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

Invitation to Jason Fox!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    In response to Jason Fox s continual effort to libel me on the CFTF and try to avoid his responsibilities regarding his support for Dr. Bert s ... Jason and
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In response to Jason Fox's continual effort to libel me on the CFTF and
      try to avoid his responsibilities regarding his support for Dr. Bert's
      "Rock 'n Reel" claims, Rick wrote to Jason, in part:

      > Jason, if you have a problem with
      > Mr. Baty, take it up with *him*.

      Jason and other owner/operators of the CFTF have made it clear that the
      CFTF is not an open forum when it comes to dealing with such matters.
      Jason, even in his most recent posts, has made it clear that I am not
      free to post and get down to doing some real problem solving on the
      CFTF.

      So, it looks like if Jason is going to take Rick's admonition seriously,
      he's just going to have to come over here and "deal with it".

      If Jason stays true to form, he will not "meet and deal" with the issues
      which are currently making him look quite foolish.

      I am quite confident that no one today or in the future is going to be
      able to get Dr. Bert or Dr. Brad to publicly defend their "Rock 'n Reel"
      claims.

      They wouldn't do it with the Maury statue claim, but did you ever see
      the public admission where Dr. Bert specifically admitted his Maury
      statue error? (That's just one popular example)

      Is the "Rock 'n Reel" story going to be another popular blunder that
      more and more people become familiar with and Dr. Bert and Dr. Brad
      never admit to?

      We'll have to check tomorrow's update of the website to see if the "Rock
      'n Reel" story mysteriously disappears or if there is a surprising
      public announcement concerning the blunder.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty 
    • Todd S. Greene
      Hello Jason. It is Bert Thompson and his cohorts making the ridiculous claim on this, not Robert Baty. If Robert Baty didn t even exist, we d still have the
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Jason.

        It is Bert Thompson and his cohorts making the ridiculous claim on
        this, not Robert Baty. If Robert Baty didn't even exist, we'd still
        have the silly claim of Bert Thompson et al on this rock with the
        fishing reel stuck in it. Here is a link to the article:

        A Young Earth: "Fishing for Proof"
        by Thomas Tarpley, B.S., G.C., Michael Cortez, B.A., and Brad Harrub,
        Ph.D.
        http://www.apologeticspress.com/modules.php?name=Read&cat=4&itemid=2698

        Here is the primary young earth creationist argument, directly from
        the article:

        | "We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old,
        | as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently,
        | allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded
        | during the process."

        And now here we have people like you, Jason, stepping right into line
        behind Thompson and his cohorts for the purpose of defending their
        nonsense. This is their argument. And you are actually behaving to try
        to defend that argument from criticism. Why? Do you agree with their
        argument yourself? Or do you actually disagree with their argument
        yourself, but you think that it is good to defend your fellow young
        earth creationists no matter what, even at the cost of accuracy and
        truth?

        Jason, do you have the capability of thinking rationally for at least
        3 seconds? Don't you realize that if these layers of phyllite rock
        formed within the last 100 years, then they actually formed WITHIN THE
        LIFETIME OF A HUMAN BEING. Ask yourself, since when have you observed
        hundreds, or thousands, or feet of sediment lithifying and then
        metamorphosing (heat and pressure) and then having the overlying
        layers eroded away so that the metamorphic rock layers become exposed
        again in your lifetime OR IN THE LIFETIME OF ANY HUMAN BEING ALIVE
        TODAY? The answer is: NEVER. What is more is that even you crazy young
        earth creationists KNOW that the answer to that question is NEVER, so
        by defending the ridiculous argument in the first place you
        demonstrate that either (1) you are not thinking rationally or (2) you
        are presenting an argument dishonestly (or both). Take your pick,
        Jason. Neither one bodes well for your position.

        Sincerely,
        Todd Greene
        http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        Todd, I d like to think you would get a serious reply to your query of Jason, but it doesn t look like that s going to happen. Somewhat unfortunately, it
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Todd,

          I'd like to think you would get a serious reply to your query of Jason,
          but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

          Somewhat unfortunately, it appears the CFTF discussion has been
          fractured and scattered; I don't know that anyone over there has the
          wherewithal to get it back on track and get back to trying to resolve
          the simple issue that was first rasied regarding the "Rock 'n Reel"
          story Jason posted for comment.

