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

Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers

Expand Messages
  • nutty@case.total
    Kurt, In my own universal experience, theistic evolutionists who have thought through the biblical issues realise their error. If not, *invariably* they are
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Kurt,


      In my own universal experience, theistic evolutionists who have
      thought through the biblical issues realise their error. If not,
      *invariably* they are wrong on other vital doctrines of the faith.
      The prime example is Nutty's buddy Gromit, who denies the bodily
      resurrection and accuses Jesus's mother of conceiving Him during
      heavy petting. Not that any of this bothers Nutty -- his priority is
      attacking biblical creationists at any costs.

      Kurt once again you are talking absolute tripe. If you bothered to look back in the archives, (use your search engine) you will see that I even spoke out in your favour more than once when (in the good old days) you spoke truth.

      N: "You are so filled with hate ..."

      You are co full of hate towards Biblical creationists that you can
      only resort to cheap psychologizing of your opponents.

      Look who's talking again,this is the person who thought that I was just coverig guilt feelings from being in an Apartheid South Africa. That is real cheap "psychologizing" (sic)


      N: "... that you are incapable of reading and understanding
      facts, although MANY well qualified people have tried hard to reason
      with you."

      Name one!! All I get around here are gutless anonymous wonders like
      VR and Gromit who are clearly non-scientists -- Gromit expressly said
      he was a rookie in chemistry yet proceded to pontificate that God-
      honoring Ph.D. chemists at AiG have got it wrong.

      ===================================================================
      Nope here I must stop, more than one person has ended up having to leave
      the group because of your DISGUSTING RUDE manners.

      If there is a moderator on the group how can you allow the filth
      that Kurt is spewing out!

      I am tired of putting up with cheap, low-life insults from him.
      Kurt has been rebuked often by many Christians about his language but is
      too egotistical to see any fault on his side.

      Now Kurt in Jesus name I rebuke the spirit of lies, deciet, and Christian division in your post
      and demand that you apologise to me and to all the others that you continually insult!

      ====================================================================







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kurt_streutker
      Instead of responding to my very reasonable request for documentation, Kyle weasels-out: The link that was provided in the original post did provide quotes
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Instead of responding to my very reasonable request for
        documentation, Kyle weasels-out: "The link that was provided in the
        original post did provide quotes from each Church Father cited. I do,
        however, doubt judging from the section of your response below as to
        whether or not you even clicked on the link or not to read the quotes
        provided."

        Guess again. Your fellow old-earther whose reality is always virtual
        also posted a link to that site. So just humor us and post some
        quotes! That's what I did with people like Basil and Augustine whom
        Ross DECEITFULLY and PERSISTENTLY claims support his long-creation-
        days eisegesis. Why can't you do the same?!

        KW: "p.s. You might want to go to your local library and check out a
        book on argumentation and debate and familiarize yourself with the
        section on logical fallacies."

        You'd better read it first, because the above is akin to an argument
        from authority. Once more you have failed to DEMONSTRATE any logical
        fallacies. Or to save yourself the trip, read the AiG article "Logic
        and Creation" at
        http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/JonosLogic1/JonosLOGIC
        1.html



        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
        wrote:
        > The link that was provided in the original post did provide quotes
        from each Church Father cited. I do, however, doubt judging from the
        section of your response below as to whether or not you even clicked
        on the link or not to read the quotes provided.
        >
        > Kyle
        >
        > p.s. You might want to go to your local library and check out a
        book on argumentation and debate and familiarize yourself with the
        section on logical fallacies.
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        >
        > Kyle:
        >
        > "Here is a link to a page on a Catholic website that addresses the
        > issue."
        >
        > It's up to Kyle to DEMONSTRATE from what the Fathers actually said,
        > rather than simply rely on the say so of what some papists claim
        they
        > said!
        >
        > KW:
        > "On it are quotes from many of the Church Fathers which would
        > indicate that there were differing opinions as to the length of
        > creation days."
        >
        > Go on, lets SEE some of these quotes.
        >
        > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • kurt_streutker
        I wrote: Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk Origins discussion site): Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I wrote:
          "Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
          Origins discussion site): "

          Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:

          "p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
          wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
          statement as to my love of talk.origins' website."

          Evidently Kyle forgets how permanent the Internet can be. On the
          excellent True Origins site, Kyle has a letter published on the
          September 1999 feedback http://www.trueorigin.org/9909.asp:

          "From: Kyle T. Witten

          To start with, I am an old-earth creationist. I have begun
          frequenting the T.O. newsgroup because it is the only forum for open
          discussionon the net that I have found. Your True.Orgins site, I
          feel, fails the meet its stated objective of being an alternitive to
          talk.orgins because of your statemnts that posts may be edited
          for .... Talk.Orgins is a ROBO-moterated forum. The only thing that
          it prevents you from doing is cross-posting the same message to more
          than 4 newsgroups. Other than that simple restriction, it is
          lliteraly anything goes. All views are welcome (you had better be
          ready to defend them, but they are welcome) that includes
          evolutionists, old-earth creationists, young-earth creationists,
          theistic evolutionists, Hindus, athiests, Christians, etc.

          When True.Orgins becomes a true open-forum discussion group, I think
          you will see a boom in participation as opposed to meger number of
          messages posted currently (Talk.Orgins has 1,500 messages for me to
          puruse and respond to at any given time).

          In Christ,
          Kyle Witten"

          To me, this looks like praise for the Talk.Origins site. And note,
          I never said anything against *participation* on this site so there's
          no reason for me or AiG to object to ReMine's excellent book.
          Rather, I commented that Kyle was a *fan* of this site.

          And if Kyle wants to accuse me of quoting out-of-date information, he
          must understand that I was quoting *published* information which has
          not to my knowledge ever been *publicly* retracted.

