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

To Rick's credit!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Rick is the one who recommended that the DebunkingEvolutionism folks be introduced to my Goliath of GRAS , so I did! What a ride...another victory for my
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 30, 2007
      Rick is the one who recommended that the DebunkingEvolutionism folks be introduced to my "Goliath of GRAS", so I did!

      What a ride...another victory for my "Goliath of GRAS".

      Also, the effort helped bring out some interesting details about one b15769140 (aka newbie). His utter failures appear to have driven b15769140 to depths of vulgarity which, along with other evidence, indicates that he may be only trying to appear to be a "young-earther" and a "Christian" for reasons not clear.

      Following my name below is a recent post from Rick to that list providing some analysis.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

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

      DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM
      From: Rick Hartzog
      Message #52443

      Date: Friday, March 30, 2007

      --- In DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM@yahoogroups.com,
      "b15769140" <b15769140@...> wrote:

      > nice try you uneducated
      > dipstick but you called
      > me names in another
      > group -so suck it up
      > sparkey-doo.

      > You started it--piss off
      > if you can't handle your
      > own medicine

      This was after previously writing:

      > this was same crap-
      > copy/paste want a
      > debate--learn how to
      > have a debate dumb
      > ass
      >
      > hint-just for you dumb
      > ass--you don't post your
      > opponent's position
      >
      > I don't give a rat's ass
      > about your dumb ass
      > statements

      Earlier, newbie seemed very indignant that
      no one had answered the "starting post"
      of his debate challenge.

      So I answered it with the message that appears below.

      I had already expressed my doubts that
      newbie was capable of carrying on any kind
      of sustained discussion, and newbie's
      "debate" is not really the same as the
      one that was proposed.

      No, newbie proposed this "debate" because he didn't like the one proposed by Robert Baty, and then he started being a bad little newbie when it was pointed out to him, by me, that the discussion wasn't intended to be about what the Bible says, but rather about what the science says and whether "creation-science" had any substantiating evidence for its many claims

      "Apparently" it doesn't!

      And I guess I was right in thinking that
      this character that calls himself "newbie"
      isn't going to be able to summon his
      far-flung thoughts together to a sufficient
      degree to reply in any meaningful way to my answer to his "starting post" :

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

      In message #52375, newbie writes (in part):

      > I got tired of [Robert Baty's]
      > lies I challenged the big
      > mouth liar and coward
      > to debate here, in this
      > group I made a starting
      > post he could attack

      newbie said several other things in that post, and dozens of others, very offensive things that are completely inappropriate for someone who purports to be a grown man with his faculties of reason intact.

      Forget the fact that he claims to be doing what he does in defense of the truth of God's word.

      I have become convinced that the anonymous poster calling himself newbie is neither a young-earth creationist nor even a Christian.

      I assume this is the message he refers to as his "starting post" for a debate with Robert Baty:

      > (message #52361)

      > Age of the Earth
      >
      > the Earth is young we
      > know from the Bible
      >
      > can it be pinpointed
      > down to 6000 years
      >
      > I wish it could but the
      > fact is that is not true.

      > Problems with this claim
      > are many and complicated.

      > One can look them up on
      > the Internet
      >
      > Can one reasonable assume
      > that it is less than
      > 100,000 years-yes
      >
      > The Bible explains why
      > things are the way we see
      > them.

      > Evos scoff but the
      > explainations are still
      > written-in the Holy Bible

      As I said earlier in another thread, newbie is
      clearly out of his league when it comes to taking part in a formal, written, for-the-record discussion on the evidence of age as it applies to young-earth creationism.

      Whoever or whatever newbie really
      is, his persona is incapable of grasping, accepting, and incorporating "truth" into his worldview.

      He has no use for truth whatsoever, other than to violate it and defile it.


      > the Earth is young we
      > know from the Bible

      So newbie starts off his "starting post" with a false statement. Many Christians over the last 2,000 years have believed that the Genesis Creation account is meant as an allegory, not to be taken literally. Mainstream Christianity itself has accepted that the Earth is ancient for about 200 years now, and Bible "literalists"
      in that time have increasingly become identified with fringe sects -- cults, if you will -- such as the Mormons and Adventists, who have seen one
      after another of their wild claims and failed
      prophecies become targets of ridicule for the world-at-large and sources of embarrassment for the ranks of more rational Christians.

      By now, we should all know that insisting that the Earth is "young" because "the Bible says so" is in fact more effective in making the Bible seem to be falsified than it is in refuting an ancient age for the Earth.

      If you'll notice, that seems to be what newbie's real goal is -- to prove the Bible, and Christianity itself, are false.

