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

Re: Public response to Dr. Bert's "Rock 'n Reel" story!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.