run, Ken Ham, run!
        > See Ken Ham run!
        >
        > My invitation remains outstanding and I am the one actually demonstrating an appreciation for an opportunity to engage Ken Ham, or his surrogate, in a meaningful dialogue in order to have Ken Ham explicitly confirm that my representations of his positions on the "Goliath of GRAS" are accurate.
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty
        >
      • mark.looy
        (MODERATOR S NOTE: I appreciate the direct response from Mark Looy, but he is conspicuous in again spending more time in evasions that it would have take to
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          (MODERATOR'S NOTE: I appreciate the direct response from Mark Looy, but he is conspicuous in again spending more time in evasions that it would have take to simply "give an answer" regarding Ken Ham's public, official position regarding three simple issues: [1] Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS" argument as being so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom? [2] Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the stipulations and force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true? [3] Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument because, briefly stated, he has his interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that trumps any other evidence and its interpretation to the contrary? I have proposed that Ken Ham's implicit answers to the questions are all "YES", and it would help the popular public discussion of these important issues if Ken Ham would come out, come clean and confirm my accurate representation of his position on these simple matters. I remain available should Ken Ham and/or his surrogate(s) with to further pursue the discussion of these important public issues. I too have doubts about Ken Ham's openness, and the openness of his surrogate(s) since they have been, from the beginning, evasive. - RLBaty)

          Here is the full email we sent to Mr. Baty—-note the final paragraph, indicating our willingness to meet with him and determine his sincerity for meaningful dialogue (since we have our doubts about his openness due to his continual caustic tone).

          We have not "refused" to deal with him; we dealt with him through this email below and are willing to meet:

          Mr. Baty:

          Greetings.

          With respect, we can't possibly respond in depth to every person who seeks it. With the number of emails, letters, and phone calls that pour into our offices every week (including from the media), it is not always possible to respond in detail. We have difficulty keeping up with our own writing and research projects, much less engaging every detractor in a lengthy exchange.


          Further, what you may deem an "important" matter does not necessarily rise to that level on our end. Of course, when there is a significant opportunity to engage a person who has broad influence, then we will consider responding in depth.

          I trust you understand. We have to be good stewards of our time and limited resources, hence this brief reply to you. But you are receiving a response, and I'll continue …


          An additional reason not to respond in detail is the unscholarly churlishness that is generally witnessed in your postings. While all of us are prone in our sinful state to lack grace in dealing with those people who hold different views, your approach (as seen in your public posts and email correspondence with us) is often snarky. You say that some biblical creationists "demonize" people like you when you take an extra-biblical approach, yet you yourself can be quite harsh and critical of others. Furthermore, your general attitude reveals a lack of seriousness in wanting to engage in sincere, meaningful dialogue with people with whom you disagree. That includes posting private emails that have been sent to you and were not intended to be made public.


          As someone who was once an evolutionist and a believer in an old earth, I can confidently declare that there is no clear-cut empirical evidence for an old earth. Any supposed evidence that you might put forward to argue for a very old earth is ultimately based on an interpretation of data with an a priori commitment to an old earth. See related articles such as (though this first one is more about evolutionists in general rather than those who believe in an old earth yet may reject biological evolution): http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/15/is-there-an-ultimate-proof-of-creationand http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/16/feedback-museum-evidence



          If you would like to visit me here at the Creation Museum one day, I would be happy to meet with you. At that time, I might better gauge your sincerity as to whether you truly wish to engage in meaningful dialogue or rather to grandstand.

          Regards,

          Mark (Co-founder,
          AiG and the Creation Museum)

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
          >
          > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/12/07/feedback-responding-to-atheist-logic
          >
          > > Feedback: Responding to the Logic of an Atheist
          > >
          > > by Mark Looy, AiG–U.S.
          > > December 7, 2012
          > >
          > > (excerpt)
          > >
          > > Thank you for your email.
          > >
          > > We appreciate opportunities to engage our
          > > detractors in meaningful dialogue.
          >
          > I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!
          >
          > Readers of the Maury_and_Baty list have reason to believe that is simply not true for Ken Ham, via his agent Mark Looy, has explicitly refused to engage me in a simple, meaningful, substantive exchange regarding important public issues and Ken Ham's positions related thereto; and that within the last 30 days.
          >
          > See:
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29674
          >
          > (I do understand how it is that Ham and Looy can use their word games to try and distinguish their claim from my personal, empirical experience.)
          >
          > Run, Ken Ham, run!
          > See Ken Ham run!
          >
          > My invitation remains outstanding and I am the one actually demonstrating an appreciation for an opportunity to engage Ken Ham, or his surrogate, in a meaningful dialogue in order to have Ken Ham explicitly confirm that my representations of his positions on the "Goliath of GRAS" are accurate.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Robert Baty
          >
        • rlbaty50
          ... In fact, they have refused to deal with me while they have take unilateral action to deal with me and what has recently been submitted here is only the
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark Looy, spokesman for Ken Ham, wrote, in part:

            > We (Ken Ham/AiG/et al) have not "refused"
            > to deal with him (Robert Baty);
            > we dealt with him through this email below
            > and are willing to meet.
            >
            >> Mark Looy
            >> (Co-Founder: Answers in Genesis & Creation Museum)

            In fact, they have refused to deal with me while they have take unilateral action to deal with me and what has recently been submitted here is only the latest evasive tactic in what should have been a very simple matter to resolve; especially in light of how many of those sympathetic to Ken's position on the age of stuff have stumbled over my "Goliath of GRAS" exercise and how often they have done so.

            Mark Looy/Ken Ham:

            There are three fundamental questions and a meeting is not required; though you are more than welcome to visit northern Colorado and set up a meeting with me at our mutual convenience.

            Question #1:

            > Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS"
            > argument as being so constructed that if
            > its premises are true its conclusion will
            > follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is
            > logically valid)?

            Question #2:

            > Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of
            > my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the
            > stipulations and force and effect of sound,
            > biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true?

            Question #3:

            > Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor
            > premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
            > because, briefly stated, he has his
            > interpretation of the Bible regarding the
            > age of stuff and that trumps any other
            > evidence and its interpretation to the
            > contrary?

            We can very simply resolve any problem Ken Ham or his surrogate(s) have in understanding these matters before "giving an answer".

            Mark Looy has now clearly demonstrated his ability and willingness to use this venue for purposes of communicating and I would encourage his further use. These are important, public issues and as such should not be dealt with except through public means such as this venue.

            I look forward to the possibility that Ken Ham and/or his surrogate(s) will take advantage of this opportunity to make his positions on my "Goliath of GRAS" argument and the claims I make for it clear.

            We can discuss any problems Ken Ham and/or his surrogate(s) have with my representations here and on the record. Ken Ham, of course, is more than welcome to treat these issues as he sees fit in his own venues of choice.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017
            "mark.looy" <mlooy@...> wrote, in part:

            > Here is the full email we sent to Mr. Baty-
            >
            > -note the final paragraph, indicating our
            > willingness to meet with him and determine
            > his sincerity for meaningful dialogue (since
            > we have our doubts about his openness due to
            > his continual caustic tone).
            >
            > We have not "refused" to deal with him;
            > we dealt with him through this email below
            > and are willing to meet:
            >
            >> Mark Looy
            >> (Co-Founder: Answers in Genesis & Creation Museum)

            ---------------------------------------------
            ---------------------------------------------
          • PIASAN@aol.com
            MODERATOR S NOTE: I appreciate the direct response from Mark Looy, but he is conspicuous in again spending more time in evasions that it would have take to
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              MODERATOR'S NOTE: I appreciate the direct response from Mark Looy, but he is
              conspicuous in again spending more time in evasions that it would have take to
              simply "give an answer"
               
               
               
              Pi:
              I'm finding the same to be true of Walt Brown.  He has spent far more time and effort writing explanations of why he won't debate me; accusing me of avoiding a debate; and challenging me to "come out" and debate him than he claims it would to simply refute my claims.
               
              For those not familiar with the situation.... David Willis (a former active participant here and on another list he and I used to frequent) spoke with Brown about my claims regarding Brown's model.  One thing led to another and I was encouraged to contact Brown in an effort to arrange a debate with him.  We were unable to come to an agreement on the terms and conditions of such a debate.  In fact, I'm not even sure we've agreed on the subject of it.  As is stands, he refuses to engage me in writing and I decline to enter into a verbal debate.  Speaking from my perspective he wants the right to bring up unspecified issues not related to my claims and have me disqualified from the debate if I haven't done my "homework" on these undisclosed matters.
               
