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

Re: [Maury_and_Baty] Will Bill C. Give a Straight Answer?

Expand Messages
  • Theoflus@aol.com
    The Lord s method of replying to captious questions is commendable. If the word captious is new to you, let me give you the dictionary definition: 1 : marked
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 2, 2003
      The Lord's method of replying to captious questions is commendable. If the
      word captious is new to you, let me give you the dictionary definition:

      1 : marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise
      objections
      2 : calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument

      When the chief priests and scribes asked him, "By what authority doest thou
      these things?" he replied: "I will alo ask you one thing: and answer me:...."
      (Matt 21:23). Splendid approach! He also said -- (Luke22:67): "If I tell
      you, ye will not believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me."

      So here's my question to you. Deal with it honestly and openly, and perhaps
      we will have some further discussion. Can you give a straight answer? "Did
      Jesus Christ actually die on a Roman cross and three days later (by their
      count) literally arise from the dead?" Please don't equivocate, obfuscate,
      or otherwise dodge.

      I entered this forum hoping to have intelligent discussion on important
      issues. I've stated my beliefs and opinions. but if you just want a
      whipping boy for your amusement, look elsewhere.

      Bill Carrell


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
      Hi, everyone. In these three posts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/532 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/548
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 2, 2003
        Hi, everyone.

        In these three posts

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/532
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/548
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/583

        I directly asked Bill Carrell the following straightforward question
        regarding the creation account in Genesis 1:

        | Perhaps when all is said and done on this particular matter, you
        | just don't take Genesis 1 as literally as YEC doctrine says you
        | are supposed to. How about it, Bill? Are you willing to be clear
        | on this? Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a technically
        | literal description of creation, or not? Be clear, Bill. I know
        | you can do it. But will you? No need for obfuscation. Just answer
        | the question: Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a
        | technically literal description of creation, or not?

        In post #583 I told Bill, "If you intend to respond, but you're just
        pondering a careful response, please just let me know. On the other
        hand, if you're intentionally ignoring this direct question, then I
        would appreciate you stating this as well."

        Based on Bill's rhetoric below, which is completely irrelevant to
        this question, the record now shows that Bill has intentionally
        chosen to refuse to answer this straightforward question!

        One wonders what in the world makes Bill think that the very
        straightfoward question "Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a
        technically literal description of creation, or not?" is confusing,
        entrapping, or entangling. Gene, Robert, and I have all already
        answered this straightforward question many times over the last few
        weeks. Bill, on the other hand, simply doesn't want to answer this
        question, but rather than just admitting that he doesn't want to, he
        chooses to try to twist his refusal to answer the question around
        into being some kind of criticism of my character. Wow! Typical young
        earth creationist, full of mischaracterizations!

        And here I will further demonstrate that I, unlike young earth
        creationist Bill, do not play rhetorical evasion games. He asks if I
        believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. My honest
        and open answer: No, I don't.

        Now let's see if Bill can emulate my example and answer the
        straightforward question that I've asked of him repeatedly.

        Regards,
        Todd S. Greene
        http://www.creationism.cc/
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages


        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill Carrell wrote (post #584):
        > The Lord's method of replying to captious questions is
        > commendable. If the word captious is new to you, let me give you
        > the dictionary definition:
        >
        > 1 : marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults
        > and raise objections
        > 2 : calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument
        >
        > When the chief priests and scribes asked him, "By what authority
        > doest thou these things?" he replied: "I will alo ask you one
        > thing: and answer me:...." (Matt 21:23). Splendid approach! He
        > also said -- (Luke22:67): "If I tell you, ye will not believe:
        > and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me."
        >
        > So here's my question to you. Deal with it honestly and openly,
        > and perhaps we will have some further discussion. Can you give a
        > straight answer? "Did Jesus Christ actually die on a Roman cross
        > and three days later (by their count) literally arise from the
        > dead?" Please don't equivocate, obfuscate, or otherwise dodge.
        >
        > I entered this forum hoping to have intelligent discussion on
        > important issues. I've stated my beliefs and opinions. but if you
        > just want a whipping boy for your amusement, look elsewhere.
      • Theoflus@aol.com
        In a message dated 3/2/2003 9:32:31 PM Central Standard Time, ... Bill here: Whatever is literal in Genesis 1, I accept as literal. Whatever is figurative, I
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 2, 2003
          In a message dated 3/2/2003 9:32:31 PM Central Standard Time,
          greeneto@... writes:

          > One wonders what in the world makes Bill think that the very
          > straightfoward question "Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a
          > technically literal description of creation, or not?" is confusing,
          > entrapping, or entangling. Gene, Robert, and I have all already
          > answered this straightforward question many times over the last few
          > weeks. Bill, on the other hand, simply doesn't want to answer this
          > question, but rather than just admitting that he doesn't want to, he
          > chooses to try to twist his refusal to answer the question around
          > into being some kind of criticism of my character. Wow! Typical young
          > earth creationist, full of mischaracterizations!
          >
          > And here I will further demonstrate that I, unlike young earth
          > creationist Bill, do not play rhetorical evasion games. He asks if I
          > believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. My honest
          > and open answer: No, I don't. (Emphasis is mine; Bill)
          >
          Bill here:
          Whatever is literal in Genesis 1, I accept as literal. Whatever is
          figurative, I accept as figurative. If you have a specific question about a
          specific part of Genesis 1, something more than a quibble and outside what
          we've already discussed, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. But in light
          of your answer to my question, "Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus
          Christ from the dead?" I do think it would be a waste of time to tangle with
          you further on Genesis 1. I don't know and I don't care what YECs are
          supposed to believe. But I do care about your lack of faith. Care to tell
          me what your problem is?

