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

Dr. Bert gives up his "Rock 'n Reel"

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Here s the link to the complete message: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2698 ... critics ... into ... rock s ... began ... suggested ... gathering
    Message 1 of 8 , May 13, 2005
      Here's the link to the complete message:

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2698

      An excerpt:
      >
      > A NOTE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF APOLOGETICS PRESS
      >
      > In this spot on our Web site, we formerly had an article titled "A
      > Young Earth: `Fishing for Proof,' " written by three of my staff
      > members.
      >
      > Since the article's publication, we have received input from
      critics
      > who offered alternative views of how the reel might have gotten
      into
      > the rock (viz., other than it having been imbedded during the
      rock's
      > initial formation). Constructive criticism is something we try to
      > take very seriously (even when it arrives, as it certainly did in
      > this case, in what might be called "less than the kindest of
      > terms"). Upon receiving the initial criticism, we immediately
      began
      > a behind-the-scenes investigation of our own to see if the
      suggested
      > alternative views were either possible or credible. After
      gathering
      > and weighing the facts we have received up to this point in time,
      we
      > believe that some (though certainly not all) of the alternative
      > views are exactly that—possible or credible.
      >
      > I therefore have made the decision to remove the story from our
      Web
      > site while we study this issue further (which we most assuredly
      are
      > continuing to do, I assure you). Truth is very important to us,
      and
      > we do not want to ever knowingly use any material, or offer any
      > explanation, that is not defensible via the actual facts of the
      > case. I hope this will be evident to any fair-minded reader, as
      > evinced by the following actions on our part. First, we did not
      base
      > our original article on second-hand information or hearsay from a
      > mere newspaper article. Rather, my staff members traveled a
      > considerable distance (and at considerable expense in both time
      and
      > money) to witness the find firsthand. Second, from every piece of
      > evidence we had (and still have) at our disposal, there was no
      > indication of any kind in regard to some sort of "fakery" by Mr.
      Dan
      > Jones (or anyone else). Mr. Jones was as kind, humble, and
      > cooperative as any human could be—and was perfectly willing to
      allow
      > his unusual find to be submitted to whatever up-close examination
      > was required or requested (even going so far as to allow
      > professional geologists at UTC to carry out acid tests to
      determine
      > the exact composition of the rock). Third, as soon as criticism
      > about our article began to arrive in our offices (including some
      > that was offered in extremely inflammatory language and that
      > included slurs, innuendoes, and personal attacks against both the
      > authors and our work in general), we nevertheless tried to accept
      > the criticism at face value, and worked diligently to try to
      ferret
      > out the actual facts of the case. Fourth, it is my hope that the
      > fact we have removed the article from our Web site will serve as
      > compelling confirmation of the value we place on truth, as well as
      > proof that we are willing to respond in an honorable manner when
      > challenged. Our studies into this matter are continuing. I ask for
      > your patience as we complete them.
      >
      > Dr. Bert Thompson
      >

      While Dr. Bert appears headed in the right direction regarding
      giving up that story, it also appears he isn't quite "coming clean"
      about it and his promotion of it. It is most interesting to see him
      admit to working secretly when it comes to his blunders.

      He's got a lot more explaining to do on the "Rock 'n Reel" story and
      similar blunders we have tried to get him to address.

      We probably won't get it, but we have made progress. At least it
      didn't take him years and years to give up the "Rock 'n Reel".

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • geodynamicist
      ... JM: Great! Only a million more false claims to go! Cheers Joe Meert
      Message 2 of 8 , May 13, 2005
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@w...> wrote:
        > Here's the link to the complete message:
        >
        > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2698
        >

        JM: Great! Only a million more false claims to go!

        Cheers

        Joe Meert
      • rlbaty@webtv.net
        I thought I would take a little time to try and further understand what is going on down at Apologetics Press regarding the Rock n Reel disclaimer published
        Message 3 of 8 , May 13, 2005
          I thought I would take a little time to try and further understand what
          is going on down at Apologetics Press regarding the "Rock 'n Reel"
          disclaimer published today by Dr. Bert.

          Dr. Bert's message can be found at:
             
          http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2698  

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          In this spot on our Web site, we formerly had an article titled "A Young
          Earth: 'Fishing for Proof,' " written by three of my staff members.

          > HMMM! I wonder what kind of
          > disciplinary action Dr. Bert is
          > intending regarding those
          > three unnamed staff members.

