Re: Fishing or cutting bait with Jason Fox
- Todd wrote, in part:
> (L)et's keep in mind that so farI think we should also keep in mind, and Rick alludes to this in his
> 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.
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.
- 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)
Re: Fishing for Rock'n'Reel supporters, summary-to-date
by Rick Hartzog (May 2, 2005)
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.
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:
> Jason has the task of explaining how it isThat's not so hard. I think I could even do for Jason.
> 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.
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
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?
- In this post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CFTF/message/22856 Jason
Fox wrote the following:
>Rick wrote:Hi, everyone.
>> 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.
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?
You can also read Rick's more complete and elegant response to
Jason's comments in this post:
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
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:[Jason]
>> 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.
> Why am I not surprised at this blatant display bias and openLet's see that again. What is Jason's claim? "Yet these men, all of
> 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.
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.