          Bill C


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
          ... [snip] ... [snip] ... I wonder why you would think such a thing. Whether or not the person I m discussing the subject with likes strawberry ice cream or
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill Carrell wrote (post #592):
            > In a message dated 3/2/2003 9:32:31 PM Central Standard Time,
            > Todd Greene writes:
            [snip]
            >> Bill asks if
            >> I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. My
            >> honest and open answer: No, I don't.

            [snip]

            > in light of
            > your answer to my question, "Do you believe in the resurrection
            > of Jesus Christ from the dead?" I do think it would be a waste of
            > time to tangle with you further on Genesis 1.

            I wonder why you would think such a thing. Whether or not the person
            I'm discussing the subject with likes strawberry ice cream or not (I
            don't like it at all!) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
            the relevant information regarding whether or not the sun is a star
            (that just happens to be much, much closer to the earth than all of
            the other stars).

            Oh, wait, that's right, I almost forgot! People like you strongly
            tend to live by the rhetorical dictates of irrational prejudice-
            pandering rather than being genuinely concerned over the factual
            details that are really relevant to digging into the truth.

            > I don't know
            > and I don't care what YECs are supposed to believe.

            Well, you yourself advocate YEC beliefs, and you obviously care about
            what *you* believe. (Don't we all?) It just happens to be the fact of
            the matter that there are a great many people like you, and it also
            happens to be the case that this kind of belief is quite well known
            and commonly referred to as "young earth creationism," and those who
            adhere to it are called "young earth creationists." Kind of makes
            sense, doesn't it?! Whether or not you have happened to read some
            book by Henry Morris written in 1972 doesn't really matter.

            Of course, I pointed out many specifics about your advocacy of YEC in
            this post

            "Is Bill C. a young earth creationist? You bet!"
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/526

            If you dispute these specifics, then you'd best be about the business
            of pointing out the errors in my specific statements there than
            continually repeating your false empty complaint about my *correctly*
            referring to your position as being one of young earth creationism.
            It was through geological examination that scientists - almost all of
            them Christians! - learned that the earth had been around a lot
            longer than just 6,000 years, and that was over 200 years ago! You
            YECs are just way behind the curve on keeping up with the science on
            this stuff! It wasn't all that many months ago that I even had one
            YEC, a COC preacher named Chad Seaton, advocating Lord Kelvin's heat
            decay argument from the late 19th century. Of course, Kelvin didn't
            know anything about radiation energy because radioactivity hadn't
            even been discovered yet. But what was Chad Seaton's excuse? Gene
            Wright's phrase comes into play here: "An appalling lack of
            knowledge."

            > But I do
            > care about your lack of faith. Care to tell me what your
            > problem is?

            Bill, you yourself have a "lack of faith" in the Quran, the Bhagavad
            Gita, and the Book of Mormon. Should I be concerned about this? What
            is your problem?

            I will simply note here that your "problem" is probably exactly the
            same one I have.

            Sincerely,
            Todd Greene
          • Theoflus@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/3/2003 8:06:42 AM Central Standard Time, ... Not believing in Christ, His sacrifice for you, and His resurrection from the dead is a far
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
              In a message dated 3/3/2003 8:06:42 AM Central Standard Time,
              greeneto@... writes:

              > >in light of
              > >your answer to my question, "Do you believe in the resurrection
              > >of Jesus Christ from the dead?" I do think it would be a waste of
              > >time to tangle with you further on Genesis 1.
              >
              > I wonder why you would think such a thing. Whether or not the person
              > I'm discussing the subject with likes strawberry ice cream or not (I
              > don't like it at all!) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
              > the relevant information regarding whether or not the sun is a star
              > (that just happens to be much, much closer to the earth than all of
              > the other stars).
              >
              Not believing in Christ, His sacrifice for you, and His resurrection from the
              dead is a far more serious matter than strawberry ice cream. How can you
              equate the two? Either it happened or it didn't. If it didn't, then belief
              in ANY religion is a waste of time.