          This is not the only time Kyle has been forgetful on this discussion
          group. In post 1704, he denied all knowledge of having trashed the
          best-selling "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Sarfati: But he forgot that
          he trashed it on Amazon
          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-
          /A3FFE2LSPNRIVZ/1/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-0452549-4424966 giving it
          a "fail" grade of 2/5 stars. And he STILL hasn't retracted that
          despite the ability to edit one's own Amazon reviews.




          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
          wrote:
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
          > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:51 PM
          > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
          > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
          >
          > Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
          > Origins discussion site):
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] I find this interesting. Especially the latter half
          of the above statement. It seems to be particularly interesting
          since I haven't checked that site out in the better part of a year,
          and haven't participated at all in the talk.origins discussion forum
          in almost three years [according to Google Groups-a Usenet interface-
          my last post was on October 26, 1999]
          >
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] I also did a search of the archives of this forum for
          the works "Kyle talk.origins" and Yahoo! produced no matches for the
          search string.
          >
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] Since Kurt seems to view participation in the
          Talk.Origins forum to be sufficient to refute the credibility of a
          person, I have to ask why Kurt didn't seem it necessary to similarly
          challenge the credibility of young-earth creationist Walter ReMine.
          Walter is a semi-active participant in the talk.origins forum [in
          fact, he was participating on talk.origins during the same time
          period as I was]. If you wish to verify this claim, you can go to
          www.groups.google.com and use its search feature to look up the email
          address <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
          8&q=author:laser_thing%40my-deja.com+> laser_thing@m... [this was the
          email address that Walter was using during my tenure on the
          talk.origins forum] or to search for Walter specifically. By the
          way, according to Google, Walter's last post was two days ago.
          >
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] You can find Walter's book for sale on AIG's website;
          however, if Kurt's insinuation is true, and anyone who has ever been
          active on talk.origins is lacking in credibility, Walter's book is
          probably not worth reading anyway.
          >
          >
          > http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
          bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10
          <http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
          bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10&
          2D3&2D007> &2D3&2D007
          >
          >
          > [Kyle Witten] BTW, if anyone wants to check out my posts on the
          talk.origins website and see for themselves the nature of my
          participation, they can do an advanced search for "Kyle T. Witten" at
          groups.google.com of the talk.origins forum and see each and every
          one of my posts it its entirety. For the record, there are a total
          of 34 posts that span a time period from September 23, 1999 to
          October 26, 1999.
          >
          >
          > Kyle
          >
          > p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
          wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
          statement as to my love of talk.origins' website.
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kyle Witten
          No, actually I haven t forgotten the letter. The point I was attempting to make in that letter was that the True.Origins Archive failed to meet it s stated
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            No, actually I haven't forgotten the letter. The point I was attempting to make in that letter was that the "True.Origins Archive" failed to meet it's stated intent of being an alternative to the "Talk.Origins Archive." The reason for this is that without a discussion forum, there is nothing for the True.Origins website to archive in the first place.

            For me the issue is rather simple. Since Talk.Origins Archive is a discussion group generated website, then for the True.Origins website to claim to be an alternative without having its own associated discussion group is, at best, deceptive and, at worst, an outright lie. This is not to say that the True.Origins website is without value. I have, in fact, used it myself for research on the subject of creationism. What I am saying is that without its own discussion group it cannot honestly claim to be an alternative to Talk.Origins Archive

            Or putting it a different way, what exactly is True.Origins Archive archiving? Before you can have at True.Origins Archive, you have to have a True.Orgins forum of some kind.

            I also attempted to point out that Talk.Origins as a Usenet Group is not closed to Christians or creationists. In fact, as I documented in this forum, noted young-earth creationist Walter ReMine is a member of that forum.

            Kyle

            -----Original Message-----
            From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:19 PM
            To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers


            I wrote:
            "Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
            Origins discussion site): "

            Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:

            "p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
            wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
            statement as to my love of talk.origins' website."

            Evidently Kyle forgets how permanent the Internet can be. On the
            excellent True Origins site, Kyle has a letter published on the
            September 1999 feedback http://www.trueorigin.org/9909.asp:

            "From: Kyle T. Witten

            To start with, I am an old-earth creationist. I have begun
            frequenting the T.O. newsgroup because it is the only forum for open
            discussionon the net that I have found. Your True.Orgins site, I
            feel, fails the meet its stated objective of being an alternitive to
            talk.orgins because of your statemnts that posts may be edited
            for .... Talk.Orgins is a ROBO-moterated forum. The only thing that
            it prevents you from doing is cross-posting the same message to more
            than 4 newsgroups. Other than that simple restriction, it is
            lliteraly anything goes. All views are welcome (you had better be
            ready to defend them, but they are welcome) that includes
            evolutionists, old-earth creationists, young-earth creationists,
            theistic evolutionists, Hindus, athiests, Christians, etc.

            When True.Orgins becomes a true open-forum discussion group, I think
            you will see a boom in participation as opposed to meger number of
            messages posted currently (Talk.Orgins has 1,500 messages for me to
            puruse and respond to at any given time).

            In Christ,
            Kyle Witten"

            To me, this looks like praise for the Talk.Origins site. And note,
            I never said anything against *participation* on this site so there's
            no reason for me or AiG to object to ReMine's excellent book.
            Rather, I commented that Kyle was a *fan* of this site.

            And if Kyle wants to accuse me of quoting out-of-date information, he
            must understand that I was quoting *published* information which has
            not to my knowledge ever been *publicly* retracted.

            This is not the only time Kyle has been forgetful on this discussion
            group. In post 1704, he denied all knowledge of having trashed the
            best-selling "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Sarfati: But he forgot that
            he trashed it on Amazon
            http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-
            /A3FFE2LSPNRIVZ/1/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-0452549-4424966 giving it
            a "fail" grade of 2/5 stars. And he STILL hasn't retracted that
            despite the ability to edit one's own Amazon reviews.