              There may be more happening on that front, as there is some indication from an ally of Brown's that Brown will be examining my claims ...... finally.  It only took what.... 3 years or so?
               
            • rlbaty50
              Pi, Thanks for that update. It s good to know that some things are going on; even if it is a history showing that the opposition is not willing to openly,
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Pi,

                Thanks for that update.

                It's good to know that some things are going on; even if it is a history showing that the opposition is not willing to openly, honestly negotiate reasonable logistical details in order to produce a valuable discussion of an important issue.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30021
                PIASAN@... wrote:

                > I'm finding the same to be true of Walt Brown.
                >
                > He has spent far more time and effort writing
                > explanations of why he won't debate me;
                > accusing me of avoiding a debate; and
                > challenging me to "come out" and debate him
                > than he claims it would to simply refute my
                > claims.
                >
                > For those not familiar with the situation....
                >
                > David Willis (a former active participant here
                > and on another list he and I used to frequent)
                > spoke with Brown about my claims regarding
                > Brown's model.
                >
                > One thing led to another and I was encouraged
                > to contact Brown in an effort to arrange a
                > debate with him.
                >
                > We were unable to come to an agreement on the
                > terms and conditions of such a debate.
                >
                > In fact, I'm not even sure we've agreed on the
                > subject of it.
                >
                > As is stands, he refuses to engage me in writing
                > and I decline to enter into a verbal debate.
                >
                > Speaking from my perspective he wants the right
                > to bring up unspecified issues not related to
                > my claims and have me disqualified from the
                > debate if I haven't done my "homework" on these
                > undisclosed matters.
                >
                > There may be more happening on that front, as
                > there is some indication from an ally of Brown's
                > that Brown will be examining my claims ......
                > finally.
                >
                > It only took what.... 3 years or so?

                --------------------------------------
                --------------------------------------
              • rlbaty50
                To Mark Looy & Ken Ham: As a show of good faith, I think it would be appropriate for you to post here a complete account of what led up to Mark Looy posting
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  To Mark Looy & Ken Ham:

                  As a show of good faith, I think it would be appropriate for you to post here a complete account of what led up to Mark Looy posting that message to this list at:

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • rlbaty50
                  Ken Ham/Mark Looy, ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017 ... The point I want to emphasize in this message is that I already posted
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ken Ham/Mark Looy,

                    Please also consider the following:

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017
                    "mark.looy" <mlooy@...> wrote, in part:

                    > Here is the full email we sent to Mr. Baty-
                    > note the final paragraph, indicating our
                    > willingness to meet with him and determine
                    > his sincerity for meaningful dialogue
                    > (since we have our doubts about his openness
                    > due to his continual caustic tone).
                    >
                    > We have not "refused" to deal with him;
                    > we dealt with him through this email below
                    > and are willing to meet:

                    The point I want to emphasize in this message is that I already posted Mark Looy's message in an earlier posting at:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29674

                    What point was Mark Looy trying to make in writing:

                    > Here is the full email we sent to Mr. Baty...?

                    I encourage interested folks to compare what Mark Looy sent to this list and what I earlier posted. Here's the two links again for ready reference:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29674

                    I look forward to Mark's and/or Ken's explanation as to how Mark came to post his message here today and why he implied that my earlier posting of his reply may not have been accurate or complete.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017 ... Some might consider that a bit hypocritical considering the caustic comments often seen on
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017
                      "mark.looy" <mlooy@...> wrote, in part:

                      > (W)e have our doubts about his (Baty's)
                      > openness due to his continual caustic tone.

                      Some might consider that a bit hypocritical considering the caustic comments often seen on the AiG website and the evasions by Ken Ham and his folks in recent weeks regarding the simple inquiries as to his positions and my representations thereof as to my "Goliath of GRAS" argument.

                      Why, just today I noticed Ken Ham writing the following:

                      http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/12/12/the-consequences-of-compromise/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

                      > David Montgomery, a geology professor at the
                      > University of Washington, recently released
                      > his book The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist
                      > Investigates Noah's Flood (New York: W. W.
                      > Norton, 2012).
                      >
                      > Now, I blogged about a short excerpt from
                      > his book a few months ago.
                      >
                      > In my earlier blog post, I pointed out the
                      > willful ignorance of Montgomery...

                      > We have to rescue this generation from the
                      > lies of the evolutionary/millions of years
                      > worldview—and from churches that compromise
                      > on the authority of God's Word.

