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

Re: Group Description Revision!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... Read closely, the groups description is not intended to be exhaustive. So, I have not noticed any of Rick s posts being off-topic . I have, as with
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 31 2:13 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@y...> wrote,
      in part:

      > Perhaps my posts have been off-topic
      > in light of the recently revised group
      > description, so in penance I offer the
      > following links.

      > I'm not sure "notorious" is as apt a
      > term as "ridiculous":

      Read closely, the groups description is not intended to be exhaustive.
      So, I have not noticed any of Rick's posts being "off-topic".

      I have, as with "Mathewmaury", responded to his criticism of the
      description and changed "notorious" to "ridiculous".

      Thanks to Rick's recently posted references, it appears Dr.
      Bert's "Rock 'n Reel" claims are being increasingly seen as ridiculous.

      One of the fundamental problems "we" have discussed here is the unique
      position Dr. Bert seems to hold, despite Matthew 7:1,2 and James 3:1,
      as one of the few folks around who cannot be or will not be disciplined
      when he puts out stuff like that.

      I'd be glad to be proven wrong on that observation, but the evidence
      seems to be mounting in favor or my opinion in the matter.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • geodynamicist
      ... JM: Indeed I did send this message and have subsequently been in contact again regarding the reel. It appears as if the man will not allow it to be
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Rick provided this as one of his links:
        >
        > > Internet Infidels Discussion Forum:
        > > http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116731
        >
        > Joe Meert sent Dr. Bert a proposal to have the "rock 'n reel"
        > tested. He allegedly got this reply from Dr. Brad (Dr. Bert's right
        > hand man):

        JM: Indeed I did send this message and have subsequently been in
        contact again regarding the reel. It appears as if the man will not
        allow it to be tested. I believe I know why. The rock that it is
        alleged to have been formed in is a metamorphic rock called a
        phyllite. It forms under specific pressure and temperature conditions
        and has been deep enough into the crust such that the reel would have
        been flattened and sheared out, yet the reel is non-deformed. I am
        heading up to the region shortly and have asked to meet the guy with
        the reel to get a look at it.

        Cheers

        Joe Meert
      • rlbaty50
        ... Joe, Thanks for taking the time to respond and inform of us of your latest interest and activity in the matter. Please consider further posts to this list
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "geodynamicist"
          <geodynamicist@y...> wrote:

          > JM:

          > Indeed I did send this message and have
          > subsequently been in contact again
          > regarding the reel. It appears as if the
          > man will not allow it to be tested.

          > I believe I know why.

          > The rock that it is alleged to have been
          > formed in is a metamorphic rock called a
          > phyllite. It forms under specific pressure
          > and temperature conditions and has been deep
          > enough into the crust such that the reel
          > would have been flattened and sheared out,
          > yet the reel is non-deformed. I am heading
          > up to the region shortly and have asked to
          > meet the guy with the reel to get a look at it.
          >
          > Cheers
          >
          > Joe Meert


          Joe,

          Thanks for taking the time to respond and inform of us of your latest
          interest and activity in the matter. Please consider further posts to
          this list as the issue develops.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • w_w_c_l
          ... wrote, ... Fame, infamy, notoriety... call it what you will. Evidently the good folks at Apologetics Press haven t become aware that they have detractors
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@y...>
            wrote,
            > in part:
            >
            > > Our own Baty is quoted on a couple of
            > > these forums, from a letter he apparently
            > > posted to talkorigins.
            >
            > Rick,
            >
            > Thanks for those references. "We" will have to check into them. It
            > looks like my fame is growing?
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty

            Fame, infamy, notoriety... call it what you will. Evidently the good
            folks at Apologetics Press haven't become aware that they have
            detractors out there who call their "science" just so much silliness,
            or, it seems, they would certainly respond in some way.


            Rick Hartzog

            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
          • rlbaty50
            ... Oh, they know, they know. The problem is they have responded in some way , just not the right way. One recent example was, after many years of being
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@y...> wrote:

              > Fame, infamy, notoriety... call it what you will.
              > Evidently the good folks at Apologetics Press
              > haven't become aware that they have detractors
              > out there who call their "science" just so much
              > silliness, or, it seems, they would certainly
              > respond in some way.