            --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
            wrote:
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
            > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:51 PM
            > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
            > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
            >
            > Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
            > Origins discussion site):
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] I find this interesting. Especially the latter half
            of the above statement. It seems to be particularly interesting
            since I haven't checked that site out in the better part of a year,
            and haven't participated at all in the talk.origins discussion forum
            in almost three years [according to Google Groups-a Usenet interface-
            my last post was on October 26, 1999]
            >
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] I also did a search of the archives of this forum for
            the works "Kyle talk.origins" and Yahoo! produced no matches for the
            search string.
            >
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] Since Kurt seems to view participation in the
            Talk.Origins forum to be sufficient to refute the credibility of a
            person, I have to ask why Kurt didn't seem it necessary to similarly
            challenge the credibility of young-earth creationist Walter ReMine.
            Walter is a semi-active participant in the talk.origins forum [in
            fact, he was participating on talk.origins during the same time
            period as I was]. If you wish to verify this claim, you can go to
            www.groups.google.com and use its search feature to look up the email
            address < http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-> &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
            8&q=author:laser_thing%40my-deja.com+> laser_thing@m... [this was the
            email address that Walter was using during my tenure on the
            talk.origins forum] or to search for Walter specifically. By the
            way, according to Google, Walter's last post was two days ago.
            >
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] You can find Walter's book for sale on AIG's website;
            however, if Kurt's insinuation is true, and anyone who has ever been
            active on talk.origins is lacking in credibility, Walter's book is
            probably not worth reading anyway.
            >
            >
            > http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
            bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10
            < http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
            bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10&
            2D3&2D007> &2D3&2D007
            >
            >
            > [Kyle Witten] BTW, if anyone wants to check out my posts on the
            talk.origins website and see for themselves the nature of my
            participation, they can do an advanced search for "Kyle T. Witten" at
            groups.google.com of the talk.origins forum and see each and every
            one of my posts it its entirety. For the record, there are a total
            of 34 posts that span a time period from September 23, 1999 to
            October 26, 1999.
            >
            >
            > Kyle
            >
            > p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
            wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
            statement as to my love of talk.origins' website.
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

            ADVERTISEMENT
            <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1707281911:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/>

            Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
            to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kyle Witten
            I would hardly call 2 out of 5 stars as being a failing grade, especially since Amazon.com considers 2 out of 5 stars to be indictive of an average book. Nor
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I would hardly call 2 out of 5 stars as being a failing grade, especially since Amazon.com considers 2 out of 5 stars to be indictive of an average book. Nor do I consider my review to be "trashing" the book. For the most part, I thought the book was quite good. In light of the fact that I have seen better anti-evolution arguments come out of the YEC community, I cannot say that it was an excellent book, but it was, for the most part, a good book-especially if the reader is lacking in a solid understanding of the scientific issues involved. Or put another way, it is a good primer book, but I wouldn't consider it worthy of serious study. The reason for this is as follows: if a reader is ready for serious study, he/she shouldn't be using a primer text to do so. They should move on instead to more challenging material [the absolute best anti-evolution material I have seen come out of the YEC community thus far was written by Dr. Paul A. Nelson of the Discovery Institute].

              I did have some criticisms of the book as well; however, most of my criticisms could be easily addressed in future additions without subtracting away from the anti-evolution material in any way.

              Also, since Kurt's link didn't work for me, I will, at the end of this response, provide the full text to my Amazon.Com review.

              Kyle

              Kyle's Amazon.com review:

              For the most part this book presented a good technical look at the scientific problems of evolution; however, there were a few points that troubled me.

              1) on page 24 of the book, Mr. Sarfati stated that science flourished in Christian Europe while it stagnated in the rest of the world and that it was a fact attested to my historians of many religious persausions [including some athiests]. However, when he went to provide documentation for this claim, he cited a young-earth creationist source. He could have make a more powerful claim by citing one of these other historians, particularly one of the athiest ones.


              2) I was dissapointed by the inclusion of young-earth creationism in the book when the arguments refuting the neo-Darwinian paradigm was in no way enhanced by such inclusion. The material was of a high enough quality to stand on its own.


              Point number two, as stated above, is perhaps the most damaging charge. The title of the book clearly states that the purpose of the book was to refute evolution [by evolution, I mean the neo-Darwinian paradigm]. Its stated purpose was not the propogation of the young-earth position. By including such material, it detracted away from the excelent anti-evolution material presented and calls into question what the true purpose of the book was.


              Was it written to refute evolution as the title of the book implies, or was it written as a means of proselyting readers to a specific theological interpertation [i.e. the young-earth interpertation of Scripture]?


              -----Original Message-----
              From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:19 PM
              To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers


              I wrote:
              "Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
              Origins discussion site): "

              Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:

              "p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
              wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
              statement as to my love of talk.origins' website."

              Evidently Kyle forgets how permanent the Internet can be. On the
              excellent True Origins site, Kyle has a letter published on the
              September 1999 feedback http://www.trueorigin.org/9909.asp:

              "From: Kyle T. Witten

              To start with, I am an old-earth creationist. I have begun
              frequenting the T.O. newsgroup because it is the only forum for open
              discussionon the net that I have found. Your True.Orgins site, I
              feel, fails the meet its stated objective of being an alternitive to
              talk.orgins because of your statemnts that posts may be edited
              for .... Talk.Orgins is a ROBO-moterated forum. The only thing that
              it prevents you from doing is cross-posting the same message to more
              than 4 newsgroups. Other than that simple restriction, it is
              lliteraly anything goes. All views are welcome (you had better be
              ready to defend them, but they are welcome) that includes
              evolutionists, old-earth creationists, young-earth creationists,
              theistic evolutionists, Hindus, athiests, Christians, etc.

              When True.Orgins becomes a true open-forum discussion group, I think
              you will see a boom in participation as opposed to meger number of
              messages posted currently (Talk.Orgins has 1,500 messages for me to
              puruse and respond to at any given time).

              In Christ,
              Kyle Witten"

              To me, this looks like praise for the Talk.Origins site. And note,
              I never said anything against *participation* on this site so there's
              no reason for me or AiG to object to ReMine's excellent book.
              Rather, I commented that Kyle was a *fan* of this site.

