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

Re: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: King v. Todd!

Expand Messages
  • scott foster
    I had promised myself to keep silent on this. But, the bible as scientific evidence and whose bats occupy your belfry? scott King Davis
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I had promised myself to keep silent on this. But, "the bible as scientific evidence" and whose bats occupy your belfry?

      scott

      King Davis <kdavis12@...> wrote:
      You are going to belive what you believe because that is what you wish to
      believe, in the fact of evidence given by Bert from scripture, but what
      meaning does the scripture have on you? None, Because Bert quotes from the
      scripture, does not make him the the arthor of the scripture. Then what
      about Henry Morris, Jack Sears or John Whitcomb to name a few, guess they
      are out of it too, anyone that disagrees with you. So, I can see the Bible
      and other scientific views have no meaning to you. Thus, end of discussion.
      King

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...>
      To: <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:33 PM
      Subject: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: King v. Todd!


      >
      >
      > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "King Davis" <kdavis12@m...>
      > wrote:
      >
      >> You sound like a disgruntled bus driver!
      >
      > Not me!
      > Keith is the bus driver!
      >
      > Maybe you meant to address Keith? I can see him being a big
      > disgruntled.
      >
      > I have been trying to have fun with this as I work to establish my 15
      > minutes fo fame.
      >
      > So, King, are you giving any consideration to the substantive issues
      > involved in these discussions.
      >
      > Did you just come around to stir things up a bit and demonstrate
      > again that the critics of the "young-earth, creation-science"
      > movement have got it quite right as to how the movement and its
      > members don't really know what they are talking about?
      >
      > As far as I can tell, all you've really done is ask how it is that
      > legitimate science claims folks have been around for a long time.
      > You got an answer to that and otherwise have been quite unresponsive
      > to points made in the discussions.
      >
      > Like, do you even appreciate the similarities between your position
      > and the geocentrists of old? Have you considered my "Goliath of
      > GRAS"? Have you reviewed my correspondence with the CRSQ? With Dr.
      > Bert?
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Robert Baty
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Support your local IRS office!
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >



      Support your local IRS office!


      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
      Want to be a wise steward?
      �Invest 60� a day in the life of a child.�Click here to view an investment of a lifetime..

      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      Maury_and_Baty-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      Scott Foster
      Foster & Etheridge Associates, Inc.
      850-936-5219 or 850-936-4848.



      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... [snip] ... Hi, King. Pay close attention, I hope you can follow the straightforward logic here: Point #1 - The universe has been in existence far longer
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, King Davis wrote (post #4715):
        [snip]
        > ...in my last
        > post I mentioned that the Bible teaches a young earth and guess I
        > don't have to get permission to mention Bert Thompson PhD, in his
        > Reason & Revelation, Aug. 1999 monthly and his next two issues
        > deals with "The Bible And The Age Of The Earth and shows that the
        > Bible shows a young earth, articles to long to quote, just get
        > his Aug., Sept., and Oct. Journals.

        Hi, King.

        Pay close attention, I hope you can follow the straightforward logic
        here:

        Point #1 - The universe has been in existence far longer than just
        6,000 years. (In the field of astronomy, for example, this is known
        by direct observation.)

        Point #2 - Some Christians (and many atheists also) argue that the
        Bible teaches that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago
        (meaning that the Bible teaches that the universe did not exist more
        than about 6,000 years ago).

        Point #3 - The idea that the universe did not exist more than about
        6,000 years ago is an erroneous idea (see point #1).

        Point #4 - God is not the author of error, since error is not
        consistent with God's nature.

        Point #5 - If the Bible teaches the erroneous idea that the universe
        did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago, then God is not the
        author of the Bible (see point #4).

        Point #6 - Young earth creationists argue that the Bible teaches the
        erroneous idea that the universe did not exist more than about 6,000
        years ago.

        Conclusion: Thus, young earth creationists imply that God is not the
        author of the Bible.

        I'm sure you don't even realize this, King, but young earth
        creationism is one of the best atheistic arguments there is. We love
        you guys! Bert Thompson is one of the great (unwitting) friends of
        atheism!