              Oh, they know, they know. The problem is they have responded "in
              some way", just not the right way.

              One recent example was, after many years of being warned, they
              secretly removed Dr. Bert's moon-dust blunder from their website.
              There was no known admission, explanation, correction; it just
              disappeared (while it was coming under renewed public discussion at
              the time).

              The old moon-dust promotion is on the links page here. One can
              compare the old with the new page (by limiting consideration to the
              moon-dust promotion is not to endorse the blunders that remain in the
              present article) to see the missing moon-dust promotion.

              Will they secretly remove the "Rock 'n Reel" claims from their
              website in the future. We will see.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • geodynamicist
              I had e-mailed Brad several times about studying this reel and rock. He indicated that the owner seemed a little reluctant to have the thing examined outside
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I had e-mailed Brad several times about studying this reel and rock.
                He indicated that the owner seemed a little reluctant to have the
                thing examined outside his presence. Last week, I visited the outcrop
                near where the reel was allegedly found embedded in the rock and also
                contacted Brad to have the guy meet me in the field with the reel in
                the rock. I received no response about meeting me, but I did examine
                the phyllite in some detail. As I mentioned, this rock has undergone
                a signficant amount of solid-state strain and elevated temperatures.
                The reel appears to be undeformed in spite of being buried beneath
                some 3-5 kilometers of rock. In short, this is a bad fake and
                apologeticspress should be ashamed of putting it forth as evidence for
                a young earth.

                Cheers

                Joe Meert
              • Todd S. Greene
                ... Hello Joe Meert, fellow YEC-fighter! This is the complaint/criticism I stated here earlier, which is simply that it is ridiculous and absurd for Bert
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Joe Meert "geodynamicist" wrote (post #5846):
                  > I had e-mailed Brad several times about studying this reel and
                  > rock. He indicated that the owner seemed a little reluctant to
                  > have the thing examined outside his presence. Last week, I
                  > visited the outcrop near where the reel was allegedly found
                  > embedded in the rock and also contacted Brad to have the guy
                  > meet me in the field with the reel in the rock. I received no
                  > response about meeting me, but I did examine the phyllite in
                  > some detail. As I mentioned, this rock has undergone a
                  > signficant amount of solid-state strain and elevated temperatures.
                  > The reel appears to be undeformed in spite of being buried beneath
                  > some 3-5 kilometers of rock. In short, this is a bad fake and
                  > apologeticspress should be ashamed of putting it forth as evidence
                  > for a young earth.
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  > Joe Meert

                  Hello Joe Meert, fellow YEC-fighter!

                  This is the complaint/criticism I stated here earlier, which is
                  simply that it is ridiculous and absurd for Bert Thompson (that's
                  Dr. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. in biochemistry - LOL!) and his cohorts to
                  be pretending that the phyllite rock formed within the last 100
                  years. If that was true, then in fact contrary to all known geology
                  we should be able to observe layers of phyllite rock forming within
                  our lifetimes. Since we all know this is not true - and indeed
                  totally silly - it demonstrates that Bert Thompson both doesn't know
                  what he's talking about and has put forth a totally irrational
                  argument to boot. And this is par for the YEC course.

                  FORE!

                  Chuckling,
                  Todd Greene
                  http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
                • rlbaty@webtv.net
                  Todd, Joe is set at no mail , so he doesn t get messages directly. I forwarded your note directly to him, just in case you didn t think to do so. Maybe we
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 8, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Todd,

                    Joe is set at "no mail", so he doesn't get messages directly. I
                    forwarded your note directly to him, just in case you didn't think to do
                    so.

                    Maybe we will hear more of this.

                    Of course, what we really need is for Dr. Bert, et al, to be about
                    admitting their error, explaining it, and correcting it.