              Bill Carrell


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
              ... [snip] ... [snip] Hi, Bill. So it looks like your answer (Finally! Thanks!) to the question Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a technically
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill Carrell wrote (post #592):
                > In a message dated 3/2/2003 9:32:31 PM Central Standard Time,
                > Todd Greene writes:
                >> One wonders what in the world makes Bill think that the very
                >> straightfoward question "Is Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted
                >> as a technically literal description of creation, or not?" is
                >> confusing, entrapping, or entangling. Gene, Robert, and I have
                >> all already answered this straightforward question many times
                >> over the last few weeks.
                [snip]
                >
                > Bill here:
                > Whatever is literal in Genesis 1, I accept as literal. Whatever
                > is figurative, I accept as figurative. If you have a specific
                > question about a specific part of Genesis 1, something more than
                > a quibble and outside what we've already discussed, I'd be glad
                > to discuss it with you.
                [snip]

                Hi, Bill.

                So it looks like your answer (Finally! Thanks!) to the question "Is
                Genesis 1 supposed to be interpreted as a technically literal
                description of creation, or not?" is a clear "No" since here you
                acknowledge the fact that Genesis 1 does contain figurative language.

                *This has been my only point all along* in bringing up the issue of
                the waters above the firmament. I bring up this issue for the sole
                reason of showing to young earth creationists that *they themselves*
                treat at least some of the language of Genesis 1 as being figurative
                rather than literal.

                Now, it is indeed a problemmatic issue regarding the "days" of
                Genesis 1, and to tell you the truth I think old earth creationists
                and theistic evolutionists who take the "concordist" approach are
                also going at Genesis 1 the wrong way. Here's why I think this...

                The context of Genesis 1 clearly uses the word "day" in the *direct*
                sense of a regular day. The structure of the Genesis 1 creation
                account is laid down in the metaphorical framework of six (word) days
                of a week. Where YECs get all screwed up is simply that they take the
                metaphorical structure literally, when it is, after all, just a
                metaphor. (By the way, "day" [Hebrew: "yom"] in Genesis 2:4 really is
                used with a *directly* non-literal meaning.) People can argue
                about "day" meaning a literal day in Genesis 1 all they want. But so
                what? The *word* "day" ("yom") in Genesis 1 really is the word that
                means a regular 24-hour day. The Hebrew word for "eagle" in Ezekiel
                17:7 really does mean "eagle" too. But you can study the literal
                meaning of the Hebrew word for "eagle" as used in Ezekiel 17:7 every
                day of every week for the next 52 weeks (an eagle is an eagle is an
                eagle is an eagle), and you won't be one whit closer to understanding
                the message of Ezekiel 17:7 because "eagle" is being used
                metaphorically. I have whole discussion concerning the metaphorical
                nature of Genesis 1 here:

                "The Metaphorical Language Of Creation"
                http://www.creationism.cc/genesismetaphor.html

                I would also recommend you check out the various articles linked to
                from this web page

                The Framework Interpretation
                http://www.upper-register.com/framework.html

                and read this article (actually, chapter):

                Reason, Science, and Faith
                by Roger Forster & Paul Marston
                "Chapter 8: Interpreting Genesis Today"
                http://www.reason-science-faith.co.uk/chapters/chapter8.html

                The problem with the YEC rhetoric on this subject is that YECs are
                *constantly* saying that the text of Genesis 1 must be literal and
                must be be taken literally, and they claim that there's no indication
                that the language is meant to be taken in anything other than a
                literal fashion. The waters above the firmament is an unequivocal
                example that proves that this YEC rhetoric is false.

                Regards,
                Todd S. Greene
                http://www.creationism.cc/
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages

                P.S.: I happen to be a pretty "laid back" guy, Bill. But when people
                start playing rhetorical games I have no problem with forthrightly
                calling them out on it.
              • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
                ... [Bill wrote:] ... Hi, Bill. You did *not* explain what relevance a person s religious (or non- religious) belief about Jesus has to the objective
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill Carrell wrote (post #597):
                  > In a message dated 3/3/2003 8:06:42 AM Central Standard Time,
                  > Todd Greene writes:
                  >> [snip]
                  [Bill wrote:]
                  >>> in light of
                  >>> your answer to my question, "Do you believe in the resurrection
                  >>> of Jesus Christ from the dead?" I do think it would be a waste
                  >>> of time to tangle with you further on Genesis 1.
                  >>
                  >> I wonder why you would think such a thing. Whether or not the
                  >> person I'm discussing the subject with likes strawberry ice
                  >> cream or not (I don't like it at all!) has absolutely nothing
                  >> whatsoever to do with the relevant information regarding whether
                  >> or not the sun is a star (that just happens to be much, much
                  >> closer to the earth than all of the other stars).
                  >
                  > Not believing in Christ, His sacrifice for you, and His
                  > resurrection from the dead is a far more serious matter than
                  > strawberry ice cream. How can you equate the two? Either it
                  > happened or it didn't. If it didn't, then belief in ANY religion
                  > is a waste of time.

                  Hi, Bill.

                  You did *not* explain what relevance a person's religious (or non-
                  religious) belief about Jesus has to the objective information
                  regarding whether or not the sun is a star. Answer: The religious
                  (subjective) belief is totally irrelevant to matters regarding
                  relevant objective information from the real world about the real
                  world.

                  Do you think that not believing in Krishna, or not believing that
                  Mohammed was the Messenger of God, is a far more serious matter than
                  one's ice cream preferences? No? I didn't think so. It just so
                  happens that you know, and I know that you know, that you and I are
                  in agreement on this.