          > One of those was his right-hand
          > man, Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

          > Was it so embarassing that Dr.
          > Bert didn't even want to mention
          > their names the way he likes to
          > mention the name of John
          > Clayton whenever it suits him?

          > How long can Dr. Brad survive
          > at Apologetics Press after
          > something like this; seeing that
          > it appears the "Rock 'n Reel"
          > was maybe his "baby".

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          On February 12, 2005, my three staff members traveled to southeastern
          Tennessee to speak with Mr. Jones personally, and to examine the reel in
          the rock that was the subject of Mr. Simms' newspaper article. Upon
          their return to our offices, those staff members wrote an article about
          their trip, in which they described Mr. Jones' find in great detail
          (including several close-up, high-resolution pictures that were part of
          their article). Shortly thereafter, we placed the article on our Web
          site.

          > And it never occurred to them to
          > consult with the folks at the
          > university and get their input
          > before "going to press"?

          > And Dr. Brad and Dr. Bert are
          > the Ph.D.'s allegedly with skills
          > regarding research???

          Dr. Bert wrote:
           
          Upon receiving the initial criticism, we immediately began a
          behind-the-scenes investigation of our own to see if the suggested
          alternative views were either possible or credible.

          > And here I've been asking for
          > weeks and weeks about what
          > Dr. Bert's intentions were and
          > trying to get an announcment.

          > Now we find out he's been
          > working under cover for weeks
          > and weeks.

          > I guess the good brethren might
          > do themselves proud to keep
          > their dirty little secrets. To my
          > knowledge, not a one was able
          > to get Dr. Bert to publicly admit
          > that he was working on the issue
          > almost as soon as the story
          > broke.

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          Truth is very important to us, and we do not want to ever knowingly use
          any material, or offer any explanation, that is not defensible via the
          actual facts of the case.

          > Well, some of us have reason
          > to doubt the sincerity and
          > accuracy of such a statement.

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          I hope this will be evident to any fair-minded reader, as evinced by the
          following actions on our part.

          > I happen to believe a fair-minded,
          > and informed, reader is not going
          > to find the claims "evident".

          Dr. Bert writes:

          First, we did not base our original article on second-hand information
          or hearsay from a mere newspaper article. Rather, my staff members
          traveled a considerable distance (and at considerable expense in both
          time and money) to witness the find firsthand.

          > Staff members, unnamed, who
          > had no known geologic expertise
          > and dared not to interview the
          > experts, so readily available to
          > them, to get their side of the story.

          > Yet, look how those experts in
          > the field are portrayed in Dr.
          > Bert's now-zapped "Rock 'n
          > Reel" story.

          > I wonder if Dr. Brad is going to
          > asked to reimburse Dr. Bert for
          > the vacation they had while
          > looking over the "Rock 'n Reel".

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          Second, from every piece of evidence we had (and still have) at our
          disposal, there was no indication of any kind in regard to some sort of
          "fakery" by Mr. Dan Jones (or anyone else).

          > That's coming from a Ph.D.?
          > I propose the statement is
          > actually false, for there was
          > evidence available to those
          > fellows that should have led
          > a competent Ph.D. type to
          > question the artifact as it
          > regards Dr. Bert's claims for
          > it.

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          Mr. Jones was. . .perfectly willing
          to allow his unusual find to be
          submitted to whatever up-close
          examination was required or
          requested. . .

          > Is that so? That is not
          > what we are hearing now.

          > Even if that was the case,
          > then why wouldn't a Ph.D.
          > have the thing actually
          > subjected to Ph.D. level
          > investigation.

          > A nice story from an old
          > fisherman and some photos,
          > and that is what it takes to
          > convince a competent Ph.D.??

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          Third, as soon as criticism about our article began to arrive in our
          offices . . . we worked diligently to try to ferret out the actual facts
          of the case.

          > Yeah, and I've been working
          > diligently during that same
          > time to get some of the good
          > brethren to get Dr. Bert to
          > publicly advise us of his
          > actions.

          Dr. Bert wrote:

          Fourth, it is my hope that the fact we have removed the article from our
          Web site will serve as compelling confirmation of the value we place on
          truth, as well as proof that we are willing to respond in an honorable
          manner when challenged.

          > That might have been expected.