                    Last I checked, the "Rock 'n Reel" claims were still holding a prominent
                    place on Dr. Bert's website. Will it mysteriously disappear in about
                    10-12 years like the moon-dust claims? I would hope we could resolve
                    this matter a lot quicker than that.

                    Sincerely,
                    Robert Baty
                  • geodynamicist
                    Some more digging led to the following (I ve posted this elsewhere so I apologize for any repeated material. I have recceived permission to use all the e-mail
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 8, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Some more digging led to the following (I've posted this elsewhere
                      so I apologize for any repeated material. I have recceived
                      permission to use all the e-mail included:

                      On my trip to Tennessee, I asked Brad Harrub at apologetics press to
                      arrange a meeting between the man owning the 'reel in the rock' and
                      me.
                      see
                      http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?
                      name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2698

                      Brad did not respond, but I did manage to take a look at the
                      phyllite in which it was supposedly embedded. I was accompanied by
                      metamorphic/structural geologist Jim Vogl and when I mentioned the
                      reel in the rock, he had the same question about its undeformed
                      state. I sent the following e-mail to Brad (no response yet):


                      Dear Brad,
                      I tried contacting you last week via the website e-mail system on
                      your site but did not receive a response. This was disappointing
                      because I happened to be on a field trip in Tennessee and the
                      Tellico area. I was hoping to get a look at the reel in the rock
                      that is touted on your website as evidence for a young earth and
                      problematic for geologists. While I did not get to look at the reel,
                      I was able to look at the rock type in which the reel appears to be
                      embedded. I would like to demonstrate why the reel is not good
                      evidence for a young earth and also to correct some scientific
                      misinformation in your article. To be fair, I think most of these
                      mistakes were simply the result of poor recollection on the part of
                      the finder of the reel rather than deliberate attempts to mislead.
                      Nevertheless, I think it is important to correct these errors of
                      fact as side notes to your article. Let me start with the
                      corrections and then explain why I think the reel is more of a
                      curiosity than a scientific enigma.

                      (1) The collector stated that he recalled that they informed
                      him "that the only two places where this type of rock is found is
                      in
                      the Appalachians and Africa". This is incorrect. Phyllite is a
                      common type of metamorphic rock found on every continent.
                      (2) "Mr. Jones recalled that the geologists appeared very
                      familiar
                      with this type of rock, and he remembered being told that the rock
                      came from the period when the continents divided." The rock
                      formed
                      as a result of continental collision according to evolutionary
                      geology.

                      Now, here's the major problem with your story and I trust that
                      you
                      will do the right thing and withdraw the claim. Phyllite is a
                      metamorphic rock and the minerals in the rock indicate (through non-
                      controversial physics and chemistry) that the rock could have only
                      formed under conditions where the temperatures were above 300 C and
                      pressures were above 3-5 kbars (roughly 9-15 kilometers depth).
                      These mineral reactions have been demonstrated in the laboratory and
                      it is well known that the rock known as phyllite starts out as a
                      mudstone and as it is progressively heated and buried it becomes a
                      slate and then a phyllite. So if the reel had been embedded in the
                      rock when it formed, then the reel would have been buried and heated
                      causing it to be flattened as are many of the micaceous minerals in
                      the rock. Imagine how the reel might look if it was run over by a
                      dump truck full of granite. Yet the reel shows no deformation and no
                      indication that it was part of the rock during the metamorphic
                      cycle. Since I have not been able to study the rock in detail, I can
                      only conclude that the reel became embedded in the rock after the
                      metamorphism perhaps due to chemical reactions between dissolved
                      minerals in the water as it sat there for many years. The
                      alternative is that the reel was placed in the rock by someone as a
                      practical joke. Again, this could only be verified through
                      examination of the reel and the rock. However, it is clear from the
                      simple physics and chemistry involved in the formation of the
                      phyllite that it was not formed at the same time as the rock. Now,
                      you may still assert that the earth is very young and that modern
                      geology has the age of the earth all wrong, but this finding does
                      nothing to help your case. I am a Christian who disagrees with your
                      assertions about the age of the earth, but I think we should be
                      honest and forthright in the evidence we present to others. At the
                      very least, I would hope you would be willing to publish my response
                      to the article in question.