          I cannot believe that Jason and the other YEC faithful over there are
          not aware of just how obvious the blunders in Dr. Bert's "Rock 'n Reel"
          claims are. Yet, not a one, that I can tell, has said or done anything
          to suggest that Dr. Bert needs to respond to all of the mounting
          critcisms of his story.

          They didn't waste any time going after me; not because of anything I
          said or did, but just because Rick referenced Joe's note that was posted
          on my little list.

          I guess we've lost count of how many times it has been demonstrated that
          Dr. Bert's followers will waste no time going after some nobody like me
          for legitimate criticism of Dr. Bert and his hobby, all the while
          protecting Dr. Bert from public responsibility and accountability.

          The good brethren really have, in these matters, demonstrated that
          they've cut Matthew 7:1,2 and James 3:1 out of their bibles.

          And can you believe that A/P today had an article critical of the
          papists today? How odd, being that Dr. Bert has become a "Pope" of his
          own making amongst the church of Christ YEC movement. Dr. Bert speak
          "ex cathedra" about the "Rock 'n Reel" and Jason Fox and others believe
          it as the infalliable word of God; just because Dr. Bert said so from
          his Montgomery throne room.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • w_w_c_l
          Robert wrote: Somewhat unfortunately, it appears the CFTF discussion has been fractured and scattered; I don t know that anyone over there has the wherewithal
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Robert wrote:

            Somewhat unfortunately, it appears the CFTF discussion has been
            fractured and scattered; I don't know that anyone over there has the
            wherewithal to get it back on track and get back to trying to resolve
            the simple issue that was first rasied regarding the "Rock 'n Reel"
            story Jason posted for comment.

            Rick:

            Don't worry, Robert. I think the discussion over there is going just
            as the Lord has planned it. We have no way of knowing what may
            happen next -- what if Mr. Jones really did come out and admit the
            reel was put in the rock with a Dremel tool out in his garage?

            Every time something like this happens, it makes the story they are
            trying to sell that much weaker. I mean, how many times can you find
            the Ark resting on Ararat? They are sure the Ark has been found, but
            which "Bible archaeologist" found it? Which is the right Ark?

            Here is how money works: as soon as anything that can reasonably pass
            for Noah's Ark is found, people will beat a path to it. No matter if
            it is on some inaccessible glaciated mountain peak in Turkey, there
            will be roads built to it and an airport located nearby and a
            lifesize reproduction that you can go inside and tour in the comfort
            of your shirtsleeves. You will be able to pet the llamas, and buy
            Coca-Cola in 32 os. cups.

            But all these claims and no progress; no negotiating with the Turkish
            government? Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

            I'm afraid the reel-n-rock story has been written in stone. It isn't
            going to go away. Everybody of the future, on their way to a young-
            earth theology, will have to pass by it. If they can.


            Rick Hartzog

            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


            P.S. No matter what people think about the Catholic church, I find
            these remarks about the eternal destination of the Pope to be quite
            inappropriate. You just don't speak ill of the dead like that; not
            where I'm from. Death is a reminder of our own mortality, and our
            own impending judgement.

            Rick
          • Todd S. Greene
            ... I just received a private email from Jason in which he states that he refuses to address the questions and the issue. He also states that he get sick of
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty, I previously wrote (post #5859):
              > Hello Jason.
              >
              > It is Bert Thompson and his cohorts making the ridiculous claim
              > on this, not Robert Baty. If Robert Baty didn't even exist, we'd
              > still have the silly claim of Bert Thompson et al on this rock
              > with the fishing reel stuck in it. Here is a link to the article:
              >
              > A Young Earth: "Fishing for Proof"
              > by Thomas Tarpley, B.S., G.C., Michael Cortez, B.A., and Brad
              > Harrub, Ph.D.
              > http://www.apologeticspress.com/modules.php?
              > name=Read&cat=4&itemid=2698
              >
              > Here is the primary young earth creationist argument, directly
              > from the article:
              >
              > | "We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old,
              > | as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently,
              > | allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded
              > | during the process."
              >
              > And now here we have people like you, Jason, stepping right into
              > line behind Thompson and his cohorts for the purpose of defending
              > their nonsense. This is their argument. And you are actually
              > behaving to try to defend that argument from criticism. Why? Do
              > you agree with their argument yourself? Or do you actually
              > disagree with their argument yourself, but you think that it is
              > good to defend your fellow young earth creationists no matter
              > what, even at the cost of accuracy and truth?
              >
              > Jason, do you have the capability of thinking rationally for at
              > least 3 seconds? Don't you realize that if these layers of
              > phyllite rock formed within the last 100 years, then they
              > actually formed WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF A HUMAN BEING. Ask
              > yourself, since when have you observed hundreds, or thousands, or
              > feet of sediment lithifying and then metamorphosing (heat and
              > pressure) and then having the overlying layers eroded away so that
              > the metamorphic rock layers become exposed again in your lifetime
              > OR IN THE LIFETIME OF ANY HUMAN BEING ALIVE TODAY? The answer is:
              > NEVER. What is more is that even you crazy young earth
              > creationists KNOW that the answer to that question is NEVER, so
              > by defending the ridiculous argument in the first place you
              > demonstrate that either (1) you are not thinking rationally or
              > (2) you are presenting an argument dishonestly (or both). Take
              > your pick, Jason. Neither one bodes well for your position.