              And if Kyle wants to accuse me of quoting out-of-date information, he
              must understand that I was quoting *published* information which has
              not to my knowledge ever been *publicly* retracted.

              This is not the only time Kyle has been forgetful on this discussion
              group. In post 1704, he denied all knowledge of having trashed the
              best-selling "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Sarfati: But he forgot that
              he trashed it on Amazon
              http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-
              /A3FFE2LSPNRIVZ/1/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-0452549-4424966 giving it
              a "fail" grade of 2/5 stars. And he STILL hasn't retracted that
              despite the ability to edit one's own Amazon reviews.




              --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
              wrote:
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
              > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:51 PM
              > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
              > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
              >
              > Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
              > Origins discussion site):
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] I find this interesting. Especially the latter half
              of the above statement. It seems to be particularly interesting
              since I haven't checked that site out in the better part of a year,
              and haven't participated at all in the talk.origins discussion forum
              in almost three years [according to Google Groups-a Usenet interface-
              my last post was on October 26, 1999]
              >
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] I also did a search of the archives of this forum for
              the works "Kyle talk.origins" and Yahoo! produced no matches for the
              search string.
              >
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] Since Kurt seems to view participation in the
              Talk.Origins forum to be sufficient to refute the credibility of a
              person, I have to ask why Kurt didn't seem it necessary to similarly
              challenge the credibility of young-earth creationist Walter ReMine.
              Walter is a semi-active participant in the talk.origins forum [in
              fact, he was participating on talk.origins during the same time
              period as I was]. If you wish to verify this claim, you can go to
              www.groups.google.com and use its search feature to look up the email
              address < http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-> &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
              8&q=author:laser_thing%40my-deja.com+> laser_thing@m... [this was the
              email address that Walter was using during my tenure on the
              talk.origins forum] or to search for Walter specifically. By the
              way, according to Google, Walter's last post was two days ago.
              >
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] You can find Walter's book for sale on AIG's website;
              however, if Kurt's insinuation is true, and anyone who has ever been
              active on talk.origins is lacking in credibility, Walter's book is
              probably not worth reading anyway.
              >
              >
              > http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
              bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10
              < http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
              bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10&
              2D3&2D007> &2D3&2D007
              >
              >
              > [Kyle Witten] BTW, if anyone wants to check out my posts on the
              talk.origins website and see for themselves the nature of my
              participation, they can do an advanced search for "Kyle T. Witten" at
              groups.google.com of the talk.origins forum and see each and every
              one of my posts it its entirety. For the record, there are a total
              of 34 posts that span a time period from September 23, 1999 to
              October 26, 1999.
              >
              >
              > Kyle
              >
              > p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
              wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
              statement as to my love of talk.origins' website.
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

              ADVERTISEMENT
              <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1707281911:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/>

              Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
              to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • nutty@case.total
              Kurt, in your usual disgusting manner you accuse me and other who dare disagree with you of being slanderers yet .... Kyle weasels-out: Ross DECEITFULLY and
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Kurt, in your usual disgusting manner you accuse me and other who dare disagree with you of being slanderers yet ....
                Kyle weasels-out:

                Ross DECEITFULLY and PERSISTENTLY


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • kurt_streutker
                Nutty rants: Kurt, in your usual disgusting manner you accuse me and other who dare disagree with you of being slanderers yet .... No, I accused those who
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nutty rants: "Kurt, in your usual disgusting manner you accuse me and
                  other who dare disagree with you of being slanderers yet ...."

                  No, I accused those who WILFULLY teach things contrary to
                  indisputable facts, e.g. the clear statement that Basil believed in
                  literal days and Augustine believed in a "young" earth. Evidently it
                  doesn't bother you that Ross still persists in his lies about what
                  they believed. Even VR has finally conceded that the majority of
                  Church Fathers were YECs. But then he claimed it didn't matter, but
                  he NEVER said that when Ross was using these sources to back up his
                  compromise.

                  Nutty quotes me: "Kyle weasels-out:

                  Ross DECEITFULLY and PERSISTENTLY"

                  As I proved, this is true.


                  --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "nutty@c..." <pcarter@b...> wrote:
                  > Kurt, in your usual disgusting manner you accuse me and other who
                  dare disagree with you of being slanderers yet ....
                  > Kyle weasels-out:
                  >
                  > Ross DECEITFULLY and PERSISTENTLY
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                  > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • kurt_streutker
                  Kyle tries to weasel-out of the fact that he praised the atheistic talk origins site: No, actually I haven t forgotten the letter. The point I was attempting
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Kyle tries to weasel-out of the fact that he praised the atheistic
                    talk origins site:

                    "No, actually I haven't forgotten the letter. The point I was
                    attempting to make in that letter was that the "True.Origins Archive"
                    failed to meet it's stated intent of being an alternative to
                    the "Talk.Origins Archive." The reason for this is that without a
                    discussion forum, there is nothing for the True.Origins website to
                    archive in the first place."

                    Perhaps Kyle needs to learn the meaning of "archive", i.e. "A place
                    or collection containing records, *documents*, or other materials of
                    historical interest." There are plenty of documents on the site.

                    KW: "For me the issue is rather simple. Since Talk.Origins Archive is
                    a discussion group generated website, then for the True.Origins
                    website to claim to be an alternative without having its own
                    associated discussion group is, at best, deceptive and, at worst, an
                    outright lie."

                    Talk about inflammatory! but then I keep having to remind myself --
                    there's one rule for YECs and another for everyone else.

                    KW: "This is not to say that the True.Origins website is without
                    value. I have, in fact, used it myself for research on the subject of
                    creationism. What I am saying is that without its own discussion
                    group it cannot honestly claim to be an alternative to Talk.Origins
                    Archive."

                    It can and does, because of the meaning of the word "archive". It
                    contains documents to refute the unmitigated bilge on talk.origins.
                    But evidently the webmaster sees no need to devote heaps of storage
                    space to ignorance pooling as most discussion groups tend to be (just
                    look at the OECs, TEs and their heretical buddies here!), and I
                    sympathize with his viewpoint.