                      And from the earlier referenced article:

                      > In the face of evidence that these geological
                      > formations were carved by a catastrophic global
                      > Flood, these geologists still refuse to believe
                      > that the Bible holds any historical truth.
                      >
                      > They look at the evidence for the global Flood,
                      > even using descriptions such as "Noah-like
                      > catastrophe" or "floods of biblical proportion,"
                      > but they still determine that the evidence must
                      > point back to many local floods that occurred
                      > hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago.
                      >
                      > It's a clear demonstration of the willful
                      > ignorance that 2 Peter 3 speaks of.

                      > (T)hey don't want to believe God's Word concerning
                      > a global catastrophe over 4,300 years ago (Noah's
                      > Flood), so now they say, "these geological formation
                      > were formed quickly, over millions of years!"
                      >
                      > They just refuse to give up the millions of years—they
                      > have to have long ages because if they don't, then
                      > they could never propose biological evolution!
                      >
                      > The idea of millions of years is foundational to
                      > their, yes, religion in the attempts to explain
                      > life without God.

                      > Yes, they are truly "willfully ignorant."

                      So much more could be said regarding Ken Ham's lack of openness and caustic tone.

                      I'm just a tyro and certainly no match for the sophisticated and superior antics of Ken Ham as he demonstrates his caustic tone and less than open behavior.

                      To even propose that as an excuse for Ken Ham to hide out from the simple matters I have been asking about is a demonstration tending to corroborate my claims that Ken Ham is the one who is not being open.

                      As I have said before, Ken Ham could have simple confirmed my representations of his positions long ago, but he would not!

                      Question #1:

                      > Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS"
                      > argument as being so constructed that if
                      > its premises are true its conclusion will
                      > follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is
                      > logically valid)?
                      >
                      >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                      >> Ken Ham says....?????

                      Question #2:

                      > Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of
                      > my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the
                      > stipulations and force and effect of sound,
                      > biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true?
                      >
                      >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                      >> Ken Ham says....?????

                      Question #3:

                      > Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor
                      > premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                      > because, briefly stated, he has his
                      > interpretation of the Bible regarding the
                      > age of stuff and that trumps any other
                      > evidence and its interpretation to the
                      > contrary?
                      >
                      >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                      >> Ken Ham says....?????

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • rlbaty50
                      ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017 ... I think it also interesting to note that Mark Looy dared to send his message here even while
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017
                        "mark.looy" <mlooy@...> wrote:

                        > Here is the full email we sent to Mr. Baty-
                        > note the final paragraph, indicating our
                        > willingness to meet with him and determine
                        > his sincerity for meaningful dialogue
                        > (since we have our doubts about his openness
                        > due to his continual caustic tone).
                        >
                        > We have not "refused" to deal with him;
                        > we dealt with him through this email below
                        > and are willing to meet:

                        I think it also interesting to note that Mark Looy dared to send his message here even while refusing to address me directly.

                        It appears he simply preferred to go for a public announcement instead of demonstrate that he and Ken Ham have what they don't think I have regarding openness and tone.

                        The invitation remains open for Ken Ham to publicly, officially announce his position regarding my representations:

                        Question #1:

                        > Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS"
                        > argument as being so constructed that if
                        > its premises are true its conclusion will
                        > follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is
                        > logically valid)?
                        >
                        >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                        >> Ken Ham says....?????

                        Question #2:

                        > Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of
                        > my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the
                        > stipulations and force and effect of sound,
                        > biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true?
                        >
                        >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                        >> Ken Ham says....?????

                        Question #3:

                        > Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor
                        > premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                        > because, briefly stated, he has his
                        > interpretation of the Bible regarding the
                        > age of stuff and that trumps any other
                        > evidence and its interpretation to the
                        > contrary?
                        >
                        >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                        >> Ken Ham says....?????

                        Simple stuff, very simple stuff!

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty
                      • rlbaty50
                        To Ken Ham and Mark Looy: Here s another one for your serious consideration. Two of your most notorious sympathizers are the Goldsmith boys. They were so upset
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To Ken Ham and Mark Looy:

                          Here's another one for your serious consideration.

                          Two of your most notorious sympathizers are the Goldsmith boys.

                          They were so upset over losing the "Goliath of GRAS" competition that they set up a YAHOO! group designed to "get Baty".

