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

Re: Apologetics Press, Wayne Jackson, belly buttons & Al Maxey!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Al Maxey s article can be found on-line at: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx233.htm Sincerely, Robert Baty
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 19, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Al Maxey's article can be found on-line at:

      http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx233.htm

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • Todd S. Greene
      I write in response to this post by Robert Baty, only to emphasize this particular point by Wayne Jackson that I do not want coCBanned discussion group
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 19, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I write in response to this post by Robert Baty, only to emphasize
        this particular point by Wayne Jackson that I do not want "coCBanned"
        discussion group readers to miss:

        With this article by the young earth creationist Wayne Jackson we
        observe that HE HAS ADMITTED THAT SCIENCE IS CORRECT THAT THE
        EMPIRICAL DATA SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE AND THE EARTH HAVE BEEN AROUND
        FAR LONGER THAN JUST 6,000 YEARS, and to "explain" (i.e.,
        deliberately and irrationally ignore the fact that the empirical data
        contradicts his religious dogma) he uses the totally unscientific
        argument that "God just made it look that way."

        The belly button argument. How many angels can dance on the head of a
        pin?

        This is the irrational nature of the rhetoric that young earth
        creationists are compelled to dream up in their efforts to try to
        prop up their scientifically false view of reality. As Wayne wrote in
        unintentional description of his own rhetoric, occasionally one
        encounters an article that is so bereft of common sense that he
        wonders how it ever saw the light of day, and the belly button
        argument is certainly one of these.

        Incidentally, I have written personally to Wayne Jackson before in
        regard to false claims he has made about science in his young earth
        creationist propaganda. The man has deliberately refused to discuss
        the facts.

        And notice some of the ironic verbiage Wayne likes: "Bereft of common
        sense." A beautiful description of the belly button argument. "A
        deluded soul." A good description of the young earth creationists,
        such as Wayne Jackson, who in the pseudoscience they love to preach
        demonstrate all the time their dismal ignorance of the actual science
        they're referring to. "Uncommonly boring assemblage of words." Well,
        okay, Wayne isn't all that boring, to me anyway, because it always
        fascinates me how men like this preach such complete nonsense about
        science, and do it so audaciously, and yet expect to be taken
        seriously even while they have far less than zero credibility when it
        comes to science.

        Oh, look, Wayne gives us a good example. He refers to "the calendar
        of evolutionary chronology. They subscribe to the Darwinian notion
        that the Universe originated billions of years ago...." Young earth
        creationists use this kind of rhetoric ALL THE TIME, and in doing so
        demonstrate their dismal ignorance of - no, a better word would be
        obliviousness to - even basic science, such that they cannot even
        comprehend the difference between GEOLOGY and ASTRONOMY, and
        evolution. Hello?? Is anyone home? Is the man so utterly ignorant of
        history that he doesn't even know that geological science was
        developed decades before 1859, and that geologists recognized the
        antiquity of the Earth decades before 1859? This is the sheer
        ignorance that young earth creationist rhetoric is built with.

        - Todd Greene

        The Apparent Age Concept
        http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/steveheiden12.html

        An Index to Creationist Claims
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/


        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #8450):
        |[snip]
        > In the News at Apologetics Press:
        >
        > http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3178
        >
        > The "Belly Button" Argument
        > by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
        >
        > Occasionally one encounters an article that is so bereft
        > of common sense that he wonders how it ever saw the light
        > of day. Such was an essay recently authored by a deluded
        > soul who occupies a small niche in the extremely liberal
        > faction of the Christian brotherhood. The blighted
        > composition subsequently was selected for publication in
        > a magazine which all too often is a conduit of error. It
        > goes by the name, Does God Exist? (a proposition about
        > which the editor seems uncertain, since he contends we
        > actually cannot "prove" that even we exist, much less
        > that God does; Clayton, 1990, pp. 5-6).
        >
        > The controversial article, titled "The Great Belly Button
        > Debate" (Maxey, 2006, 33[5]:13-20), consumed considerable
        > space exploring that riveting theological question, "Did
        > God create Adam and Eve with navels?" In paragraph after
        > paragraph of an uncommonly boring assemblage of words,
        > the author concluded that the first couple did not have
        > belly buttons since neither was the result of the uterine
        > development/birth process, of which the navel is a
        > lingering sign. But that was not the radical gentleman's
        > primary point. He argued that premise only as a maneuver
        > to advance his real agenda, which is what compelled DGE?
        > to provide coverage to the ludicrous tirade.
        >
        > The author contended that Adam and Eve did not have
        > navels, for if they had been so designed, such would have
        > been a divine deception of the manner of their origin.
        > What, then, was the ultimate purpose of the "belly
        > button" article? Both the author and the editor have
        > ingested, and openly propagate, the calendar of
        > evolutionary chronology. They subscribe to the Darwinian
        > notion that the Universe originated billions of years
        > ago, and human beings came along much later. The
        > controversial editor of DGE? alleges that man "is a very
        > recent new-comer to this planet" (Clayton, 1968). This
        > "time" expanse, of course, is what evolutionists call the
        > "hero of the plot," for they acknowledge that "time" is
        > crucial to their scheme (though time itself has
        > absolutely no creative power).
        |[snip]
      • Robert Baty
        ... Did you catch that? Wayne Jackson, formerly of Apologetics Press fame, still has this thing for John Clayton s article, even after more than 15 years. Of
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 19, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Todd, the quote you reference includes the following:

          > The blighted composition
          > subsequently was selected
          > for publication in a
          > magazine which all too
          > often is a conduit of error.

          > It goes by the name, Does
          > God Exist? (a proposition
          > about which the editor...
          > (Clayton, 1990, pp. 5-6).

          Did you catch that?

          Wayne Jackson, formerly of Apologetics Press fame, still has this thing for John Clayton's article, even after more than 15 years. Of course, he and his have been after John Clayton for a lot longer than 15 years.

          I guess that more than vindicates my continuing little ministry regarding the errors of Wayne Jackson and his "young-earth, creation-science" hobbyists.

          You may also recall that he copied relatively recently, on his Christian Courier website, the "rock 'n reel" promotion out of Apologetics Press. I do wonder what his current position is, especially in light of all that alleged continuing investigation that was to be done by Apologetics Press.

          Anyone seen any official statement from Wayne Jackson on that?

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.