          > I might find the claim more
          > compelling if he would give
          > up the source for his Maury
          > statue claim, admit he knows
          > I didn't write that CRSQ letter,
          > and do for his secretly removed
          > moon-dust story what he thinks
          > he is doing for his "Rock 'n Reel"
          > story.

          > That would be " a good thing ".

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • w_w_c_l
          ... him ... and ... Thank you, Lord! The Dr. Bert expedition went fishing for proof and came back with a whopper. Though there were some who swallowed it
          Message 4 of 8 , May 14, 2005
            >
            > While Dr. Bert appears headed in the right direction regarding
            > giving up that story, it also appears he isn't quite "coming clean"
            > about it and his promotion of it. It is most interesting to see
            him
            > admit to working secretly when it comes to his blunders.
            >
            > He's got a lot more explaining to do on the "Rock 'n Reel" story
            and
            > similar blunders we have tried to get him to address.
            >
            > We probably won't get it, but we have made progress. At least it
            > didn't take him years and years to give up the "Rock 'n Reel".
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty


            Thank you, Lord!

            The Dr. Bert expedition went fishing for proof and came back with a
            whopper. Though there were some who swallowed it hook, line and
            sinker, several others immediately recognized that something was
            fishy about the tale and refused to take the bait.

            Some grabbed it and ran off a little ways and then spit the hook out,
            but now their mouths are sore. Maybe they'll look twice the next
            time some glittery object comes swimming by.

            Mucho kudos to Joe Meert for the legwork, and to Robert Baty and Todd
            S. Greene for holding AP's feet to the public fire. While there is
            much in Thompson's statement that I must say I find somewhat less
            than satisfactory, I think I'll let it pass for a moment while the
            reality of the situation settles in for AP supporters. But only for
            a moment. (By the way, Joe, in the Apologetics Press
            article "Walking Amidst the Dinosaurs," the writers refer to C-14
            dating done on dinosaur bones and have an image of the lab results
            from the University of Arizona signed by Austin Long. You wouldn't
            happen to know anyone out there who would care to respond to this,
            would you?)

            (see: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15)

            Thanks a lot, friends, and praise the Lord!


            Rick Hartzog

            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
          • rlbaty@webtv.net
            Rick, Are you just toying with the CFTF folks to see how long it takes them to make the big announcement regarding Dr. Bert s current position on the Rock n
            Message 5 of 8 , May 14, 2005
              Rick,

              Are you just toying with the CFTF folks to see how long it takes them to
              make the big announcement regarding Dr. Bert's current position on the
              "Rock 'n Reel" story.

              Funny! :o)

              CFTF should have got an advance copy of that notice and been the first
              to publish it to the YAHOO! lists.

              I wonder what is keeping them, especially given that Jason Fox is aware
              of it and Jason Fox is the one who brought Dr. Bert's original claims to
              the CFTF to begin with (as I recall).

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
              9:40 a.m. CDT
            • w_w_c_l
              ... them to ... the ... Toying? Me? Certainly not! I just want to see whether an acknowledgement is made, who it comes from, and the form and nature of that
              Message 6 of 8 , May 14, 2005
                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, rlbaty@w... wrote:
                >
                > Rick,
                >
                > Are you just toying with the CFTF folks to see how long it takes
                them to
                > make the big announcement regarding Dr. Bert's current position on
                the
                > "Rock 'n Reel" story?
                >

                Toying? Me? Certainly not! I just want to see whether an
                acknowledgement is made, who it comes from, and the form and nature
                of that acknowledgement.

                Meanwhile, I'm content to talk over the Big Bang as if it had any
                thing at all to do with the credibility of the reel-in-rock article.
                And besides, the reel-in-rock story may still turn out to be true --
                who knows what that "behind-the-scenes investigation" may uncover? A
                hidden shelf of soft, moist phyllite, maybe, full of artifacts from
                the Flood to the present day! Ha!

                Oh, I get more cynical every time I read Thompson's statement! He
                bemoans the considerable time and expense that went into researching
                that article. All those 230 grueling miles of interstate between
                Montgomery and Chattanooga. Humph! And now they're going to have to
                do it all over again, back to the treacherous Tellico. I bet this
                time the Big Boss goes along personally to make sure there's no more
                screw-ups. Drats! And just when the weather's getting pretty, too,
                and the trout are starting to bite! But let me not make hasty
                innuendoes...

                Yes, I am less-than-satisfied with what Thompson has posted in place
                of the reel-in-rock story; I don't think it even glancingly hits on
                any of the reel problems his publishing business has. Oops, I
                meant "real" problems...


