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

Re: Fishing or cutting bait with Jason Fox

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    In this CFTF post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22795 ... Hi, everyone. Demonstrating his troubles with reading plain English, the young earth
    Message 1 of 17 , May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In this CFTF post
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22795
      Jason Fox wrote the following:

      > Rick wrote:
      >> What is disputed is that the rock formed within the last
      >> hundred years, as is claimed by unrepentant sources, namely
      >> AP.
      >
      > Correct.
      >
      > Rick wrote:
      >> The UTC geology faculty have also independently established
      >> that the temperature and pressure required to form phyllite
      >> would have smushed the reel to pieces,
      >
      > How do you come to this conclusion, the article mentions
      > nothing about this.

      Hi, everyone.

      Demonstrating his troubles with reading plain English, the young
      earth creationist Jason Fox shows that he doesn't understand the
      meaning of the words "independently established." Rick apparently
      knows at least a little more about geology than Jason does, which
      certainly comes as no surprise. Jason seems to imply that we're
      supposed to learn geology from the speculative musings of a bunch of
      young earth creationists at Apologetics Press who don't know anything
      at all about geology, and that no one can know anything about geology
      apart from such ignorant musings.

      > Evolutionists make the
      > assumption that phyllite requires temperature and pressure
      > (and time) to form, but the formation of phyllite has not been
      > observed, so no one really knows.

      Ah yes, Jason Fox the young earth creationist makes the (incorrect)
      assumption that geologists know as little about geology as he does.
      Jason apparently doesn't know that certain specialties in geology
      involve research in laboratories where the geologists who engage in
      this research study the effects of pressure and temperature (among
      other things) on the physical structure and chemical state of various
      kind of rock, right down to the molecular level. In his statement
      here, Jason admits that he doesn't know anything about this research.
      We're glad that he's honest enough to admit this here, but we're not
      very pleased with his false assumption and assertion that just
      because he doesn't know anything about geology, this must mean that
      geologists who actually conduct research in these areas are just like
      him. Does Jason even know the difference between igneous,
      sedimentary, and metamorphic rock forms? Which is something any
      GEO101 student could tell you. The sheer audacity of young earth
      creationists is ever amazing to behold, at how they hold forth on all
      manner of scientific subjects about which they know virtually nothing.

      > Coal and oil need pressure and temperature to form, but not
      > time, this has been proven.

      Yes, we can make diamonds in the lab too, but at there structures at
      the molecular level are observed to be different. And besides the
      molecular structure, there's also the fact of the geological context
      (landforms and rocks types that the rock/minerals in question are
      found in association with) in which such things are found. Golly,
      would Jason Fox the young earth creationist who knows nothing about
      geology be asking us to ignore such context? Of course!

      > Evolutionists

      Uh... We're talking about geology and geologists, not evolution, and
      this has been explicitly pointed out to Jason a number of times, but
      he continues to display his steadfast confusion on this.

      > also thought petrified
      > wood took time, pressure, and heat to form.

      They did? Was this within the last hundred years? Can Jason produce a
      citation from the geological literature to back up this claim? I
      doubt it.

      > However it has
      > been shown that petrified wood requires none of the above to
      > form. So how can you be so sure of a process that has never
      > been observed?

      In fact, geologists think that petrified wood is produced by a
      chemical/mineral replacement of the wood over time, which is why it
      is also referred to as "silicified wood." If you don't believe me,
      just do a Google search on:

      geology "petrified wood"

      Does Jason have a clue what he's talking about? I seriously doubt it.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> that there are channelways that show the path the reel had to
      >> follow to get into the rock, and that these channelways
      >> revealed saw marks, and that it looked like a drill was used
      >> to get the one leg inserted.
      >
      > Again, pure speculation, if not total fabrication on your
      > part. The Article mentions nothing of the sort. And on a quick
      > look one can see for themselves that there are no marks on the
      > rock that you describe. It is plain to see, that the rock has
      > actually formed around the reel.

      That's pretty funny, seeing a young earth creationist complaining
      about anyone using pure speculation! Since that's almost all that
      young earth creationists ever do!

      It's also plain to see that no layers of phyllite rock (or any other
      kind of rock) have formed at the Tellico River within the last 100
      years, and I have pointed this out to Jason a number of time, but
      it's plain to see that Jason is ignoring this fact and has chosen to
      refuse to address it.