                  Regards,
                  Todd S. Greene
                  http://www.creationism.cc/
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages
                • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
                  Hi, everyone. Whoops! I must correct a silly typo I made that could lead to an ... Regards, Todd Greene
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
                    Hi, everyone.

                    Whoops! I must correct a silly typo I made that could lead to an
                    incorrect interpretation of what I wrote. In post #598 I wrote:

                    | The structure of
                    | the Genesis 1 creation account is laid down in the metaphorical
                    | framework of six (word) days of a week.

                    The word "word" in parentheses is really supposed to be "work"! Thus:

                    | The structure of
                    | the Genesis 1 creation account is laid down in the metaphorical
                    | framework of six (work) days of a week.

                    Regards,
                    Todd Greene
                  • Theoflus@aol.com
                    In a message dated 3/3/2003 9:09:43 AM Central Standard Time, ... Todd: You and I have no problem with Mohammed or Krishna. But we do have a problem when you
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 3, 2003
                      In a message dated 3/3/2003 9:09:43 AM Central Standard Time,
                      greeneto@... writes:

                      > Do you think that not believing in Krishna, or not believing that
                      > Mohammed was the Messenger of God, is a far more serious matter than
                      > one's ice cream preferences? No? I didn't think so. It just so
                      > happens that you know, and I know that you know, that you and I are
                      > in agreement on this.
                      >
                      Todd:
                      You and I have no problem with Mohammed or Krishna. But we do have a problem
                      when you equate not believing in the resurrection with not liking strawberry
                      ice cream. By comparison your not recognizing that our sun is a star, or
                      whether God placed water above the sun and the stars, are not worth
                      discussing at all. These questions will not affect the salvation of your
                      soul.

                      Bill


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Todd S. Greene <greeneto@yahoo.com>
                      ... You know, Bill, sometimes I seriously wonder about your reading comprehension! Or maybe your memory is going! ;-) Mat is the guy who has the problem with
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill Carrell wrote (post #629):
                        > In a message dated 3/3/2003 9:09:43 AM Central Standard Time,
                        > Todd Greene writes:
                        >[snip]
                        >> Do you think that not believing in Krishna, or not believing
                        >> that Mohammed was the Messenger of God, is a far more serious
                        >> matter than one's ice cream preferences? No? I didn't think so.
                        >> It just so happens that you know, and I know that you know, that
                        >> you and I are in agreement on this.
                        >
                        > Todd:
                        > You and I have no problem with Mohammed or Krishna. But we do
                        > have a problem when you equate not believing in the resurrection
                        > with not liking strawberry ice cream. By comparison your not
                        > recognizing that our sun is a star, or whether God placed water
                        > above the sun and the stars, are not worth discussing at all.
                        > These questions will not affect the salvation of your soul.

                        You know, Bill, sometimes I seriously wonder about your reading
                        comprehension! Or maybe your memory is going! ;-)

                        Mat is the guy who has the problem with recognizing that our sun is a
                        star. (This is same Mat whom you referred to in post #553
                        as "[sounding] like a reasonable person." Bill, do you really think
                        it's reasonable today to argue that the sun is not a star?) I already
                        corrected your mistake about me in this post:

                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/447

                        Please read that post again, because you obviously missed it the
                        first time around. Since you obviously need a lot of repetition from
                        me on this, you should also read my post here:

                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/611

                        So please read and comprehend: I am *NOT* the one arguing the absurd
                        idea that the sun is not a star. I have *NEVER* made this childish
                        argument, and I *NEVER* will!

                        You have stated that you think that not believing that Mohammed is
                        the Messenger of God is not a serious problem. (Note the double
                        negative!) I have to tell you that my Moslem friend Ashraf Suri, who
                        immigrated with his wife and first son to the U.S. from Pakistan a
                        few years ago, would seriously disagree with you. Ashraf thinks that
                        the destiny of your soul is at stake. Do you care, Bill? Are you
                        going to start taking the Quran seriously, or would you rather just
                        eat your chocolate ice cream?

                        Of course, the actually relevant part of my post #599 that you
                        conveniently edited out and then conveniently did not address was
                        this:

                        >> You did *not* explain what relevance a person's religious (or
                        >> non-religious) belief about Jesus has to the objective
                        >> information regarding whether or not the sun is a star.

                        Since you (and Mat!) think that a person's religious belief about
                        Jesus is relevant to the objective information regarding whether or
                        not the sun is a star, you need to explain to us what these
                        connections are.

                        Finally, I close by pointing out that in your comments, quoted at the
                        beginning of this, it is you (not me!) who has stated that we should
                        not take the words of God (the biblical text) seriously!

                        Regards,
                        Todd S. Greene
                        http://www.creationism.cc/
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages
                      • lipscombgene <genewright143@hotmail.com>
                        ... Gene: This is the primary reason why Bill is totally unlike YEC you run across. He does not promote the my way or the Devil s way rhetoric that Bert and
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                          > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Bill wrote (post #629):
                          > These questions will not affect the salvation of your soul.