              I just received a private email from Jason in which he states that
              he refuses to address the questions and the issue. He also states
              that he get sick of attitudes like mine. (Which is no wonder - since
              young earth creationist don't want to deal with the truth, I'm sure
              they get sick and tired of people asking them and expecting them to
              deal with the truth all the time.)

              Anyway, my response to Jason was as follows:

              ----------------------------------------------------------------

              Hi, Jason.

              Your problem is that you are an empty boaster who cannot deal with
              the truth. Not only did you not even try to deal with the problems I
              pointed out with this ridiculously silly YEC argument about phyllite
              rock forming in less than the last 100 years, here you even state
              explicitly that you are not going to do it. This is one of the
              serious problems with you young earth creationists, is trying to get
              you to deal with the actual details of the subject. All you guys
              seem to be interested in is hit-and-run, hit-and-run, hit-and-run.
              The young earth creationist Duane Gish was so notorious for using
              that YEC tactic that it now actually has a popular name: The "Gish
              Gallop"! The point is that you jumped right in in support of Bert
              Thompson et al about this extremely silly claim that a phyllite rock
              layer formed within the last 100 years. Everyone knows this claim is
              totally absurd. Did you deal with that issue? Are you going to deal
              with that issue? Are you going to produce examples demonstrating
              that a phyllite rock layer forms in less than 100 years? You'll
              never even try to do any that. You know you won't try, and I know
              you won't try, because you know you cannot do any such thing. But
              instead of simply being honest about it and admitting it's a pretty
              silly claim, you'll engage in all kinds of rhetoric about everything
              else under the sun, while never dealing with the issue itself. Which
              is the typical dishonest approach that young earth creationists take.

              I'm not surprised.

              Sincerely,
              Todd Greene
              http://www.geocities.com/greeneto

              P.S.: I got real sick and tired of the dishonest attitudes of
              creationists many years ago. I can't say that that's why I quit
              being a creationist myself, because that was based on what I learned
              about the relevant subjects. But I can say that YEC hypocrisy is a
              strong factor in why I'm so critical of YECs today.
            • rlbaty50
              ... We ve seen that exit stategy played out over and over again when such efforts are made to actually dig into the details of specific issues. Dr. Bert s
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

                > I just received a private email from Jason
                > in which he states that he refuses to address
                > the questions and the issue. He also states
                > that he get sick of attitudes like mine.

                We've seen that "exit stategy" played out over and over again when
                such efforts are made to actually "dig into the details" of specific
                issues.

                Dr. Bert's "Rock 'n Reel" issue is only the latest and most
                wonderful example of the problem with Dr. Bert's hobby and its
                misguided supporters.

                The public responsibility that Jason and Dr. Bert have to "deal
                with" the "Rock 'n Reel" issue stands quite independent of
                anyone's "attitude".

                The issue will be and is being dealt with.

                Will Jason and Dr. Bert ever accept their public responsibilities to
                deal with it?

                Hiding out is one way to deal with it, I guess. They seem to be
                doing that very well, though we are onto that technique and what
                conclusions might reasonably be drawn from it.

                As I said before, I don't think anyone today, April 13, 2005, is
                going to be able to get Dr. Bert to do what Jason did; come out and
                actually endorse the "Rock 'n Reel" story. I challenge someone to
                try to get Dr. Bert to reaffirm his "Rock 'n Reel" story! If you
                accept this challenge, please document your efforts and reply from
                Dr. Bert. No more secret correspondence, please! This is all for
                the public record.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty
              • Todd S. Greene
                ...and it s seeming like this pond hasn t even been stocked with any fish! Here it is again, straight from the mouth of those fish in that other pond: A Young
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 13, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  ...and it's seeming like this pond hasn't even been stocked with any
                  fish!