      > can it be pinpointed
      > down to 6000 years

      According to the Jewish calendar, it is now 5,767 years since the Creation.

      According to Ussher's calculations, the Earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 6,011 years ago.

      According to the dimensions of Noah's Ark, both of these dates are highly suspect and based on someone pretending to understand something about
      the Bible that they do not understand at all.


      > I wish it could but the
      > fact is that is not true.

      > Problems with this claim
      > are many and complicated.
      > One can look them up on
      > the Internet

      One can also look up on the internet the age of the Earth derived through the scientific investigation of God's Creation.

      > Can one reasonable assume
      > that it is less than
      > 100,000 years-yes

      It would be equally as reasonable to assume that the Earth was created last week, or 6,000 years ago, or any other number you wanted to pull out
      of your hat, because the assumption of "less than 100,000 years" is based on nothing -- absolutely *nothing* -- in the Scriptures or in the results of scientific investigation either one.

      We have had one young-earth creationist (who really was a young-earth creationist and not just a made-up anonymous character pretending to be a young-earth
      creationist) who maintained the same "less than 100,000 years" age, but his reasoning was a little more slippery and thought-out than anything that newbie is capable of.

      And even he (one DB Willis, if you recall) failed miserably when it came to backing up that age, and ultimately had to retreat to the "apparent age" argument.


      > The Bible explains why
      > things are the way we see
      > them.

      > Evos scoff but the
      > explainations are still
      > written-in the Holy Bible

      Of course, if the character calling himself "newbie" really believed that the Bible was sufficient "explaination", he would have no need of endorsing
      the blatant lies of "young-earth creation-science".

      And that is what the "evos" are really scoffing at -- not the Bible or people who accept the Bible as holy, but the preposterous claims of the young-earthers
      about science.

      What the young-earth creationists (not the producers of the young-earth propaganda but the mindless ignorami who believe that nonsense) have never managed to
      figure out is that all these little points that the liars at AiG and ICR make such a big deal of -- C-14 in dinosaur bones, the amount of dust on the surface
      of the moon, the amount of salt in the ocean, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, on and on -- all
      these little points can never answer the overwhelming body of actual scientific evidence -- evidence that you can go examine for yourself if you have the
      wherewithal to do so -- that irrefutably proves the Earth to be ancient.

      Here is a link that in one page undermines every so-called "evidence" for a young Earth that has ever been proposed -- independent lines of research that
      conclusively show that either the Earth is very, very old or that we are all the victims of a huge "apparent age" practical joke pulled off by a self-contradictory
      Creator:

      (see this source: Catastrophic Tectonics:

      http://geocities.com/earthhistory/CT.htm)

      I'm going to stick with the assumption that God is not lying to us through His Creation, no matter what made-up anonymous characters on the internet want
      to insist they understand about the Bible.

      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • w_w_c_l
      ... Robert, You are welcome! ... Oh, I have a few ideas about that, but I m going to keep it to myself for a while... ... Actually, I have insulted and
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 30, 2007
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Rick is the one who recommended that the
        > DebunkingEvolutionism folks be introduced
        > to my "Goliath of GRAS", so I did!
        >
        > What a ride...another victory for my
        > "Goliath of GRAS".

        Robert,
        You are welcome!

        > Also, the effort helped bring out some
        > interesting details about one b15769140
        > (aka newbie). His utter failures appear
        > to have driven b15769140 to depths of
        > vulgarity which, along with other evidence,
        > indicates that he may be only trying to
        > appear to be a "young-earther" and a
        > "Christian" for reasons not clear.

        Oh, I have a few ideas about that, but I'm
        going to keep it to myself for a while...

        > --------------------------
        >
        > DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM
        > From: Rick Hartzog
        > Message #52443
        >
        > Date: Friday, March 30, 2007
        >
        > --- In DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM@yahoogroups.com,
        > "b15769140" <b15769140@> wrote:
        >
        > > nice try you uneducated
        > > dipstick but you called
        > > me names in another
        > > group -so suck it up
        > > sparkey-doo.
        >
        > > You started it--piss off
        > > if you can't handle your
        > > own medicine

        Actually, I have insulted and publicly humiliated
        newbie in ways he hasn't even imagined -- things
        much worse than calling him "Mr. Incessant Jabbering"
        on the creation-science list. Whether I "started it"
        is, of course, a matter of public record. But what
        difference does it make? newbie is not an actual
        person; he is just a made-up character with a made-up
        name. Insulting a newbie is about the same as
        calling Barney a stupid gay purple dinosaur. It's
        not like it's a real person or anything.

        I doubt he is even worth adding to the list of
        no-shows. Appleton is though -- poor "Goliath" --
        all dressed up and nowhere to go.


        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.