                          Gene: This is the primary reason why Bill is totally unlike YEC you
                          run across. He does not promote the "my way or the Devil's way"
                          rhetoric that Bert and AP promote.

                          Bill has already changed his viewpoint about the moon dust "argument"
                          after further reading. That's a very positive thing. I wish those who
                          call themselves YECs as a whole would be that responsive and
                          honorable.

                          Bill doesn't call himself a YEC so I won't either. I consider him a
                          truthseeker, just as I am. We are all at different points in our
                          journey. The key to success is to always keep an open mind and
                          continue learning. That's something I have not seen in Matt who
                          engages in word games.

                          It's also important to not make every conceivable disagreement a
                          cause for eternal damnation.

                          Thanks Bill! See you Wed night!
                        • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
                          ... wrote, in part: Bill has already changed his viewpoint about the moon dust argument after further reading.
                          Message 12 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "lipscombgene
                            <genewright143@h...>" <genewright143@h...> wrote, in part:

                            "Bill has already changed his viewpoint about the moon
                            dust 'argument' after further reading. That's a very positive thing.
                            I wish those who call themselves YECs as a whole would be that
                            responsive and honorable."

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

                            My comments:

                            I guess it is the small victories that can keep us going.

                            Gene, your final point above is what many of my comments and
                            activities concern themselves with.

                            Why is it that we would have to even fuss with Bill about the moon
                            dust claims such as were/are popularized by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
                            today, March 4, 2003? Why should we have to work so hard to convince
                            so many that there isn't a (literal) statue of Maury, as claimed by
                            Bert, known to exist anywhere showing him with a bible in one
                            outstretched hand?

                            Sure, with a little effort and objective interest just about anyone
                            can find out why that's a fallacious claim, and was a fallacious
                            claim when Bert began promoting it.

                            Why haven't folks like Bert done for the moon dust argument what they
                            have done for the Joshua/NASA long day story, or a hundred other
                            things?

                            Why can't Bill just pick up the phone and call Bert/AP and find out
                            that Bert will not defend his moon dust promotion? Really, shouldn't
                            somebody let him know that fallacious claim is still up on his just
                            revised website? Does anybody really think he would try to defend it
                            today, March 4, 2003?

                            I think it goes to the "responsive and honorable" issue you raise.

                            Wouldn't it be so much easier if folks like Bert were more honorable
                            and responsive! Folks like me wouldn't have to make so many "feeble
                            attempts" to convince people of some of the errors Bert has promoted
                            and is promoting.

                            Like, when is Bert going to tell us where he got his Maury statue
                            claim and that he knows I didn't write that CRSQ letter he repeatedly
                            claims is my "feeble attempt"?

                            The men behind this movement are quite an important aspect of the
                            issue, and I just happen to have had some rather interesting personal
                            experiences with them concerning the public issues. Having made the
                            test, I have found the YEC critics' charges quite appropriate.

                            Certainly, the do seem to have a problem with the "honorable and
                            responsive" aspects of their public obligations.

                            Sincerely,
                            Robert Baty
                          • Theoflus@aol.com
                            In a message dated 3/4/2003 10:36:19 AM Central Standard Time, ... What did Bert say about moon dust that I m supposed to call him about? How can anybody ask
                            Message 13 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                              In a message dated 3/4/2003 10:36:19 AM Central Standard Time,
                              rlbaty@... writes:

                              > Why can't Bill just pick up the phone and call Bert/AP and find out
                              > that Bert will not defend his moon dust promotion? Really, shouldn't
                              > somebody let him know that fallacious claim is still up on his just
                              > revised website? Does anybody really think he would try to defend it
                              > today, March 4, 2003?
                              >
                              What did Bert say about moon dust that I'm supposed to call him about? How
                              can anybody ask him to defend his position if we don't know what his position
                              is? Robert, please put up or shut up? What did he say? And is it on his
                              site now?

                              BTW, does anybody know if his archives are searchable, and how to do it? I
                              spent an hour or so trying to find the least mention of moon dust and
                              couldn't find anything.

                              Bill Carrell


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Theoflus@aol.com
                              In a message dated 3/4/2003 10:36:19 AM Central Standard Time, ... It doesn t seem to take much to keep you happy, Robert. So you ve found a man who is open
                              Message 14 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                In a message dated 3/4/2003 10:36:19 AM Central Standard Time,
                                rlbaty@... writes:

                                > I guess it is the small victories that can keep us going.
                                >
                                It doesn't seem to take much to keep you happy, Robert. So you've found a
                                man who is open to new information and can change his mind. Wow! Are there
                                any "Non-YECs" -- don't know what else to call them -- who would do that?
                                Incidentally, I never heard of a YEC before I joined your forum. Now I are
                                one!