                    --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
                    wrote:
                    > No, actually I haven't forgotten the letter. The point I was
                    attempting to make in that letter was that the "True.Origins Archive"
                    failed to meet it's stated intent of being an alternative to
                    the "Talk.Origins Archive." The reason for this is that without a
                    discussion forum, there is nothing for the True.Origins website to
                    archive in the first place.
                    >
                    > For me the issue is rather simple. Since Talk.Origins Archive is a
                    discussion group generated website, then for the True.Origins website
                    to claim to be an alternative without having its own associated
                    discussion group is, at best, deceptive and, at worst, an outright
                    lie. This is not to say that the True.Origins website is without
                    value. I have, in fact, used it myself for research on the subject
                    of creationism. What I am saying is that without its own discussion
                    group it cannot honestly claim to be an alternative to Talk.Origins
                    Archive
                    >
                    > Or putting it a different way, what exactly is True.Origins Archive
                    archiving? Before you can have at True.Origins Archive, you have to
                    have a True.Orgins forum of some kind.
                    >
                    > I also attempted to point out that Talk.Origins as a Usenet Group
                    is not closed to Christians or creationists. In fact, as I
                    documented in this forum, noted young-earth creationist Walter ReMine
                    is a member of that forum.
                    >
                    > Kyle
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
                    > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:19 PM
                    > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
                    > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
                    >
                    >
                    > I wrote:
                    > "Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
                    > Origins discussion site): "
                    >
                    > Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:
                    >
                    > "p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
                    > wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
                    > statement as to my love of talk.origins' website."
                    >
                    > Evidently Kyle forgets how permanent the Internet can be. On the
                    > excellent True Origins site, Kyle has a letter published on the
                    > September 1999 feedback http://www.trueorigin.org/9909.asp:
                    >
                    > "From: Kyle T. Witten
                    >
                    > To start with, I am an old-earth creationist. I have begun
                    > frequenting the T.O. newsgroup because it is the only forum for
                    open
                    > discussionon the net that I have found. Your True.Orgins site, I
                    > feel, fails the meet its stated objective of being an alternitive
                    to
                    > talk.orgins because of your statemnts that posts may be edited
                    > for .... Talk.Orgins is a ROBO-moterated forum. The only thing
                    that
                    > it prevents you from doing is cross-posting the same message to
                    more
                    > than 4 newsgroups. Other than that simple restriction, it is
                    > lliteraly anything goes. All views are welcome (you had better be
                    > ready to defend them, but they are welcome) that includes
                    > evolutionists, old-earth creationists, young-earth creationists,
                    > theistic evolutionists, Hindus, athiests, Christians, etc.
                    >
                    > When True.Orgins becomes a true open-forum discussion group, I
                    think
                    > you will see a boom in participation as opposed to meger number of
                    > messages posted currently (Talk.Orgins has 1,500 messages for me to
                    > puruse and respond to at any given time).
                    >
                    > In Christ,
                    > Kyle Witten"
                    >
                    > To me, this looks like praise for the Talk.Origins site. And note,
                    > I never said anything against *participation* on this site so
                    there's
                    > no reason for me or AiG to object to ReMine's excellent book.
                    > Rather, I commented that Kyle was a *fan* of this site.
                    >
                    > And if Kyle wants to accuse me of quoting out-of-date information,
                    he
                    > must understand that I was quoting *published* information which
                    has
                    > not to my knowledge ever been *publicly* retracted.
                    >
                    > This is not the only time Kyle has been forgetful on this
                    discussion
                    > group. In post 1704, he denied all knowledge of having trashed the
                    > best-selling "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Sarfati: But he forgot
                    that
                    > he trashed it on Amazon
                    > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-
                    > /A3FFE2LSPNRIVZ/1/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-0452549-4424966 giving it
                    > a "fail" grade of 2/5 stars. And he STILL hasn't retracted that
                    > despite the ability to edit one's own Amazon reviews.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
                    > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:51 PM
                    > > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
                    > > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
                    > >
                    > > Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic
                    Talk
                    > > Origins discussion site):
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] I find this interesting. Especially the latter
                    half
                    > of the above statement. It seems to be particularly interesting
                    > since I haven't checked that site out in the better part of a year,
                    > and haven't participated at all in the talk.origins discussion
                    forum
                    > in almost three years [according to Google Groups-a Usenet
                    interface-
                    > my last post was on October 26, 1999]
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] I also did a search of the archives of this forum
                    for
                    > the works "Kyle talk.origins" and Yahoo! produced no matches for
                    the
                    > search string.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] Since Kurt seems to view participation in the
                    > Talk.Origins forum to be sufficient to refute the credibility of a
                    > person, I have to ask why Kurt didn't seem it necessary to
                    similarly
                    > challenge the credibility of young-earth creationist Walter
                    ReMine.
                    > Walter is a semi-active participant in the talk.origins forum [in
                    > fact, he was participating on talk.origins during the same time
                    > period as I was]. If you wish to verify this claim, you can go to
                    > www.groups.google.com and use its search feature to look up the
                    email
                    > address < http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en
                    <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF->
                    &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
                    > 8&q=author:laser_thing%40my-deja.com+> laser_thing@m... [this was
                    the
                    > email address that Walter was using during my tenure on the
                    > talk.origins forum] or to search for Walter specifically. By the
                    > way, according to Google, Walter's last post was two days ago.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] You can find Walter's book for sale on AIG's
                    website;
                    > however, if Kurt's insinuation is true, and anyone who has ever
                    been
                    > active on talk.origins is lacking in credibility, Walter's book is
                    > probably not worth reading anyway.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
                    >
                    bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10
                    > < http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
                    >
                    bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10&
                    > 2D3&2D007> &2D3&2D007
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Kyle Witten] BTW, if anyone wants to check out my posts on the
                    > talk.origins website and see for themselves the nature of my
                    > participation, they can do an advanced search for "Kyle T. Witten"
                    at
                    > groups.google.com of the talk.origins forum and see each and every
                    > one of my posts it its entirety. For the record, there are a total
                    > of 34 posts that span a time period from September 23, 1999 to
                    > October 26, 1999.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Kyle
                    > >
                    > > p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
                    > wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
                    > statement as to my love of talk.origins' website.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=17
                    07281911:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/>

                    >
                    > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                    > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • kurt_streutker
                    Kyle tries to avoid the fact that he s on record trashing YEC anti-evolutionary books. I would hardly call 2 out of 5 stars as being a failing grade,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kyle tries to avoid the fact that he's on record trashing
                      YEC anti-evolutionary books.