        > Plus, I think Green sent me his thoughts and using the Argom
        > method of dating, but did not bother to mention the problems with
        > this dating method, with I did before mentioned Carbon and Argon
        > dating, but he dismissed that

        Uh, King, you are confused. As usual. You actually have to give me
        something to dismiss before I can dismiss it. LOL!

        > and said in
        > 40+ years of studing dating I missed something,

        Because you did. You missed the simple fact that up until a few years
        ago C14 dating couldn't be used for anything more than about 50,000
        years old, and that even now labs using state-of-the-art equipment
        still can't use C14 dating for anything older than about 80,000 years
        old. And now here you are ignoring the fact and ignoring your error,
        which is the typical behavior of young earth creationists. (Of course
        there's the interesting point that this is actually a chicken-and-egg
        type problem: Do people become dishonest because they are
        creationists, or do they become creationists because they are
        dishonest?) If you have 40+ years of studying the subject under your
        belt, and you didn't know that, then you obviously haven't been
        studying very hard. This is like the physics student drinking coffee
        and staying up all night studying for his exam the next day, gets to
        class the next day and then realizes he studied the wrong chapter!
        His studying didn't do him much good.

        > he is the
        > one that has missed something,

        Feel free to point it out.

        > and he quotes
        > some pin heads and that is suppose the be authortative.

        Right, right, Dr. Paul Renne is a pinhead, while here you are touting
        the Creation Research Society morons who don't even go any scientific
        research on the subject! LOL! Last I read, the CRS idiots are STILL
        pushing the moon dust argument, which was empirically falsified
        beyond all shadow of a doubt in the *1960s* and which is such a bad
        argument that even the Answers in Genesis group and the Institute for
        Creation Research have abandoned it. Golly, the moon dust argument is
        so bad that even Bert Thompson, of erstwhile Bible-in-hand-Maury-
        statue (which doesn't exist) fame, finally abandoned the argumnt
        (very quietly, as YECs are known to do) here in the early 21st
        century. (Better late than never! LOL!) But the CRS is still pushing
        this nonsense! But you, who touts the CRS morons, have the audacity
        to denigrate Dr. Paul Renne as a pinhead.

        Dr. Paul Renne, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Director of Berkeley
        Geochronology Center

        Academic Background
        -------------------
        5/95-present
        Adjunct Associate Professor of Geology, University of California,
        Berkeley

        5/94-present
        President and Director, Berkeley Geochronology Center.

        1/90-5/94
        Research Associate at Institute of Human Origins Geochronology
        Center. Director of Geochronology Center and member of Board of
        Directors 1991-1994. Chairman of Science Committee 1993-1994.

        5/87- 12/89
        Post-doctoral Fellow with T.C. Onstott and R.B. Hargraves at
        Princeton University working on 40Ar/39Ar thermochronometry and
        paleomagnetism applied to the tectonic evolution of:
        (1) Precambrian mobile belts of Gondwanaland; (2) The northern
        Caribbean.

        1987
        PhD in Geology, U. C. Berkeley

        1982
        AB (with Highest Honors) in Geology, U. C. Berkeley

        Selected Publications
        ---------------------
        http://eps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/faculty.cgi?
        name=renne§ion=SelectedPublications
        [note line-wrapping of link]

        (There are over a hundred; I quit counting after 100!)

        Your CRS heroes on the other hand don't even DO real science
        research. They sit around in their little scripture debate society
        preaching to people like you who eat up their clueless pronouncements
        about "science and the scripture." Paul Renne ALONE has more
        experience in real science research in a field relevant to the
        subject of creationism than ALL of the young earth creationists of
        the world of the entire 20th century to the present COMBINED, and
        Renne is just one geologist. It's no wonder you didn't know about
        something as basic as the range limit of C14 dating, when you're
        sitting around wasting 40+ years of your time reading the clueless
        propaganda from people like those of the CRS (and Bert Thompson).

        "Marking time is a science at Berkeley center;
        It devises ways to date nearly everything"
        by David Perlman
        (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/2004)
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
        file=/c/a/2004/09/27/MNGNP8VHS31.DTL
        [note line-wrapping of link]

        King, all I can tell you is, please grab a clue!

        Sincerely,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
      • rlbaty50
        ... I do hope King continues to follow the discussion here and takes that advice. It will be a good thing . ... I changed that go to do . Otherwise, I
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
          <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part, to King:

          > Pay close attention. . .