                                It would do my heart good if you could get off the Maury statue kick. And if
                                you have what Bert said about moon dust, show me what he said.
                                Bill


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Theoflus@aol.com
                                In a message dated 3/4/2003 7:54:18 AM Central Standard Time, ... Bill here: I didn t think it was Matt I commended as sounding reasonable. I know it wasn t
                                Message 15 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                  In a message dated 3/4/2003 7:54:18 AM Central Standard Time,
                                  greeneto@... writes:

                                  > >Todd:
                                  > >You and I have no problem with Mohammed or Krishna. But we do
                                  > >have a problem when you equate not believing in the resurrection
                                  > >with not liking strawberry ice cream. By comparison your not
                                  > >recognizing that our sun is a star, or whether God placed water
                                  > >above the sun and the stars, are not worth discussing at all.
                                  > >These questions will not affect the salvation of your soul.
                                  >
                                  > You know, Bill, sometimes I seriously wonder about your reading
                                  > comprehension! Or maybe your memory is going! ;-)
                                  >
                                  > Bill here: Todd, my dear. Your last letter sounded almost human, and gave
                                  > me hope we might have an intelligent conversation about something. I don't
                                  > think, though, that it my memory comprehension. Following you is like
                                  > chasing a squirrel through the tree tops. ********
                                  >
                                  > Mat is the guy who has the problem with recognizing that our sun is a
                                  > star. (This is same Mat whom you referred to in post #553
                                  > as "[sounding] like a reasonable person." Bill, do you really think
                                  > it's reasonable today to argue that the sun is not a star?) I already
                                  > corrected your mistake about me in this post:

                                  Bill here:
                                  I didn't think it was Matt I commended as sounding reasonable. I know it
                                  wasn't you.
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/447
                                  >
                                  > Please read that post again, because you obviously missed it the
                                  > first time around. Since you obviously need a lot of repetition from
                                  > me on this, you should also read my post here:
                                  >
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/611
                                  >
                                  > So please read and comprehend: I am *NOT* the one arguing the absurd
                                  > idea that the sun is not a star. I have *NEVER* made this childish
                                  > argument, and I *NEVER* will!

                                  > You have stated that you think that not believing that Mohammed is
                                  > the Messenger of God is not a serious problem. (Note the double
                                  > negative!) I have to tell you that my Moslem friend Ashraf Suri, who
                                  > immigrated with his wife and first son to the U.S. from Pakistan a
                                  > few years ago, would seriously disagree with you. Ashraf thinks that
                                  > the destiny of your soul is at stake. Do you care, Bill? Are you
                                  > going to start taking the Quran seriously, or would you rather just
                                  > eat your chocolate ice cream?

                                  If I get a chance to meet your Moslem friend Ashraf Suri, and if he is open
                                  minded and willing to talk, yes, I would take the Quran seriusly.
                                  >
                                  > Of course, the actually relevant part of my post #599 that you
                                  > conveniently edited out and then conveniently did not address was
                                  > this:
                                  >
                                  > >>You did *not* explain what relevance a person's religious (or
                                  > >>non-religious) belief about Jesus has to the objective
                                  > >>information regarding whether or not the sun is a star.
                                  >
                                  I didn't explain because I thought you would understand why the resurrection
                                  of Christ is more important to you than whether you like strawberry ice cream
                                  or not. Maybe I assumed too much.

                                  > Since you (and Mat!) think that a person's religious belief about
                                  > Jesus is relevant to the objective information regarding whether or
                                  > not the sun is a star, you need to explain to us what these
                                  > connections are.

                                  The connection: "HE that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
                                  that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) And he's not talking about
                                  strawberry ice cream, Todd, old boy. You could die not believing that the
                                  sun is a star, and it wouldn't make a whit of difference. But not believing
                                  in Christ makes a lot of difference.
                                  >
                                  > Finally, I close by pointing out that in your comments, quoted at the
                                  > beginning of this, it is you (not me!) who has stated that we should
                                  > not take the words of God (the biblical text) seriously!

                                  Bill here: This one totally escapes me! What on earth are you talking
                                  about?
                                  Bill





                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
                                  ... What did Bert say about moon dust that I m supposed to call him about? How can anybody ask him to defend his position if we don t know what his position
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Theoflus@a... wrote, in part:

                                    "What did Bert say about moon dust that I'm supposed to call him
                                    about? How can anybody ask him to defend his position if we don't
                                    know what his position is? Robert, please put up or shut up? What
                                    did he say? And is it on his site now?"

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

                                    My comments:

                                    Just how can this be? Without wanting to sound overly critical, I am
                                    beginning to wonder if you, Bill, aren't really having some problems
                                    paying attention to some of the details here. Could it be, in part,
                                    the infirmities of your age?

                                    In any case, I have copied the text of Bert's moon-dust claims into
                                    several of my posts and included links to his site where it is
                                    currently promoted. Maybe he took it down today??? Have you
                                    actually been reading my messages on the subject?

                                    However, I think there is a more important issue here which relates
                                    to the apparent fear folks have of asking Bert about his position.

                                    Bill, you don't have to know anything to ask Bert about his position
                                    on moon dust or whether he stands behind what he used to promote.
                                    You can just ask him!