                  Here it is again, straight from the mouth of those fish in that other
                  pond:

                  A Young Earth: "Fishing for Proof"
                  by Thomas Tarpley, B.S., G.C., Michael Cortez, B.A., and Brad Harrub,
                  Ph.D.
                  http://www.apologeticspress.com/modules.php?
                  name=Read&cat=4&itemid=2698

                  Here is the primary young earth creationist argument, directly from
                  the article:

                  | "We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old,
                  | as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently,
                  | allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded
                  | during the process."

                  Pretty fishy, huh?

                  I just checked the CFTF list

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/messages

                  and as of the time of this post (which is up through CFTF post
                  #22632), every single CFTF defender of Thompson's Apologetics Press'
                  Rock'n'Reel story is swimming away as fast as they can from even
                  TRYING to provide ANY substantiation of the ridiculous notion that
                  that layer of phyllite rock at the Tellico River formed within the
                  last 100 years. They have been asked repeatedly to produce empirical
                  substantiation of that claim, and they have repeatedly ignored the
                  challenge. They'll try to talk about everything else under the sun
                  (this is called OBFUSCATION or DISTRACTION or RED HERRING), but they
                  will not deal with the matter at hand. In other words, the young
                  earth creationists have totally failed to even nibble at the bait.
                  (Indeed, some of them are even pretending there is no challenge and
                  that they have nothing to defend. LOL! These guys and their YEC games
                  are just too amusing. Clearly I need to get out a little more!)
                  Typical young earth creationist behavior. Why are we not surprised.

                  Chuckling,
                  Todd Greene
                  http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
                • Todd S. Greene
                  In the following post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22682 ... See, Nathan, you are SSOOO wrong!!! LOL! (I m teasing a bit, because I see that
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 15, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In the following post
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22682
                    Jason Fox wrote:

                    >>> Todd Greene wrote:
                    >>> Over the last few days there have been dozens of posts by
                    >>> the CFTF young earth creationists King Davis, Jason Fox,
                    >>> George Jackson, and Jeffrey Peter all starting from this
                    >>> claim by Bert Thompson's crew that the phyllite rock at the
                    >>> Tellico River formed within the last 100 years - and yet not
                    >>> a single one of these creationists has even attempted to
                    >>> substantiated that absurd claim!
                    >>
                    >> Nathan Greene writes:
                    >> Maybe they are more intelligent than you would like to
                    >> believe.
                    >
                    > What is to substantiate? There's a picture of it for every one
                    > to look at. You try to discredit the article by saying phyllite
                    > is found in more places than the article reports, SO WHAT! The
                    > real point is there is a fishing reel partly burried in phyllite
                    > rock. That rock is meant to be hundreds of millions of years
                    > old. What evidence then is there that that phyllite rock was
                    > formed in about 100 years? There's a 100 year old fishing reel
                    > in it!!! Thats the whole point of the article, that phyllite
                    > rock does not take hundred of millions or years to form.
                    >
                    > Try using some common sense Todd.

                    See, Nathan, you are SSOOO wrong!!! LOL! (I'm teasing a bit, because
                    I see that Jeffrey Peter has already diplomatically distanced
                    himself from the Bert Thompson crowd.)

                    But let me pause here and give credit where credit is due: Jason,
                    THANK YOU for finally address the issue at hand. I was beginning to
                    think that all of you guys had advanced cases of Alzheimer's. So it
                    is good to see you directly addressing the issue you yourself
                    raised, and explicitly stating that YOU AGREE with Thompson's crew
                    that the phyllite rock formed within the last 100 years at the
                    Tellico River.

                    Now, Jason, let's recall what I wrote to you four days ago, this
                    post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/5859:

                    | Don't you realize that if these layers of
                    | phyllite rock formed within the last 100 years,
                    | then they actually formed WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF
                    | A HUMAN BEING. Ask yourself, since when have you
                    | observed hundreds, or thousands, of feet of
                    | sediment lithifying and then metamorphosing
                    | (heat and pressure) and then having the
                    | overlying layers eroded away so that the
                    | metamorphic rock layers become exposed again in
                    | your lifetime OR IN THE LIFETIME OF ANY HUMAN
                    | BEING ALIVE TODAY? The answer is: NEVER.