                      Sincerely

                      Joe Meert


                      I also e-mailed Ann Holmes who is featured in the piece and has
                      actually seen the rock, with her permission this is what she had to
                      say:


                      Hello Joe,
                      The old guy (and a newspaper reporter) brought it in to the
                      department;
                      we didn't have the heart to crush him mercilessly. I wish we had, in
                      retrospect.

                      The phyllite had saw marks in it where the flattish plate of the
                      reel
                      had been imbedded. Sharp-edged saw marks that would have surely
                      weathered rounder had it been wallowed out by water around the reel.
                      I also suspect a drill hole to hold the one round reel support
                      imbedded
                      as well.


                      There's more to the e-mail including an exchange amongst faculty at
                      UTC all discussing the fact that the reel is not naturally embedded
                      in the rock. Just got permission to use those:


                      ªMy immediate reaction is one of total indifference. Like you, I
                      > suspect, I don't take anybody seriously that takes this kind of
                      > "journalism" seriously.
                      >
                      > Despite that attitude, it still gets under my skin. ...and what
                      > frustrates me is that features of the rock adjacent to the reel
                      > clearly, indisputably, demonstrate that the reel was not present
                      when
                      > the rock formed. Instead, the reel was mechanically introduced to
                      the
                      > rock more recently, well after the rock formed. This is indicated
                      by
                      > the open channelways formed by protrusions from the reel as it
                      > penetrated the rock. Had the rock formed around the reel, such
                      > channelways due to penetration would not exist. Hence, this
                      occurrence
                      > of a reel in a rock does not bring into question the age of the
                      rock.
                      > It is totally irrelevant. No one with an inkling of logic can
                      dispute
                      > that line of reasoning. JWM
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > AEHª comments:
                      >
                      > We were being polite and respectful to an old man who wanted his
                      > "find" to be important.ª We try not to trample people's feelings
                      when
                      > they bring in "dinosaur bones" (concretions), fossilized bird
                      nests
                      > (cave deposits), and all the strange pseudofossils that linger in
                      > family collections.ª None of us saw any evidence that the rock
                      was
                      > formed around the reel.ª In fact, quite the opposite.
                      >
                      > Dr. Ann Holmes

                      Cheers

                      Joe Meert
                    • rlbaty@webtv.net
                      Joe s post had the following comments addressed to Brad Harrub, Ph.D., ... It is interesting how, given the opportunity for a demonstration, the folks at
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 9, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Joe's post had the following comments addressed to Brad Harrub, Ph.D.,
                        co-worker of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. of Apologetics Press:

                        > I would like to demonstrate why
                        > the reel is not good evidence for
                        > a young earth and also to correct
                        > some scientific misinformation in
                        > your article.

                        > I think it is important to correct these
                        > errors of fact as side notes to your
                        > article.

                        > I trust that you will do the right thing
                        > and withdraw the claim.

                        > I think we should be honest and
                        > forthright in the evidence we present
                        > to others.

                        > At the very least, I would hope you
                        > would be willing to publish my response
                        > to the article in question.

                        It is interesting how, given the opportunity for a demonstration, the
                        folks at Apologetics Press run off and hide from their public
                        responsibilities. I just checked again this morning and the "Rock 'n
                        Reel" article is still there.

                        Joe makes some good points about what might be expected, and Bert
                        Thompson, Ph.D. even public claims he's open to doing just what Joe
                        suggests, though we wonder how long it is going to take Bert Thompson,
                        Ph.D. to meet his public obligations regarding his "Rock 'n Reel"
                        claims.

                        Here's the boast made by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. when he made an appearance
                        on the June 1998 feedback pages of TalkOrigins:

                        TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for June 1998
                        http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun98.html

                        > Feedback Letter From:
                        > Bert Thompson

                        > Comment:

                        > (excerpt)

                        > As links to our Web site articles from
                        > infidels.org attest, we are not averse
                        > to correcting popular misconceptions
                        > regarding Bible/science matters.