      Regarding the article, there is more than one article. Rick is also
      referencing the original article in the Chattanooga Times FreePress
      (10/2/2003). This article refers to Dr. John Mies, one of the UTC
      geologists:

      | By closely observing what he thought were travel marks
      | eroded into the stone, Mies was convinced the reel had
      | somehow worn its way into the rock.
      |
      | "It started at one angle and then changed its track on
      | the way in," he said.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> I'm guessing Todd was just being non-accusatory with his
      >> scenario. Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the
      >> suggestions of the UTC faculty that the reel was
      >> intentionally put into the rock by human devices.

      To Rick: No, actually with what little detailed information I have
      I'm guessing that it could have been something as simple as a kid
      playing around with an old broken fishing reel he found, and he
      jammed it into cracks in a rock, and thus it wouldn't represent the
      deceitful act of being a hoax. But I may be wrong about this. I know
      that I'm guessing based on the limited information available.

      > Again, no such "scenario" is ever mentioned in the article and
      > is only a fabrication on your part. A.P. even quoted an
      > independent source that shows no such claim was made by the
      > UTC. The only thing the UTC claims is that it (the rock) does
      > not exist, which is typical of evolutionists when it comes to
      > evidence which they can not explain.

      When I read the article it was obvious to me that the professor was
      JOKING. Furthermore, the professor in question has later written
      about this and explicitly told us he was JOKING. Leave it to Jason to
      take a joke out of context.

      And Jason the young earth creationist using the phrase "which is
      typical of evolutionists when it comes to evidence which they can not
      explain" is itself a good joke! A young earth creationist, who
      doesn't even know the difference between geology and evolution, and
      who doesn't even know that geologists actually study rocks and
      minerals in the laboratory and conduct experiments on them, and who
      purposely ignores most of geology and astronomy, complaining about
      people pretending that evidence doesn't exist! That's a real crack up!

      And, anyway, the ORIGINAL newspaper article DOES state that some of
      the UTC faculty thought that the reel was intentionally put into the
      rock. This is what Rick is referring to.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> Jason, there are whole mountains of solid phyllite in that
      >> area. They have been there well over a hundred years, we are
      >> sure. The small chunks of phyllite are weathered-away parts
      >> of the solid layer of parent material of which those
      >> mountains are made.
      >
      > No one is disputing this point.

      Is Jason now starting to run away from the YEC argument from AP that
      he latched himself onto? The claim by (some of) you young earth
      creationists is that these layers of phyllite rock formed within the
      last 100 years. Rick's point that "They have been there well over a
      hundred years" is exactly what Jason has been disputing.

      > Rick wrote:
      >> Through various natural processes, mainly gravity, they wind
      >> up in streambeds, where they are washed smooth by the action
      >> of flowing water. That water does indeed move, smooth,
      >> tumble and polish rocks can be readily shown. All of these
      >> things had already happened to the chunk of phyllite that has
      >> the reel in it. If rocks were outgrowing the erosive forces
      >> of water, indeed, if phyllite "grew" at all, we would know
      >> about it.
      >
      > Again, you make many assumptions in this statement.
      [snip]

      Rick is probably assuming that Jason is supporting the YEC argument
      made by YEC advocates Tarpley, Cortez, and Harrub, that Jason has
      been writing in support of the last few weeks. But with his words
      here Jason now appears to be starting to run away from the very
      argument that he had latched onto. Since Jason's Alzheimers appears
      to be kicking in, I quote directly from the AP article (for, what,
      the 6th time?) the argument he has been supporting:

      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
      [note line-wrapping of link]

      | "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."

      Rick writes that if the rock was growing at the Tellico River within
      the past 100 years as these young earth creationists say it was then
      we would already know about it. We would observe. And Jason Fox
      responds by now pretending that Rick is assuming that Jason supports
      that argument. Well, Jason HAS BEEN supporting that argument, as made
      by Tarpley, Cortez, and Harrub. That is exactly the argument that
      Jason has been supporting. And yet here we have Jason now pretending
      that Rick is incorrectly assuming that Jason supports that argument.
      Can Jason make up his mind?

      By the way, let's keep in mind that so far Jason Fox is the SOLE
      supporter of this particular argument in the CFTF discussion group.
      Not even his fellow young earth creationists there agree with him on
      this.