                                    I went throught he same thing over and over again with folks who
                                    thought they needed to know the answers before they asked the
                                    questions regarding Matthew Fontaine Maury. Nobody needs to know
                                    anything about Maury to ask Bert where he got his claim that there wa
                                    a statue of Maury at the Naval Academy showing Maury with a bible in
                                    one hand.

                                    Isn't that what questions are about, at least in part. To get
                                    information.

                                    Bill, it also appears you may need some assistance in operating your
                                    computer. I'm not much at that. Perhaps Gene can help you.

                                    Perhaps we'll get around to posting that stuff again for you, just to
                                    help you along.

                                    But let's make it very clear as to the issues that have caught my
                                    attention. Bert is the one whose time has come to "put up"!

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert Baty
                                  • rlbaty50 <rlbaty@webtv.net>
                                    ... It would do my heart good if you could get off the Maury statue kick. And if you have what Bert said about moon dust, show me what he said.
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Theoflus@a... wrote:

                                      "It would do my heart good if you could get off the Maury statue
                                      kick. And if you have what Bert said about moon dust, show me what
                                      he said."

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

                                      My comments:

                                      See my previous post. I did show you, repeatedly, Bill. I guess I
                                      may try again, or someone else can pull up the references for you.

                                      The point about the Maury statue issue is that it is as alive as the
                                      moon-dust issue. However, for those like yourself who struggle so
                                      much with the moon dust problem, the Maury statue problem is a no-
                                      brainer and makes the point all the better.

                                      All the better because, to my knowledge, Bert has simply ignored his
                                      public obligations regarding his moon-dust promotion.

                                      He's done a lot concerning me and the Maury statue issue, all
                                      apparently designed to evade his public responsibilities; just as the
                                      YEC critics claim the men behind the YEC movement are so inclined to
                                      do.

                                      Where did Bert get his Maury statue claim? He's not talking! Why,
                                      he did suggest in published reports that he had unquestionable, Ph.D.
                                      level, sources. Why won't anybody get him to tell us what they were
                                      so we can check them out.

                                      And what about those coverup articles, the secret letter(s), the
                                      false and misleading reports?

                                      Maury is a simple, well-documented case of what is problematic with
                                      the YEC movement and some of the men behind it. Bert's got some work
                                      to do to meet his own standards in resolving his Maury problems. He
                                      ought to get started.

                                      Sincerely,
                                      Robert Baty
                                    • Theoflus@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:18:10 PM Central Standard Time, ... You claim to have given me the quote concerning moon dust or cosmic dust from Bert s
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                        In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:18:10 PM Central Standard Time,
                                        rlbaty@... writes:

                                        > All the better because, to my knowledge, Bert has simply ignored his
                                        > public obligations regarding his moon-dust promotion.

                                        You claim to have given me the quote concerning "moon dust" or "cosmic dust"
                                        from Bert's archives. Maybe you did, but I didn't see it. However I did
                                        search for it, and found the following under an article by Bert entitled The
                                        Young Earth:

                                        The influx of cosmic dust to either the Earth or Moon also does not fit with
                                        an “old Earth” hypothesis. Cosmic dust currently is filtering down to Earth,
                                        for example, at a rate of some 14 million tons per year. Based on its high
                                        nickel content, it is possible to detect this cosmic dust, which should be at
                                        levels of 50 or more feet on the Earth (or accounted for on the basis of
                                        nickel content in the oceans). Yet there is only enough cosmic dust on the
                                        Earth (or Moon for that matter) to yield an estimated age of a few thousand
                                        years.These kinds of examples are far too numerous to give here. There is
                                        good scientific evidence that the Earth, rather than being billions of years
                                        old, has an age of only a few thousand years, just as the Bible plainly
                                        indicates. According to both biblical and scientific evidences, “the beginning
                                        ” was not very long ago. The claims of evolutionists that they have a
                                        multi-billion-year-old Earth do not agree with much of the actual scientific
                                        evidence, which speaks eloquently of a young Earth.

                                        URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm - 31KB - 28
                                        Feb 2003

                                        This is all I could find. Doesn't look like much of a "promotion." As he
                                        wrote in another article: "Even Homer nods." Everyone makes mistakes. I'm
                                        sure you will find it hard to believe, but I've made one or two myself. How
                                        about you?

                                        Pardon my clumsiness, but I did find that Bert's archives are searchable.
                                        Just go to the top of the column to the left when you reach his site at:

                                        http://www.apologeticspress.org/

                                        Bill Carrell




                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Theoflus@aol.com
                                        I found three references to Maury in Bert Thompson s publication. Didn t seem to be any mention of a statue, although I didn t look all three references.
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                          I found three references to Maury in Bert Thompson's publication. Didn't
                                          seem to be any mention of a statue, although I didn't look all three
                                          references. This item, by Trevor Major is interesting:

                                          Such convictions [concerning his faith in the Bible] have earned Maury a
                                          well-deserved place in Bible-science literature. He is honored as a man who
                                          took God at His Word. However, readers may want to treat one claim with a
                                          little suspicion (see Major, 1995). Several accounts suggest that Maury was
                                          so confident about God’s Word that his mapping of ocean currents resulted
                                          directly from reading or hearing about the “paths of the seas” in Psalm 8:8.
                                          Some go on to suggest that ocean currents would have remained hidden unless
                                          Maury had read this passage in the Bible. Some set this crucial event in Maury
                                          ’s childhood, and others set it during the recovery from his accident. One
                                          popular account by Virginia Lee Cox has a son reading to Maury during an
                                          illness (Lewis, 1927, p. 252), but Maury began his mapping project when the
                                          oldest son was only two years old. Another problem is that some currents,
                                          such as the Gulf Stream, were well-studied by the 1840s. Maury’s feat was to
                                          bring his scientific knowledge to bear on a vast array of nautical
                                          information, but he was not the first to discover ocean currents.