                      "I would hardly call 2 out of 5 stars as being a failing grade,
                      especially since Amazon.com considers 2 out of 5 stars to be
                      indictive of an average book."

                      2/5 = 40%! (BTW: An AP Exam is scored 1-5 and 3 is the lowest score
                      that can be accepted.)

                      KW: "Nor do I consider my review to be "trashing" the book. For the
                      most part, I thought the book was quite good. In light of the fact
                      that I have seen better anti-evolution arguments come out of the YEC
                      community, ..."

                      Like what, and why was it better? Because it wimped out on actually
                      defending the young earth? If it was OEC you may have liked it much
                      more because of your BIAS! Am I right?

                      KW: "... I cannot say that it was an excellent book, ..."

                      Judging by the >1/4 million sales, it seems that a lot of people
                      disagree with you.

                      KW: "... but it was, for the most part, a good book-especially if the
                      reader is lacking in a solid understanding of the scientific issues
                      involved. Or put another way, it is a good primer book, but I
                      wouldn't consider it worthy of serious study."

                      Serious study should begin at the beginning! But there is plenty of
                      documentation for further study and there are several in-depth
                      chapters.

                      KW: "The reason for this is as follows: if a reader is ready for
                      serious study, he/she shouldn't be using a primer text to do so. They
                      should move on instead to more challenging material [the absolute
                      best anti-evolution material I have seen come out of the YEC
                      community thus far was written by Dr. Paul A. Nelson of the
                      Discovery Institute]."

                      The more challenging material should be tackled with a solid
                      foundation. RE was written for high-school and above. Is the same
                      true of the more advanced material? After all, the author is quite
                      capable of writing technical articles, e.g. on the origin of life
                      which is right in his specialist area of chemistry. Many of the
                      articles under AiG's Origin of Life page
                      <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp>. But would
                      they be the sorts of articles to give to most highschoolers,
                      teachers, parents, etc., even if Kyle would learn a lot from them.

                      I did have some criticisms of the book as well; however, most of my
                      criticisms could be easily addressed in future additions without
                      subtracting away from the anti-evolution material in any way.

                      Also, since Kurt's link didn't work for me, I will, at the end of
                      this response, provide the full text to my Amazon.Com review.

                      Kyle

                      Kyle's Amazon.com review:

                      "For the most part this book presented a good technical look at the
                      scientific problems of evolution; however, there were a few points
                      that troubled me.

                      "1) on page 24 of the book, Mr. Sarfati ..."

                      Got his title wrong for a start!! No excuse since it is on the back
                      inside cover "About the Author".

                      KW:
                      "... stated that science flourished in Christian Europe while it
                      stagnated in the rest of the world and that it was a
                      fact attested to my historians of many religious persausions
                      [including some athiests]. However, when he went to provide
                      documentation for this claim, he cited a young-earth creationist
                      source. He could have make a more powerful claim by citing one of
                      these other historians, particularly one of the athiest ones."

                      But the author DID cite the theistic evolutionary Benedictine
                      physicist/historian Stanley Jaki and the evolutionist Loren Eiseley!!

                      KW:
                      "2) I was dissapointed by the inclusion of young-earth creationism in
                      the book when the arguments refuting the neo-Darwinian paradigm was
                      in no way enhanced by such inclusion. The material was of a high
                      enough quality to stand on its own."

                      Yeah, that's Kyle's real beef. One chapter was overtly YEC, and Ch. 2
                      also presupposed a YEC/Global Flood . I'm not sure what Kyle
                      would put in its stead. The fixity of species promoted by RTB? And
                      then how would you like the author to deal with extinction and
                      animals apparently designed to kill each other. These points are
                      often raised against IDers, and without the Fall they can't provide a
                      coherent answer.


                      KW: "Point number two, as stated above, is perhaps the most damaging
                      charge. The title of the book clearly states that the purpose of the
                      book was to refute evolution [by evolution, I mean the neo-Darwinian
                      paradigm]."

                      But perhaps the author meant something different: to refute whatever
                      was promoted by that NAS book Teaching about Evolution and the Nature
                      of Science in opposition to the Bible, which included billions of
                      years.

                      Unlike Kyle's own narrow definition of evolution, Dr Terry Mortenson,
                      a scholar of the history of geology, points out that compromise in
                      geology paved the way for compromise in geology. The IDM still
                      doesn't get it -- they are fighting battles lost in the 19th century
                      because the compromise position (billions of years, extinction) is
                      too incoherent to be a match for Darwin
                      <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp>
                      (BTW: A MUST READ OF ROSSITES)

                      KW: "Its stated purpose was not the propogation of the young-earth
                      position."

                      Its stated purpose was to refute that NAS book!!

                      KW: "By including such material, it detracted away from the excelent
                      anti-evolution material presented and calls into question what the
                      true purpose of the book was."

                      Again, read the introduction to find out!!

                      KW: " Was it written to refute evolution as the title of the book
                      implies, or was it written as a means of proselyting readers to a
                      specific theological interpertation [i.e. the young-earth
                      interpertation of Scripture]?"

                      Presumably to refute a specific book as above, and defend Biblical
                      truth, however low-key that was in the book.



