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

Will Dr. Bert set the example. . .

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    . . .and give up his post at Apologetics Press? ... Following my name below is the link and story making front page news at Apologetics Press today. I think
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      . . .and give up his post at Apologetics Press?

      Todd Greene wrote, in part:

      > (I)t is Bert Thompson who is
      > constantly touting his Ph.D. in
      > science who thus has no excuse
      > for pushing such complete and
      > utter nonsense.

      Following my name below is the link and story making front page news at
      Apologetics Press today.

      I think this comment from the article is most relevant to discussion
      here:

      > Then, to cap it all off, three years
      > later, in November 2004, Allen
      > published a pitifully weak defense
      > of evolution authored by David
      > Quammen (whose degree is in
      > literature, not science)-using such
      > erroneous and long-ago-disproved
      > examples as. . .and other
      > discredited icons of evolution.

      If we were to apply the Matthew 7:1,2 test to Dr. Bert's own situation
      in light of the above allegations and the still outstanding "rock 'n
      reel" promotion of Dr. Bert (just an example of discredited icons of
      young-earth creation-science), we would have to be asking outselves when
      Dr. Bert is going to be leaving Apologetics Press.

      I figure Dr. Bert's missing it on the change in leadership at the
      National Geographic, but his rules would seem to have some merit; if
      only he and his would apply them to the Apologetics Press leadership
      first.

      Yes, one would think.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
       
      NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EDITOR BILL ALLEN QUITS
       
      The front cover of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic
      screamed-in giant dark-maroon letters -"Was Darwin Wrong?" The answer,
      of course, as provided in 250-point bold type at the beginning of an
      article that began on page 2, was "NO: the evidence for evolution is
      overwhelming."
       
      The moment the issue hit the newsstands, those of us at Apologetics
      Press began formulating our response. That extensive 55-page rebuttal,
      "National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot-Again!," was posted on
      our Web site several days later. In our rebuttal, Dr. Brad Harrub and I
      observed that "November is not a very good month for National
      Geographic," and noted that in November 1999, the editor of National
      Geographic, Bill Allen, published an article that proved to be what was
      likely the worst debacle in the long and storied history of the
      magazine. It also proved to be one of the worst fiascos in the long and
      storied history of evolutionary theory. Mr. Allen published a feature
      article by National Geographic's art director, Christopher P. Sloan,
      titled "Feathers for T. Rex?" The article claimed to provide "a true
      missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." The
      fossil, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, turned out to be little more
      than a composite pasted together by inventive Chinese farmers in order
      to sell it to scientists to make money. In short, it was a fraud.
       
      Then, two years later, the November 2001 issue of National Geographic
      presented additional propaganda in an article titled "Evolution of
      Whales." While the official scientific names and full-color
      reconstructions contained in the article appeared quite impressive, the
      data turned out to be far from it. A closer examination of two alleged
      whale predecessors-Pakicetus and Ambulocetus-revealed that these
      creatures had little in common with whales, and thus did not represent
      the animals' ancient ancestors at all. The "whale-evolution gaffe"
      turned out to be no better evidence for evolution than Archaeoraptor.
       
      Then, to cap it all off, three years later, in November 2004, Allen
      published a pitifully weak defense of evolution authored by David
      Quammen (whose degree is in literature, not science)-using such
      erroneous and long-ago-disproved examples as horse evolution,
      Archaeopteryx, and other discredited icons of evolution. In our
      rebuttal, we commented:
       
      "You would think that Bill Allen, the editor of National Geographic,
      would learn something from these repeated embarrassing failures.
      Apparently not. Surely, there's a message of some kind here.... There is
      not a shred of doubt that, as a result of the fiasco that is represented
      by the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, things have now
      gotten completely out of hand. We therefore, call on the National
      Geographic Society's Board of Governors to remove Bill Allen from his
      position as editor, and install someone who is not only deserving of the
      post, but someone whom the readers deserve to have in that post! The
      Allen/Sloan debacle of November 1999, and the Allen/Quammen travesty of
      November 2004, should not be allowed to be repeated-ever. Enough is
      enough."
       
      While we will never know for certain what happened "behind the scenes,"
      apparently we weren't the only ones calling for Bill Allen's
      resignation.
       
      Suddenly, without any warning, in the March 2005 issue of National
      Geographic, it was announced that the March issue would be his last to
      edit. In his "From the Editor," he said good-bye with very few words,
      and that was that.
       
      Let us hope that the National Geographic Board of Governors has the
      sense this time around to find someone who is more qualified, and who
      has more common sense, than Bill Allen.
       
      Considering the ignominy that he heaped upon the venerable old magazine
      by his multiple gaffs, one would think that the Board of Governors would
      have "had enough," and would install someone as editor who can get the
      magazine out of the long-standing muck and mire into which Bill Allen
      thrust it.

      Yes, one would think.
       
      Bert Thompson

      ######################## 
    • Todd S. Greene
      Hi, everyone. The smell of the freshly dead skunk my dad and I hit while driving in the night a few days ago does not even come close to comparing to the rank
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, everyone.