          I do hope King continues to follow the discussion here and takes that
          advice. It will be a "good thing".

          Todd continued:

          > (Y)ou are touting the Creation Research Society
          > morons who don't even (d)o any scientific research
          > on the subject! LOL! Last I read, the CRS idiots
          > are STILL pushing the moon dust argument, which
          > was empirically falsified beyond all shadow of a
          > doubt in the *1960s* and which is such a bad
          > argument that even the Answers in Genesis group
          > and the Institute for Creation Research have
          > abandoned it. Golly, the moon dust argument is
          > so bad that even Bert Thompson, of erstwhile
          > Bible-in-hand-Maury-statue (which doesn't exist)
          > fame, finally abandoned the argumnt (very quietly,
          > as YECs are known to do) here in the early 21st
          > century. (Better late than never! LOL!)

          I changed that "go" to "do". Otherwise, I felt that paragraph needed
          to be repeated. I guess I am a little biased since I became so
          famous because of just such issues as moon-dust, Maury and Dr. Bert.

          Todd concluded with:

          > King, all I can tell you is, please grab a clue!

          I had hoped that King, with his degrees and age, would be able to
          stand up to a little scrutiny and lively discussion. My hopes have
          been dashed for now. However, maybe he will yet "grab a clue" and
          return with something meaningful that we can discuss.

          Todd, thanks for taking of your time and talents to deal with the
          specifics on some of these things on this little list.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • rlbaty50
          ... I guess I should have changed that to argument . Bear with me, though. As much as I have tried, I just can t fix everything. I need all the help I can
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...>
            wrote, in part, quoting Todd:
            >
            > argumnt

            I guess I should have changed that to "argument".

            Bear with me, though. As much as I have tried, I just can't fix
            everything. I need all the help I can get, and as you may have
            noticed, the good brethren aren't much up to helping me.

            Now, back to trying to figure out just where Dr. Bert came up with
            his Maury statue claim!

            Robert
          • Todd S. Greene
            Hi, Robert. It s a good thing I went into computer programming. When writing a program all the words are/must be defined, and if the computer sees a word that
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Robert.

              It's a good thing I went into computer programming. When writing a
              program all the words are/must be defined, and if the computer sees a
              word that has not been defined that it "Hey, dummy, right here on
              line 117 is this crazy word 'count_dections' that you haven't
              defined; how the heck am I supposed to know what it means?" It makes
              things so much easier.

              Chuckling,
              Todd
            • Tamara
              When I stated in an earlier thread that I was interested in the comments of a real scientist , this is what I had in mind. I think there can be no doubt that
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                When I stated in an earlier thread that I was interested in the comments of a "real scientist", this is what I had in mind. I think there can be no doubt that Dr. Paul Renne is a "real scientist", whether one agrees with his theories or not.

                Is Dr. Bert Thompson, whose name has been mentioned as an authority on creation science, a "real scientist"? I have no idea. Provide his academic credentials and we'll decide for ourselves.

                Best,
                Tamara
                ____________________

                Todd S. Greene wrote:

                Dr. Paul Renne, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Director of Berkeley
                Geochronology Center

                Academic Background
                -------------------
                5/95-present
                Adjunct Associate Professor of Geology, University of California,
                Berkeley

                5/94-present
                President and Director, Berkeley Geochronology Center.

                1/90-5/94
                Research Associate at Institute of Human Origins Geochronology
                Center. Director of Geochronology Center and member of Board of
                Directors 1991-1994. Chairman of Science Committee 1993-1994.

                5/87- 12/89
                Post-doctoral Fellow with T.C. Onstott and R.B. Hargraves at
                Princeton University working on 40Ar/39Ar thermochronometry and
                paleomagnetism applied to the tectonic evolution of:
                (1) Precambrian mobile belts of Gondwanaland; (2) The northern
                Caribbean.

                1987
                PhD in Geology, U. C. Berkeley

                1982
                AB (with Highest Honors) in Geology, U. C. Berkeley

                Selected Publications
                ---------------------
                http://eps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/faculty.cgi?
                name=renne§ion=SelectedPublications
                [note line-wrapping of link]



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.