      Regards,
      Todd Greene
      http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
    • rlbaty@webtv.net
      ... I think we should also keep in mind, and Rick alludes to this in his most recent post, that Dr. Bert, as far as is known, is refusing to come to Jason s
      Message 2 of 17 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Todd wrote, in part:

        > (L)et's keep in mind that so far
        > Jason Fox is the SOLE supporter
        > of this particular argument in the
        > CFTF discussion group.

        > Not even his fellow young earth
        > creationists there agree with him
        > on this.

        I think we should also keep in mind, and Rick alludes to this in his
        most recent post, that Dr. Bert, as far as is known, is refusing to come
        to Jason's aid.

        Despite repeated requests, none of the good brethren have been able or
        willing to document their efforts to discipline Dr. Bert into publishing
        his intentions regarding the "Rock 'n Reel" story.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd S. Greene
        Hi, everyone. Here are the references to Jason Fox s and Rick Hartzog s most recent posts on the subject of the Rock n Reel: Re: Fishing for Rock n Reel
        Message 3 of 17 , May 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, everyone.

          Here are the references to Jason Fox's and Rick Hartzog's most
          recent posts on the subject of the Rock'n'Reel:

          Re: Fishing for Rock'n'Reel supporters, summary-to-date
          by Jason Fox (May 2, 2005)
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22803

          Re: Fishing for Rock'n'Reel supporters, summary-to-date
          by Rick Hartzog (May 2, 2005)
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22815

          I have only one point to add to the points that Rick has already
          concisely and elegantly addressed, but first I will simply reiterate
          two of Rick's points with my own comments.

          First, it was interesting to note that Jason acknowledged the fact
          that geologists actually DO know from lab experiments how phyllite
          is formed, thus implying that his previous statement that geologists
          didn't know anything about it all was completely wrong. (Of course,
          ever the young earth creationist, Jason did not explicitly admit
          that his statement was wrong, but only implied it by acknowledge
          that geologists have in fact have observed how phyllite is formed by
          recreating conditions in a lab setting.)

          Second, in discussions on these kinds of topics (coal, oil,
          diamonds, etc.) young earth creationists seem to enjoy making a big
          deal out of the fact that we are able to artificially produce
          certain things in a very short period of time, and then pretending
          that *therefore* it only took a short time for these things to
          develop by natural processes in natural conditions. The whole point
          they seem to neglect is that these things were NOT produced by human
          being recreating extreme conditions in a lab. As Rick points out,
          just because you can create in a lab the pressures and temperatures
          that are found deep in the Earth's crust under tens of thousand of
          feet of sediment and rock layers, this doesn't tell you how long it
          took for the lithified sediment (such as shale) to (1) originally
          become deposited as sediment, (2) lithify (turn to rock), (3) become
          buried by tens of thousands of feet additional sediment (or this can
          also be in conjunction with subduction as a process of plate
          tectonics where layers are actually thrust under other layers over
          time as tectonic plates are pushed into each other), (4) have the
          overlying tens of thousands of feet of sediment and rock layers
          eroded away so that the metamorphosed rock that was deeply buried
          becomes exposed at the surface again. Read Jason's posts again (any
          of them) and you will observe that he has completely ignored every
          one of these steps. This is what is meant when we say that Jason
          (and other young earth creationists) are ignoring the "geological
          context." The geological context is taking into account all the
          relevant information that we have concerning these layers and the
          conditions in which they are found at the particular geographic
          location in question. Jason has ignored every single bit of these
          real world considerations.

          Which leads me to the only point that I can add to what Rick already
          wrote, the point that I've made to Jason numerous times but which he
          has purposely ignored and refused to address, which is this: No
          layers of phyllite rock (or any other kind of rock) have formed at
          the Tellico River within the past 100 years. This is a fact. Jason
          has the task of explaining how it is that phyllite rock has been
          forming at the Tellico River within the past 100 years even though
          no one within the past 100 years has ever seen the formation of any
          rock at all. I take Jason's steadfast silence on this to mean that
          he is fully aware that no rock has formed at the Tellico River
          within the past 100 years, which is why he is afraid to address the
          fact that no one in the Tellico River area has ever observed any
          formation of rock there.

          Regards,
          Todd Greene
          http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
        • rlbaty50
          ... That s not so hard. I think I could even do for Jason. You remember the recent spotting of that ivory billed woodpecker. Well, no one had seen one of them
          Message 4 of 17 , May 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
            <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

            > Jason has the task of explaining how it is
            > that phyllite rock has been forming at the
            > Tellico River within the past 100 years even
            > though no one within the past 100 years has
            > ever seen the formation of any rock at all.