                                          There is little doubt that Maury held a special fascination for Psalm 8:8 and
                                          other passages that mention the sea and the sky. They confirmed to him that
                                          revelation in nature and revelation in Scripture were in harmony because they
                                          have One Author. These convictions, and Maury’s character, make him worthy of
                                          emulation by Bible-believing scientists today.







                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Theoflus@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:18:10 PM Central Standard Time, ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                            In a message dated 3/4/2003 3:18:10 PM Central Standard Time,
                                            rlbaty@... writes:

                                            > Where did Bert get his Maury statue claim?
                                            >
                                            > WHAT WAS THAT CLAIM? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
                                            > Bill C



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • lipscombgene
                                            Gene here: Bill, here is the link to the Robert and Bert exchange where all this is documented: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/BatyThompson.html
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Mar 4, 2003
                                              Gene here: Bill, here is the link to the Robert and Bert exchange
                                              where all this is documented:

                                              http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/BatyThompson.html

                                              It's a long series of correspondence, but interesting reading. I'm
                                              not quite sure after reading it why Bert didn't just "fess up" at
                                              having made a mistake originally in his presentation where Robert was
                                              in attendance, but I'm also equally not sure why Robert hasn't let go
                                              of it yet. I don't think Bert will ever answer the questions Robert
                                              has been posing so after this long and with it documented on the web,
                                              I would not continue focusing on it as much as Robert does.

                                              Note to Robert: That's not particularly a criticism, but I do wish it
                                              were true. As you can tell, I favor your viewpoint on it, but I would
                                              also have moved on. :-)

                                              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Theoflus@a... wrote:
                                              > > WHAT WAS THAT CLAIM? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
                                              > > Bill C
                                            • rlbaty50
                                              ... ############################### I did search for it, and found the following under an article by Bert entitled The Young Earth:
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Mar 5, 2003
                                                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Theoflus@a... wrote, in part:

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

                                                "I did search for it, and found the following under an article by
                                                Bert entitled The Young Earth:

                                                http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm

                                                'Cosmic dust currently is filtering down to Earth, for example, at a
                                                rate of some 14 million tons per year, which should be at levels of
                                                50 or more feet on the Earth. Yet there is only enough cosmic dust on
                                                the Earth (or Moon for that matter) to yield an estimated age of a
                                                few thousand years.'

                                                This is all I could find. Doesn't look like much of a "promotion."
                                                As he wrote in another article: 'Even Homer nods.' Everyone makes
                                                mistakes."

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

                                                My comments:

                                                That's it, Bill! That some folks cannot grasp even this simple stuff
                                                is why I try to stay with the simpler stuff within my range
                                                of "feebleness".

                                                Bert is still claiming (remember Clinton) that 14,000,000 tons per
                                                year "IS" the "current" rate. That 14,000,000 ton figure was from
                                                back in about 1959 from a guy who knew he didn't know what it was and
                                                gave a number of estimates. The 14,000,000 was the way-out high
                                                end. Of course, Bert, Like Henry Morris, figured that would lead to
                                                about 182 feet on the moon/earth. I ran the numbers once and it did
                                                figure out. The problem is with the long-known-to-be-faulty
                                                14,000,000 ton figure and the impression that all that dust was from
                                                meteorites.

                                                As Todd would say, can anyone say "rigolith"!

                                                And, Bill, you are really fond of Homer's nods. That's fine. You
                                                know, I think we all know we all make mistakes.

                                                I'm just trying to verify, for the public record and in the interest
                                                of important public issues, that Bert realizes some of his mistakes.

                                                Is Bert "nodding" in conjunction with his current moon-dust
                                                promotion? Let him say so; I'm tired of his would-be apologists
                                                trying to apologize for him when they won't even ask him, on the
                                                record.

                                                Was Bert "nodding" when he made his Maury statue claim? Let him say
                                                so.

                                                Was Bert "nodding" when he falsely claimed that CRSQ letter was
                                                my "feeble attempt"? Let him say so.

                                                That Bert "nods" so much regarding "young-earth, creation-science"
                                                matters and his critics is cause for concern. Isn't that the point
                                                of these exercises, in part. I think so.

                                                Bill, I appreciate your willingness to take part in these exercises,
                                                such as you have. Come back anytime and let us know what you might
                                                further want to tell us about these things we've been discussing and
                                                if you ever got hold of Bert/AP, for the record.

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