                      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
                      wrote:
                      > I would hardly call 2 out of 5 stars as being a failing grade,
                      especially since Amazon.com considers 2 out of 5 stars to be
                      indictive of an average book. Nor do I consider my review to
                      be "trashing" the book. For the most part, I thought the book was
                      quite good. In light of the fact that I have seen better anti-
                      evolution arguments come out of the YEC community, I cannot say that
                      it was an excellent book, but it was, for the most part, a good book-
                      especially if the reader is lacking in a solid understanding of the
                      scientific issues involved. Or put another way, it is a good primer
                      book, but I wouldn't consider it worthy of serious study. The reason
                      for this is as follows: if a reader is ready for serious study,
                      he/she shouldn't be using a primer text to do so. They should move
                      on instead to more challenging material [the absolute best anti-
                      evolution material I have seen come out of the YEC community thus far
                      was written by Dr. Paul A. Nelson of the Discovery Institute].
                      >
                      > I did have some criticisms of the book as well; however, most of my
                      criticisms could be easily addressed in future additions without
                      subtracting away from the anti-evolution material in any way.
                      >
                      > Also, since Kurt's link didn't work for me, I will, at the end of
                      this response, provide the full text to my Amazon.Com review.
                      >
                      > Kyle
                      >
                      > Kyle's Amazon.com review:
                      >
                      > For the most part this book presented a good technical look at the
                      scientific problems of evolution; however, there were a few points
                      that troubled me.
                      >
                      > 1) on page 24 of the book, Mr. Sarfati stated that science
                      flourished in Christian Europe while it stagnated in the rest of the
                      world and that it was a fact attested to my historians of many
                      religious persausions [including some athiests]. However, when he
                      went to provide documentation for this claim, he cited a young-earth
                      creationist source. He could have make a more powerful claim by
                      citing one of these other historians, particularly one of the athiest
                      ones.
                      >
                      >
                      > 2) I was dissapointed by the inclusion of young-earth creationism
                      in the book when the arguments refuting the neo-Darwinian paradigm
                      was in no way enhanced by such inclusion. The material was of a high
                      enough quality to stand on its own.
                      >
                      >
                      > Point number two, as stated above, is perhaps the most damaging
                      charge. The title of the book clearly states that the purpose of the
                      book was to refute evolution [by evolution, I mean the neo-Darwinian
                      paradigm]. Its stated purpose was not the propogation of the young-
                      earth position. By including such material, it detracted away from
                      the excelent anti-evolution material presented and calls into
                      question what the true purpose of the book was.
                      >
                      >
                      > Was it written to refute evolution as the title of the book
                      implies, or was it written as a means of proselyting readers to a
                      specific theological interpertation [i.e. the young-earth
                      interpertation of Scripture]?
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
                      > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:19 PM
                      > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
                      > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
                      >
                      >
                      > I wrote:
                      > "Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic Talk
                      > Origins discussion site): "
                      >
                      > Then Kyle waxes eloquent to deny this then concludes:
                      >
                      > "p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
                      > wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
                      > statement as to my love of talk.origins' website."
                      >
                      > Evidently Kyle forgets how permanent the Internet can be. On the
                      > excellent True Origins site, Kyle has a letter published on the
                      > September 1999 feedback http://www.trueorigin.org/9909.asp:
                      >
                      > "From: Kyle T. Witten
                      >
                      > To start with, I am an old-earth creationist. I have begun
                      > frequenting the T.O. newsgroup because it is the only forum for
                      open
                      > discussionon the net that I have found. Your True.Orgins site, I
                      > feel, fails the meet its stated objective of being an alternitive
                      to
                      > talk.orgins because of your statemnts that posts may be edited
                      > for .... Talk.Orgins is a ROBO-moterated forum. The only thing
                      that
                      > it prevents you from doing is cross-posting the same message to
                      more
                      > than 4 newsgroups. Other than that simple restriction, it is
                      > lliteraly anything goes. All views are welcome (you had better be
                      > ready to defend them, but they are welcome) that includes
                      > evolutionists, old-earth creationists, young-earth creationists,
                      > theistic evolutionists, Hindus, athiests, Christians, etc.
                      >
                      > When True.Orgins becomes a true open-forum discussion group, I
                      think
                      > you will see a boom in participation as opposed to meger number of
                      > messages posted currently (Talk.Orgins has 1,500 messages for me to
                      > puruse and respond to at any given time).
                      >
                      > In Christ,
                      > Kyle Witten"
                      >
                      > To me, this looks like praise for the Talk.Origins site. And note,
                      > I never said anything against *participation* on this site so
                      there's
                      > no reason for me or AiG to object to ReMine's excellent book.
                      > Rather, I commented that Kyle was a *fan* of this site.
                      >
                      > And if Kyle wants to accuse me of quoting out-of-date information,
                      he
                      > must understand that I was quoting *published* information which
                      has
                      > not to my knowledge ever been *publicly* retracted.
                      >
                      > This is not the only time Kyle has been forgetful on this
                      discussion
                      > group. In post 1704, he denied all knowledge of having trashed the
                      > best-selling "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Sarfati: But he forgot
                      that
                      > he trashed it on Amazon
                      > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-
                      > /A3FFE2LSPNRIVZ/1/ref=cm_cr_auth/102-0452549-4424966 giving it
                      > a "fail" grade of 2/5 stars. And he STILL hasn't retracted that
                      > despite the ability to edit one's own Amazon reviews.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
                      > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:51 PM
                      > > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
                      > > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
                      > >
                      > > Kyle Witten (fan of Christadelphian Hayward and the atheistic
                      Talk
                      > > Origins discussion site):
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] <snip>
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] I find this interesting. Especially the latter
                      half
                      > of the above statement. It seems to be particularly interesting
                      > since I haven't checked that site out in the better part of a year,
                      > and haven't participated at all in the talk.origins discussion
                      forum
                      > in almost three years [according to Google Groups-a Usenet
                      interface-
                      > my last post was on October 26, 1999]
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] I also did a search of the archives of this forum
                      for
                      > the works "Kyle talk.origins" and Yahoo! produced no matches for
                      the
                      > search string.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] Since Kurt seems to view participation in the
                      > Talk.Origins forum to be sufficient to refute the credibility of a
                      > person, I have to ask why Kurt didn't seem it necessary to
                      similarly
                      > challenge the credibility of young-earth creationist Walter
                      ReMine.
                      > Walter is a semi-active participant in the talk.origins forum [in
                      > fact, he was participating on talk.origins during the same time
                      > period as I was]. If you wish to verify this claim, you can go to
                      > www.groups.google.com and use its search feature to look up the
                      email
                      > address < http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en
                      <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF->
                      &lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
                      > 8&q=author:laser_thing%40my-deja.com+> laser_thing@m... [this was
                      the
                      > email address that Walter was using during my tenure on the
                      > talk.origins forum] or to search for Walter specifically. By the
                      > way, according to Google, Walter's last post was two days ago.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] You can find Walter's book for sale on AIG's
                      website;
                      > however, if Kurt's insinuation is true, and anyone who has ever
                      been
                      > active on talk.origins is lacking in credibility, Walter's book is
                      > probably not worth reading anyway.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
                      >
                      bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10
                      > < http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-
                      >
                      bin/AIGUS.storefront/3d6ffa0d010a18632719ac14100105c6/Product/View/10&
                      > 2D3&2D007> &2D3&2D007
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Kyle Witten] BTW, if anyone wants to check out my posts on the
                      > talk.origins website and see for themselves the nature of my
                      > participation, they can do an advanced search for "Kyle T. Witten"
                      at
                      > groups.google.com of the talk.origins forum and see each and every
                      > one of my posts it its entirety. For the record, there are a total
                      > of 34 posts that span a time period from September 23, 1999 to
                      > October 26, 1999.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Kyle
                      > >
                      > > p.s. I hope it isn't asking too much of you, Kurt, but I was
                      > wondering if you could please document your reasoning for your
                      > statement as to my love of talk.origins' website.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >
                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=17
                      07281911:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/>