            That's not so hard. I think I could even do for Jason.

            You remember the recent spotting of that ivory billed woodpecker.

            Well, no one had seen one of them for about 40 years. Yet, now we
            see it and conclude that they have been around all during the time
            no one saw one.

            So, even though no one has seen the phyllite forming around the
            Tellico doesn't mean it isn't forming, and forming quite rapidly.

            I suspect that the reason Dr. Bert hasn't been addressing the issue
            is because he and a band of interns are, as we post, out scouring
            the Tellico to find where the phyllite formations can be presently
            observed.

            He really thinks he's going to find it. Why else would
            that "Rock 'n Reel" story still be on his website today, May 2, 2005?

            You think?

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • Todd S. Greene
            In this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22856 Jason ... Hi, everyone. When I read Jason s response on this topic a few days ago, I have to say
            Message 5 of 17 , May 10, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              In this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22856 Jason
              Fox wrote the following:
              >Rick wrote:
              >> Yes, it was shown that slate turns into phyllite at pressures
              >> and temperatures that exist several miles below the surface
              >> of the earth. Outside of the laboratory, it takes a long time
              >> for beds of slate to be buried at such depths. It takes a
              >> long time for beds of shale to reach depths and temperatures
              >> that produce the slate from which the phyllite is formed. It
              >> takes a long time for depositional clays to turn into shale.
              >> It takes a long time for parent rock to erode into small
              >> enough particles to become depositional clay. So the
              >> instantaneous leap from slate to phyllite in the laboratory
              >> doesn't really reflect the millions and millions of years it
              >> took to get the slate in the first place.
              >
              > If the same or similar conditions were re-created in the lab
              > as those that exist outside of the lab, then one can
              > reasonably expect the same results by the same processes as
              > those outside of the lab, remembering one is trying to
              > duplicate the actual process. If then the process in the lab
              > creates the same result in an observational period of time,
              > time then is of no great significance.
              >
              > What then do you have? At least in lab results you have a
              > demonstration that time is not a factor. Now you have a
              > fishing reel in a rock that is meant to take hundreds of
              > millions of years to form. The implication of this is that
              > time is likewise not a significant factor in the formation of
              > phyllite rock, which is inline with laboratory results.

              Hi, everyone.

              When I read Jason's response on this topic a few days ago, I have to
              say that I found it pretty amazing that this otherwise intelligent
              guy is so bound up in his religious dogma that his basic common
              sense has deserted him. How is it possible for a man to not know
              that the pressures and temperatures that are found thousands of feet
              under the ground, under thousands of feet of sediment and rock, are
              maybe just a little bit different than the pressure and temperature
              ranges that are at the surface, and at the Tellico River in
              particular? Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the utter
              incompetence in reasoning that is demonstrated by this?

              Wow.

              You can also read Rick's more complete and elegant response to
              Jason's comments in this post:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22888

              Also note that Jason has studiously and purposely ignored the point
              that I have made to him several times now (I know, because I make
              sure to email to Jason all of my responses to his comments): No
              layers of phyllite rock (or any other kind of rock) have formed at
              the Tellico River within the past 100 years. This is a fact. The
              task that Jason has, but that he refuses to perform, is to explain
              to us how it is that phyllite rock has been forming at the Tellico
              River within the past 100 years even though no one within the past
              100 years has ever seen the formation of any rock at all. Jason's
              silence on this has become very obvious in demonstrating that he is
              fully aware that he is incapable of dealing with the facts about
              this.

              Later on in Jason's post he also spouts some of that moldy oldy
              discredited young earth creationist propaganda that I refer to from
              time to time. But unlike his silly claims on the "rock'n'reel" topic
              (such as pretending that the pressure and temperature ranges at the
              Tellico River are the same as those found under thousands of feet of
              sediment and rock), this particular claim is not unique to him.