                Rick Hartzog

                Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
              • Todd S. Greene
                ... [snip] ... [snip] Hi, Rick. You think maybe these guys making religious pronouncements about geology might actually go to the effort and expense to set up
                Message 7 of 8 , May 14, 2005
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #6073):
                  [snip]
                  > [Bert Thompson] bemoans
                  > the considerable time and expense that went into researching
                  > that article. All those 230 grueling miles of interstate between
                  > Montgomery and Chattanooga. Humph! And now they're going to have
                  > to do it all over again, back to the treacherous Tellico. I bet
                  > this time the Big Boss goes along personally to make sure
                  > there's no more screw-ups. Drats! And just when the weather's
                  > getting pretty, too, and the trout are starting to bite! But let
                  > me not make hasty innuendoes...
                  [snip]

                  Hi, Rick.

                  You think maybe these guys making religious pronouncements about
                  geology might actually go to the effort and expense to set up a lab,
                  outfit it with a rock slicer, a good microscope, and a good high-
                  pressure high-temperature chamber, and then design some experiments
                  where they gather some rock samples, subject these samples to
                  various pressures and temperatures, and then examine the results on
                  the microstructures of the rocks?

                  Oh, sorry, I'm dreaming...

                  Chuckling,
                  Todd Greene

                  P.S.: I "walked into the light" about 20 years ago. Yes it was
                  pretty surprising coming out of that epistemological cave!
                • w_w_c_l
                  ... lab, ... They probably could have just used the equipment at UTC if not for the innuendoes of professional incompetence they had made in the article! They
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 15, 2005
                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
                    <greeneto@y...> wrote:
                    > --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #6073):
                    > [snip]
                    > > [Bert Thompson] bemoans
                    > > the considerable time and expense that went into researching
                    > > that article. All those 230 grueling miles of interstate between
                    > > Montgomery and Chattanooga. Humph! And now they're going to have
                    > > to do it all over again, back to the treacherous Tellico. I bet
                    > > this time the Big Boss goes along personally to make sure
                    > > there's no more screw-ups. Drats! And just when the weather's
                    > > getting pretty, too, and the trout are starting to bite! But let
                    > > me not make hasty innuendoes...
                    > [snip]
                    >
                    > Hi, Rick.
                    >
                    > You think maybe these guys making religious pronouncements about
                    > geology might actually go to the effort and expense to set up a
                    lab,
                    > outfit it with a rock slicer, a good microscope, and a good high-
                    > pressure high-temperature chamber, and then design some experiments
                    > where they gather some rock samples, subject these samples to
                    > various pressures and temperatures, and then examine the results on
                    > the microstructures of the rocks?
                    >
                    > Oh, sorry, I'm dreaming...
                    >
                    > Chuckling,
                    > Todd Greene
                    >
                    > P.S.: I "walked into the light" about 20 years ago. Yes it was
                    > pretty surprising coming out of that epistemological cave!

                    They probably could have just used the equipment at UTC if not for
                    the innuendoes of professional incompetence they had made in the
                    article! They could probably just read the published papers of
                    trained professionals who have already done all that research, and
                    save themselves considerable "time and expense"!

                    But you have enough understanding of research methods to know
                    that "fishing for proof" is not "fishing for truth." It's like
                    having the answer already -- 666 -- and trying to add things up to
                    get that answer. Pardon the pun, but it's going about things bass-
                    ackwards: "We KNOW the Earth is 6,000 years old and anything that
                    doesn't help us come up with that number cannot be valid research."

                    Rick

                    P.S. It's been about 20 years for me, too, but I brought Jesus with
                    me. Those I left behind me in the dark didn't think I could, but I
                    did. And Jesus and I have a much better relationship now that I have
                    allowed my eyes to be opened, and allow Christ-in-me to teach me
                    rather than some church's doctrines. Here is another important point
                    about Christian interpretation of scripture: START WITH CHRIST! Not
                    Adam. That's backwardness, too. If you build your doctrine by
                    working outward from the teachings of Christ in a circle instead of
                    forward in a linear fashion from Adam, I think you can get a much
                    better perspective on what's going on with our existence here -- the
                    WHY?

                    For me, the Big Bang fits in perfectly. Beautifully, as a matter of
                    fact. Yes, perfect and beautiful.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.