                        While we would like to think that claim was true, we have been privvy to
                        a few instances where it simply was not true. The "Rock 'n Reel" claims
                        are now the most timely example. The reality does seem to be that Bert
                        Thompson, Ph.D. IS averse to correcting errors, at least of his own.

                        We will see how that plays out in light of the claims of Bert Thompson,
                        Ph.D. concerning his willingness to correct popular misconceptions.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty
                      • w_w_c_l
                        Joe Meert wrote: ...the rock could have only formed under conditions where the temperatures were above 300 C and pressures were above 3-5 kbars... Rick: As Dr.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 9, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Joe Meert wrote:

                          ...the rock could have only formed under conditions where the
                          temperatures were above 300 C and pressures were above 3-5 kbars...

                          Rick:

                          As Dr. Dino might ask, conditions such as one might expect during a
                          catastrophic event? Such as a worldwide global flood?

                          ("worldwide global," Dr. Dino?)

                          Joe also quoted geologists at UTC:

                          > Despite that attitude, it still gets under my skin. ...and what
                          > frustrates me is that features of the rock adjacent to the reel
                          > clearly, indisputably, demonstrate that the reel was not present
                          when
                          > the rock formed. Instead, the reel was mechanically introduced to
                          the
                          > rock more recently, well after the rock formed. This is indicated
                          by
                          > the open channelways formed by protrusions from the reel as it
                          > penetrated the rock. Had the rock formed around the reel, such
                          > channelways due to penetration would not exist. Hence, this
                          occurrence
                          > of a reel in a rock does not bring into question the age of the
                          rock.
                          > It is totally irrelevant. No one with an inkling of logic can
                          dispute
                          > that line of reasoning. JWM
                          >
                          >

                          Rick:

                          So what? As Dr. Dino might say, that doesn't prove the reel
                          wasn't "mechanically introduced" at the time of Noah's Flood. Anyone
                          with an "inkling of logic" would know that the people of that time
                          were probably taking advantage of the rising floodwaters as a good
                          place to fish.

                          Joe further quotes:

                          >
                          > AEHª comments:
                          >
                          > We were being polite and respectful to an old man who wanted his
                          > "find" to be important.ª We try not to trample people's feelings
                          when
                          > they bring in "dinosaur bones" (concretions), fossilized bird
                          nests
                          > (cave deposits), and all the strange pseudofossils that linger in
                          > family collections.ª None of us saw any evidence that the rock
                          was
                          > formed around the reel.ª In fact, quite the opposite.
                          >
                          > Dr. Ann Holmes

                          Rick:

                          Well, what about the hammer embedded in Cretaceous rock, or the
                          fossilized cowboy leg that they have on display at the Creation
                          Evidence Museum? Huh? Huh? Try to explain *that*! Scoffers!

                          http://www.creationevidence.org/archives/layman/ar_whatsnew7_00.htm

                          Really, this is great work, Joe, and in thanking you personally I am
                          sure I am speaking for countless other Christians who are getting
                          sick of this kind of nonsense.


                          Fishing for truth,

                          Rick Hartzog

                          Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          In post #5822 Rick Hartzog wrote ... by Jack Kinsella (Omega Letter Editor) ... Hi, Rick. I just wanted to thank you for the entertainment! ;-) Turkish
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 12, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In post #5822 Rick Hartzog wrote

                            | While I was searching for these links I also ran across an
                            | article Todd may be interested in:
                            |
                            | Atheism in Decline Worldwide:
                            by Jack Kinsella (Omega Letter Editor)
                            | http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4992

                            Hi, Rick.

                            I just wanted to thank you for the entertainment! ;-)

                            "Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya"!!! LOL!

                            Or here's another one: "It is significant to note that the root cause
                            of the decline in atheism is scientific discovery." Which is a pretty
                            odd claim since the fact is that the incidence of atheism has a direct
                            correlation to a person's education in science.