        The smell of the freshly dead skunk my dad and I hit while driving
        in the night a few days ago does not even come close to comparing to
        the rank smell of hypocrisy of people like Bert Thompson. When the
        National Geographic screwed up in prematurely promoting the one
        particular feathered dinosaur fossil that turned out to be a hoax,
        the magazine *immediately* came clean on the matter. Creationists
        are so dirty rotten that they cannot bring themselves to come clean
        even many decades after their obstinate promote of false
        information, and then when they *finally* stop promoting the false
        information the vast majority of them never actually get around to
        admitting that they screwed up, but just very quietly stop using the
        false information. Bert Thompson himself is *notorious* for
        operating in this purposely deceitful manner, so his sheer audacity
        for trying to turn National Geographic's *honest mistake* into some
        kind of "evolutionist conspiracy" is all the more glaring. Moon
        dust, anyone?

        Bert Thompson doesn't just have a log in his eye, he has a whole
        forest in it, which makes it all the more amazing for him to be
        making a big deal about the speck of dust of the mistaken promotion
        of the feathered dinosaur hoax (which was *immediately* corrected).
        (And notice how Thompson et al *never* mention one word about the
        *several* legitimate specimens of feathered dinosaur fossils. Is
        that deceitful, or what?)

        What happens to dishonest scientists in the scientific community,
        when they are discovered? They lose their careers. What happens to
        dishonest creationists in the creationist community? They are
        *praised* for their "bolding" in "standing up against the atheistic
        conspiracy." This demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the
        creationist community, beyond just showing that they simply can't
        handle reality.

        Regards,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        In light of Todd s latest discussion regarding the issue, I thought it would be approriate to copy an excerpt from Rick s latest effort to help the folks out
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In light of Todd's latest discussion regarding the issue, I thought it
          would be approriate to copy an excerpt from Rick's latest effort to help
          the folks out on the CFTF list (I wonder how long they will let him
          continue).

          Here's the note from Rick (excerpts):

          > From: Rick Hartzog
          > Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2005
          > To: CFTF@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [CFTF] Re: Just in

          > This, my friends, is exactly the
          > sort of thing I'm talking about. 

          > The record of the fluctuations
          > in the Earth's magnetic field has
          > been known for years and years
          > and years, but this keeps popping
          > up...

          > > King wrote:
          > > Just in from a scientist...

          > What -- "just in" 20 years ago?

          > If you will name the scientist, I'll
          > provide you with a half-dozen
          > links to reputable sources, such
          > as NASA and Stanford University,
          > that discredit his/her conclusions.

          > > King:
          > > ...the sun is shrinking 21/2 miles per year...

          > If you're using the study that
          > reported a shrinkage of 5 feet/hour,
          > that works out to about 8.29 miles
          > per year...

          > Friends, it has been over 30 years
          > since I first heard about the C-14
          > tests that showed living mollusks
          > (sometimes it's snails, sometimes
          > clams or something) to be thousands
          > of years old.  And for 30-some
          > years, we have known why this is so. 

          > But it's still out there on
          > creationist sites. 

          > To continue to present this argument,
          > knowing that it is false and knowing
          > why it is false, as current science is
          > dishonest.

          > And do you want to know where I
          > first heard about this false claim? 

          > In church.  That's right, our little
          > country church had one of these
          > creationist speakers come in and
          > tell us all about it. 

          > Maybe he didn't know he was lying
          > to us.  Or maybe he did, but needed
          > the money we paid him to come speak. 

          > I don't know.

          > But now they do know that they are
          > lying.  They know it very well. 

          > It is unethical, deceptive,
          > underhanded and incongruous with
          > Christianity to do such things. 

          > And they do it over and over again. 

          > It's wrong. 

          > On face value alone it is wrong, but
          > to get up in church and do it in the
          > name of Christianity is outright evil. 

          > I'm not kidding about this. 

          > When I said the young-earth argument
          > is a tool of Satan I meant it.  Do not
          > be deceived by it.

          > Here is an example for you. 

          > Carbon-14 dating only works on
          > organic material that is less than
          > around 50,000 years old.  We all
          > know that.  Creationist "scientists"
          > know it, too.  So what do they do? 

          > They take dinosaur bones, that they
          > know are much, much older than
          > 50,000 years and send them to a
          > lab requesting C-14 dating. 

          > They claim that they didn't tell the
          > lab that the bones were dinosaur
          > bones to "eliminate experimental
          > bias," but what they are eliminating
          > is any chance that the bones will be
          > correctly dated.  If they had
          > told the lab it was dinosaur bones,
          > the lab would have told them
          > immediately that C-14 dating wouldn't
          > work, and would have suggested
          > another dating test.  But the lab is
          > unaware of the deception and
          > conducts the test, and comes up with
          > an age of around 15,000 years
          > for the bones. 

          > They send the test results to the
          > creationist "scientists" who immediately
          > say, "Aha!" and put it out
          > as evidence that dinosaurs and
          > humans co-existed.

          > YOU HAVE TO STOP TRYING TO
          > PROVE THE BIBLE IS LITERAL TRUTH. 

          > Rick Hartzog
          > Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

          I think you can probably figure out the connection to Todd's post and to
          Dr. Bert's most recent "rock 'n reel" promotion.

          If you read Rick's message closely, you can even see where he gets into
          the "Goliath of GRAS" a bit.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty

          P.S. to Rick: Rick, you might try using my "Goliath of GRAS" to
          logically point out how it is the "young-earth, creation-science"
          position can be falsified. The own known alternative to the argument is
          that the YEC promoters have to admit their real world claims aren't
          subject to falsification based on real world evidence.

          Of course, if you brought up my "Goliath" on the CFTF list, you would
          probably also haste your dismissal from the list or your ability to post
          thereon on the subject.

          ##########################
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.