                    Now here are the historical and geological facts that you have to
                    deal with Jason: The Tellico River today is much like it was 100
                    years ago. We have NOT observed layers of phyllite rock forming at
                    the river. The way it works is that this kind of rock is first
                    formed (as a lithification of clay sediment) and then it is buried
                    by additional sediment layers (or not; in which case it was a layer
                    that was eroded away before we ever got a chance to see it). Then
                    these layers at some depth and heat get metamorphosed, which alters
                    the chemical structure of the rock, to form phyllite. Then the
                    overlying layers are eroded away (or not; in which case the phyllite
                    layer is still underground and not exposed at the surface) until
                    such time as the phyllite rock is exposed at the surface and then it
                    experiences erosion itself - and this brings us to the case of the
                    phyllite at the Tellico River.

                    We have you - along with Bert Thompson's cohorts - arguing that all
                    of that happened within the last 100 years, a single human lifetime.
                    But if that was the case then we would have observed all of that
                    incredibly dynamic geological activity. The fact of the matter is
                    that NONE of that happened in the last 100 years. Try using some
                    common sense, Jason!

                    All you have is an old fishing reel that someone jammed into a rock
                    some decades ago, which then over the decades became encrusted in
                    the cracks that it was jammed into. We know this because we know
                    that the incredibly dynamic geologic activity that you and
                    Thompson's group have posited never happened - as a matter of human
                    observation of the Tellico River area over the last 100 years. The
                    problem with you guys is that you make this crazy stuff up without
                    even bothering to consider the real world ramifications of what
                    you're saying. It's what you guys have been doing for over 100
                    years, and I'm absolutely certain it's what you will continue to do,
                    because you enjoy doing it so much!

                    Have a good weekend!
                    Todd Greene
                    http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
                  • rlbaty@webtv.net
                    ... Yep, I noticed that effort as well. We ve seen it so many times before. However, it is an ineffective strategy. Dr. Bert s Rock n Reel claims are the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 15, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Todd wrote, in part:

                      > I see that Jeffrey Peter has
                      > already diplomatically distanced
                      > himself from the Bert Thompson
                      > crowd.

                      Yep, I noticed that effort as well. We've seen it so many times before.
                      However, it is an ineffective strategy.

                      Dr. Bert's "Rock 'n Reel" claims are the story of the day. If
                      substantive, the course of history will change.

                      It simply is not good enough to distance oneself from Dr. Bert. He and
                      his "Rock 'n Reel" claims are the story of the day.

                      Hiding out from addressing Dr. Bert's claims presents valuable evidence
                      for those who observe such phenomenon among the "young-earth,
                      creation-science" movement.

                      It is indeed fascinating to watch.

                      I wouldn't be surprised if in the not too distant future we hear of Dr.
                      Brad and/or some of those vacationing interns/others deciding to leave
                      Apologetics Press. The spin could really be interesting. I doubt they
                      would just come out and say the embarassment over the "Rock 'n Reel"
                      story was a major contributing factor in their decision. There might
                      not even be any public announcements regarding those lesser lights
                      involved in the "Rock 'n Reel" field trip.

                      They wouldn't be the first to split from Dr. Bert. Can anyone say
                      Trevor Major? And he was hardly the first!

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • rlbaty50
                      Rick, I noticed you gave me some honorable mention on the CFTF list, in opposition to Jason Fox s effort to slight my feeble attempts to address these
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rick,

                        I noticed you gave me some honorable mention on the CFTF list, in
                        opposition to Jason Fox's effort to slight my "feeble attempts" to
                        address these important public issues.

                        Jason indicated that he thought I had somehow misrepresented his
                        position. Well, resolving such claims is what discussion is partly
                        about, isn't it.

                        As you wrote to him, he is quite capable of responding to and
                        dialogueing with me right here if he has an interest and wants to
                        try and set the record straight. He doesn't even have to join.
                        Some of the best input here has been from non-members.

                        I welcome Jason's input here; if only he would. Maybe he will bring
                        Dr. Bert over as well, at least to publicly announce his intentions
                        regarding that "Rock 'n Reel" story.

                        Sincerely,
                        Robert Baty

                        P.S. I also seem to have noticed that Jason didn't appear to
                        actually quote and substantiate his charge regarding my
                        misrepresentation of him! HMMMM?

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