                          It is, in part, because of their constant claims regarding Ken Ham and me that I have in recent weeks actually tried to get Ken Ham to deal with some of his issues. Others, like the Goldsmith boys, had considerable trouble even admitting that the "Goliath of GRAS" was a properly constructed, logically valid argument.

                          Ken, Mark, please document your efforts to get the Goldsmith boys to measure up to your alleged standards and resolve the apparent differences you and the Goldsmith boys have regarding the "Goliath of GRAS" questions.

                          Here's some reference material from the Goldsmith "get Baty" YAHOO! discussion list for your ready reference:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/1413
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATY_DEFEATED/message/1414

                          > From: Goldsmith
                          > To: Baty_Defeated@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: February 2012
                          >
                          > Ken Ham is not even aware that Robert
                          > Baty is alive.
                          >
                          > Baty constantly posts such crap.
                          >
                          > Let me see if I can make this clear
                          > for Baty...
                          >
                          > Ken Ham = somebody
                          > Robert Baty = nobody
                          >
                          > Got it?
                          > Good!
                          > Try to remember it Robert.

                          Now, back to those three questions that Ken Ham, the Goldsmith boys, and so many others among Ken Ham's sympathizers are having trouble with. Ken Ham needs to show some leadership here; publicly, officially, on the record:

                          Question #1:

                          > Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS"
                          > argument as being so constructed that if
                          > its premises are true its conclusion will
                          > follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is
                          > logically valid)?
                          >
                          >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                          >> Ken Ham says....?????

                          Question #2:

                          > Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of
                          > my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the
                          > stipulations and force and effect of sound,
                          > biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true?
                          >
                          >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                          >> Ken Ham says....?????

                          Question #3:

                          > Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor
                          > premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                          > because, briefly stated, he has his
                          > interpretation of the Bible regarding the
                          > age of stuff and that trumps any other
                          > evidence and its interpretation to the
                          > contrary?
                          >
                          >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                          >> Ken Ham says....?????

                          Simple stuff, very simple stuff!

                          I remain available, on-line, here, to discuss any exception Ken Ham may take to my representations regarding his positions on the above questions.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • rlbaty50
                          ... To: Mark Looy, AiG/Creation Museum Email: mlooy@juno.com CC: mlooy@answersingenesis.org From: Robert Baty Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 Time: About
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 12, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My personal note to Mark Looy via the "juno" address he used to post that message here this morning and his AiG address:

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

                            To: Mark Looy, AiG/Creation Museum
                            Email: mlooy@...
                            CC: mlooy@...
                            From: Robert Baty
                            Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012
                            Time: About 6:45 PM MT

                            Subject: Your Maury_and_Baty Appearance Today

                            Mark Looy,

                            Someone today using the "juno" address submitted a message to the Maury_and_Baty YAHOO! discussion list.

                            Please advise if that was not you.

                            That message can be found at:

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30017

                            I would appreciate it if you, or Ken Ham, or another Ken Ham surrogate would review the record regarding these important public issues and return to the discussion on the Maury_and_Baty list.

                            You can participate simply by sending a message addressed to:

                            Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

                            A personal meeting is not necessary and the 3 fundamental questions can be easily dealt with using 1 legitimate, informed response.

                            However, I am available in northern Colorado for a personal meeting with Ken Ham or his surrogate.

                            Here's the three questions for Ken Ham's informed, legitimate, official, public response:

                            Question #1:

                            > Does Ken Ham recognize my "Goliath of GRAS"
                            > argument as being so constructed that if
                            > its premises are true its conclusion will
                            > follow as true therefrom (i.e., that it is
                            > logically valid)?
                            >
                            >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                            >> Ken Ham says....?????

                            Question #2:

                            > Does Ken Ham recognize the major premise of
                            > my "Goliath of GRAS" argument, given the
                            > stipulations and force and effect of sound,
                            > biblical, common-sense reasoning, as true?
                            >
                            >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                            >> Ken Ham says....?????

                            Question #3:

                            > Does Ken Ham reject the truth of the minor
                            > premise of my "Goliath of GRAS" argument
                            > because, briefly stated, he has his
                            > interpretation of the Bible regarding the
                            > age of stuff and that trumps any other
                            > evidence and its interpretation to the
                            > contrary?
                            >
                            >> Robert Baty says Ken Ham's answer is "yes".
                            >> Ken Ham says....?????

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