                      >
                      > Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
                      > to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Kyle Witten
                      I have to disagree with your definition of the term archive in this particular context. Since True.Origins Archvie states that its intent is to be an
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 4, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I have to disagree with your definition of the term archive in this particular context. Since True.Origins Archvie states that its intent is to be an alternative to the Talk.Origins Archive, then it must use the same definition of "archive" as does Talk.Origins otherwise it is not an alternative to anything irregardless of any claims it may make to the contrary. Since the Talk.Origins Archive is an archive of items of interest from a discussion forum, then the True.Origins Archive must also likewise be an archive of items of interest from its own discussion group.

                        Kyle

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@...]
                        Sent: Wed 9/4/2002 12:02
                        To: RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com
                        Cc:
                        Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers



                        Kyle tries to weasel-out of the fact that he praised the atheistic
                        talk origins site:

                        "No, actually I haven't forgotten the letter. The point I was
                        attempting to make in that letter was that the "True.Origins Archive"
                        failed to meet it's stated intent of being an alternative to
                        the "Talk.Origins Archive." The reason for this is that without a
                        discussion forum, there is nothing for the True.Origins website to
                        archive in the first place."

                        Perhaps Kyle needs to learn the meaning of "archive", i.e. "A place
                        or collection containing records, *documents*, or other materials of
                        historical interest." There are plenty of documents on the site.





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • kurt_streutker
                        Kyle continues his crusade against minutiae of certain YEC actions. Before it was his dogged attempt to link modern YECs with Price. Now it s his weaselling
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 5, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Kyle continues his crusade against minutiae of certain YEC actions.
                          Before it was his dogged attempt to link modern YECs with Price.
                          Now it's his weaselling out of the fact that he was a fan of the
                          atheistic Talk.Origins trash:

                          "I have to disagree with your definition of the term archive in this
                          particular context. Since True.Origins Archvie states that its intent
                          is to be an alternative to the Talk.Origins Archive, then it must use
                          the same definition of "archive" as does Talk.Origins otherwise it is
                          not an alternative to anything irregardless of any claims it may make
                          to the contrary."

                          What nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate to use an alternative
                          meaning of "archive" which is actually the primary semantic usage.
                          It is an alternative because it provides documents to counter the
                          trash of talk.origins, and an alternative because it generally sticks
                          to the documentary meaning of archive instead of majoring on the
                          ignorance pooling of internet debates.



                          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kyle Witten" <Kyle_Witten@b...>
                          wrote:
                          > I have to disagree with your definition of the term archive in this
                          particular context. Since True.Origins Archvie states that its
                          intent is to be an alternative to the Talk.Origins Archive, then it
                          must use the same definition of "archive" as does Talk.Origins
                          otherwise it is not an alternative to anything irregardless of any
                          claims it may make to the contrary. Since the Talk.Origins Archive
                          is an archive of items of interest from a discussion forum, then the
                          True.Origins Archive must also likewise be an archive of items of
                          interest from its own discussion group.
                          >
                          > Kyle
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
                          > Sent: Wed 9/4/2002 12:02
                          > To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
                          > Cc:
                          > Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Kurt & Church Fathers
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Kyle tries to weasel-out of the fact that he praised the
                          atheistic
                          > talk origins site:
                          >
                          > "No, actually I haven't forgotten the letter. The point I was
                          > attempting to make in that letter was that the "True.Origins
                          Archive"
                          > failed to meet it's stated intent of being an alternative to
                          > the "Talk.Origins Archive." The reason for this is that
                          without a
                          > discussion forum, there is nothing for the True.Origins
                          website to
                          > archive in the first place."
                          >
                          > Perhaps Kyle needs to learn the meaning of "archive", i.e. "A
                          place
                          > or collection containing records, *documents*, or other
                          materials of
                          > historical interest." There are plenty of documents on the
                          site.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.