              > Rick wrote:
              >> And this is not the "pseudoscience." The "pseudoscience" is
              >> how these laboratory experiments, conducted and reported by
              >> real scientists, are seized on by YEC writers and
              >> misrepresented as evidence for a young earth. If you will
              >> provide a particular link, I'll be happy to demonstrate for
              >> you how this is done, time and time again.
              >
              [Jason]
              > Why am I not surprised at this blatant display bias and open
              > discrimination against those who believe in a young earth as
              > described in the Bible? Because such views are so extensive
              > among the evolutionary community. How then can one trust those
              > in the evolutionary camp to commit to open and honest
              > scientific investigation?
              >
              > "Professor J. Macmurray, certainly no friend to Christianity,
              > confessed: "Science is the legitimate child of a great
              > religious movement, and its genealogy goes back to Jesus."
              > Similarly, Nikolai Berdyaev, a Marist philosopher who taught
              > at Moscow University, declared: "I am convinced that
              > Christianity alone made possible both positive science and
              > technics." The Bible & Science, Pg. 118, W. Jackson, 2000.
              >
              > Johann Kepler(1571-1630), Blaise Pascal(1623-1662), Robert
              > Boyle (1627-1691), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Michael
              > Faraday (1791-1867), Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), George
              > Washington Carver(1864-1943), Werner von Braun(1912-1977)....
              >
              > Tell me Rick, the above named men, are they real scientists?
              > Or "pseudoscientists" that seized the work of others. They are
              > real scientists aren't they Rick. Yet these men, all of whom
              > believed in the God of the Bible and a literal 6 day creation,
              > are some of the greatest minds known to man. All of these men
              > strived to uncover the great mysteries of God's creation.

              Let's see that again. What is Jason's claim? "Yet these men, all of
              whom believed in the God of the Bible and a literal 6 day creation,
              are some of the greatest minds known to man." All of them? Really.

              Notice the timeframes for the first four of the scientists listed:

              Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
              Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
              Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
              Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

              All of these scientists died before serious geological
              investigations even began. So, in the case of these four scientists,
              is Jason arguing that belief in young earth creationism is based on
              sheer ignorance? It would seem so.

              But let's continue looking at some of the other scientists on his
              list who at least lived during times where Jason's claim might
              actually be relevant.

              Michael Faraday (1791-1867) lived during the time when serious
              geological science really got going. Historical records show that
              Faraday was friends with, among other people, Thomas Huxley, and did
              some investigative work with Charles Lyell concerning a mine
              explosion. I have not been able to dig up anything written by
              Michael Faraday where he states that he was a young earth
              creationist (believing that the Earth did not exist more than
              several thousand years). So the *best* that Jason Fox can say is
              that he doesn't have a clue whether Faraday was a young earth
              creationist or not. Jason's claim that Faraday was a young earth
              creationist is an erroneous claim, because Faraday never said he was
              a young earth creationist (believing in a literal 6 day creation).
              (By the way, with respect to evolution, keep in mind that the
              *Origin of Species* was published in 1859, close to the end of
              Faraday's life, and Faraday was senile in his later years.)

              Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) both accepted the fact of the antiquity of
              the Earth, and he was also an evolutionist, though he was skeptical
              of Darwin's particular theory of evolution. So here again, Jason's
              claim that Pasteur was a young earth creationist is in error.

              George Washington Carver (1864-1943) accepted the fact of the
              antiquity of the Earth. After looking this up, I simply didn't look
              any further. Here again, Jason's claim that Carver was a young earth
              creationist is in error. (Incidentally, I read this interesting
              statement by Carver: "I love to think of nature as an unlimited
              broadcasting system, through which God speaks to us every hour, if
              we will only tune in." When are Jason and other young earth
              creationists ever going to tune in?)

              Werner von Braun (1912-1977), of course, was an engineer, a true
              rather than proverbial rocket scientist, and never conducted any
              kind of scientific research even remotely relevant to geology,
              paleontology, or biology (and only indirectly relevant to astronomy;
              building rockets gets us into space where we can perform some truly
              beautiful astronomical research that could never be conducted
              before, but von Braun never conducted any astronomical research).
              (Incidentally, von Braun was a German Nazi, an officer in the SS,
              and a support of the war, though in the later years of the war he
              did start criticizing the racist policies and the war itself.) After
              digging around on the internet for awhile the only statements by von
              Braun that I could find had to do with advocating an intelligent
              design concept. So it's possible that von Braun was an anti-
              evolutionist, but it would be hard to back that up well based on von
              Braun's comments that I read. But in regard to von Braun rejecting
              geological and astronomical there is absolutely not a single word.
              So yet again, Jason's claim that von Braun is a young earth
              creationist is in error.

              will Jason Fox the young earth creationist acknowledge the errors of
              his claim? Don't hold your breath.

              Regards,
              Todd Greene
              http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.