                            Of course, the article also reveals its creationist anti-evolution
                            agenda in this statement (assuming the reference to the "Turkish
                            philosopher" didn't already give it away!): "Darwin's 'Origin of the
                            Species' gave rise to the atheist religion of Darwinism that ultimately
                            morphed from religion into scientific 'theory' into scientific 'fact' --
                            and is now rapidly falling into discredit, even as a 'theory'."

                            Oh, look, here's another fun and moldy piece of anti-atheist
                            propaganda: "Ethics evolve according to the situation at hand. What is,
                            to the atheist, immoral, would be a society that did NOT." Thus
                            demonstrating that according to theists society should NOT evolve, and
                            if we were still following God then slavery and murder and rape would
                            still be good ethical conduct (according to the book of Joshua, among
                            other biblical passages). When biblical theist use this argument it
                            always cracks me up because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

                            Chuckling,
                            Todd Greene
                          • w_w_c_l
                            Todd wrote: Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya !!! LOL! Or here s another one: It is significant to note that the root cause of the decline in atheism is
                            Message 13 of 20 , Apr 12, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Todd wrote:

                              "Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya"!!! LOL!

                              Or here's another one: "It is significant to note that the root cause
                              of the decline in atheism is scientific discovery." Which is a pretty
                              odd claim since the fact is that the incidence of atheism has a direct
                              correlation to a person's education in science.

                              Rick:

                              Well, what do you expect when all your life your preacher has been
                              telling you the Earth is 6,000 years old and then you go to college
                              and pursue an education in science, where you find out the Earth is
                              *nowhere near* 6,000 years old, nothing even like 6,000 years old,
                              and where you have to learn to actually read some scientific
                              literature and think critically about what you're reading?

                              Kinda puts your personal Bible studies in a different light, doesn't
                              it?

                              Todd quoted:

                              "Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' gave rise to the atheist religion
                              of Darwinism that ultimately morphed from religion into
                              scientific 'theory' into scientific 'fact' -- and is now rapidly
                              falling into discredit, even as a 'theory'."

                              Rick:

                              Yes, it *is* being seen as less and less of a theory -- and more and
                              more of a LAW! I think people need to quit pussyfooting around this
                              subject and start addressing it. You can't keep God locked up in
                              your little black Book forever.

                              Todd:

                              "Ethics evolve according to the situation at hand. What is,
                              to the atheist, immoral, would be a society that did NOT." Thus
                              demonstrating that according to theists society should NOT evolve, and
                              if we were still following God then slavery and murder and rape would
                              still be good ethical conduct (according to the book of Joshua, among
                              other biblical passages). When biblical theist use this argument it
                              always cracks me up because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

                              Rick:

                              Our friend Maury asked about racial opinions. I guess you wouldn't
                              be surprised to know that there really are people out there who
                              wouldn't mind a little slavery, murder and rape now and then, as long
                              as it didn't go against God's word.

                              Take a look at this site:

                              http://www.akjb.org/index.html

                              I wasn't even looking up church stuff when I found this one!


                              Rick Hartzog

                              Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                            • mathewmaury
                              ... I did not find anything advocating murder, rape, or slavery at the referenced site, but I did find some fine articles: Excellent article on Abraham
                              Message 14 of 20 , Apr 13, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- Rick wrote:
                                > I guess you wouldn't be surprised to know that there really
                                > are people out there who wouldn't mind a little slavery,
                                > murder and rape now and then, as long as it didn't go
                                > against God's word.
                                >
                                > Take a look at this site:
                                >
                                > http://www.akjb.org/index.html

                                I did not find anything advocating murder, rape, or slavery
                                at the referenced site, but I did find some fine articles:

                                Excellent article on Abraham Lincoln:
                                http://www.akjb.org/The%20Great%20Abe%20Lincoln.html

                                Black men loyal to the Confederacy:
                                http://www.akjb.org/Black_Confederates.html

                                A nice summary of the heroic Nathan Bedford Forrest:
                                http://www.akjb.org/Forrest%20Flag.html

                                While I do not endorse all the website author writes
                                (he believes there is a large time gap between
                                Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) much of his writing of
                                the historical period of the late 1800's makes for
                                good reading.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.