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

RE: [RTB Discussion Group] AiG

Expand Messages
  • Kyle Witten
    Mark, you assulted my integrity and called me a liar. You even challenged me to back up my claims... Well, I did so in post 3495, a post to which you have
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 1 3:31 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark, you assulted my integrity and called me a liar. You even challenged me to back up my claims...

      Well, I did so in post 3495, a post to which you have still not responded to.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/3495

      Or is it that you don't feel that you have any obligation to retract a statement once it has been demonstrated to be false?

      Kyle

      -----Original Message-----
      From: yecreationist [mailto:krinks@...]

      > What I can't understand is your opposition to such a notion... but
      > then again, considering that you once argued that Danny Faulkner
      > should be banned from this group what should I expect...
      >
      > Kyle



      Mark: Now you are LYING and I defy you to quote ANYTHING I have ever
      said specifically that impies that. I have never said any such thing
      as he well knows.

      Is this how your position is defended, through censorship and lies?



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • yecreationist
      ... challenged me to back up my claims... ... responded to. ... retract a statement once it has been demonstrated to be false? ... Mark: You may be vindictive
      Message 2 of 29 , Apr 1 5:09 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kyle Witten"
        <Kyle_Witten@b...> wrote:
        > Mark, you assulted my integrity and called me a liar. You even
        challenged me to back up my claims...
        >
        > Well, I did so in post 3495, a post to which you have still not
        responded to.
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/3495
        >
        > Or is it that you don't feel that you have any obligation to
        retract a statement once it has been demonstrated to be false?
        >
        > Kyle


        Mark: You may be vindictive and bitter to remember things like this,
        but I have no mind to go back and read and try to figure out exactly
        what you are talking about.

        Of course instead of this diversionary nonsense you could answer my
        question and show me where Ross has ever retracted his claim that
        the historic Christian faith believed in long ages as he did.

        Of course you cxould also answer my question how humans found in
        strata beneath the dinosaurs doesn't mean they are older.

        NO, of course in typical Rossite fashion you divert into nonsense
        instead of answering a legitimate topic.
      • yecreationist
        ... challenged me to back up my claims... ... responded to. ... retract a statement once it has been demonstrated to be false? ... Mark: Here is what was
        Message 3 of 29 , Apr 1 5:36 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kyle Witten"
          <Kyle_Witten@b...> wrote:
          > Mark, you assulted my integrity and called me a liar. You even
          challenged me to back up my claims...
          >
          > Well, I did so in post 3495, a post to which you have still not
          responded to.
          >
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/3495
          >
          > Or is it that you don't feel that you have any obligation to
          retract a statement once it has been demonstrated to be false?
          >
          > Kyle


          Mark: Here is what was said...

          If Kurt wishes to moderate you or even boot you, it is well within
          his rights as
          moderator. I haven't had a problem with anything he has said or done
          yet, which
          is CERTAINLY more than I can say for VR.


          Mark

          PS:If it were me, you and the person who forwarded this to the list
          cucumventing
          the wishes of the moderator , WOULD BOTH BE BANNNED! I HOPE HE DOES
          IT!
          ================================================================

          ** I can't say as I honestly remember what the beef was here (but
          then again I am not vindictive or bitter). But for the sake of
          argument if it was anyone is particular, and this person posted
          something that the moderator did not allow to be posted, then said
          person should be banned. Find me a list that wouldn't have done
          that. Isn't it hypocritical of you to on one hand call for
          moderation and censorship and then on the other attack someone who
          actually had practiced moderation in here? Me thinks so. But then
          again I am not vindictive and bitter and can actually hold to and
          discuss actual valid topics.
        • Danny Faulkner
          Mark, it was I who forwarded to this group a post that VR sent to me privately. VR sent it to me privately, because he had been blocked from sending any more
          Message 4 of 29 , Apr 1 6:27 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark, it was I who forwarded to this group a post that VR sent to
            me privately. VR sent it to me privately, because he had been blocked
            from sending any more posts to the group. As I recall, VR's banning had
            been done without warning and struck me as arbitrary.
            On another matter, you keep bringing up human remains earlier
            than dinosaurs in the geologic column, and then you ask those who
            disagree with you to refute this fact. However, you have offerred no
            fact to refute. Please tell us exactly what you mean as to what humans
            remains you are talking about. A couple of references on this would be
            most helpful.
            Danny

            Danny R. Faulkner
            a stellar astronomer
            drfaulkn@...
          • yecreationist
            ... sent to ... blocked ... banning had ... no ... humans ... would be ... Mark: I am at school currently but will get the references when I get home. Off the
            Message 5 of 29 , Apr 1 8:03 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Faulkner"
              <faulkner@g...> wrote:
              > Mark, it was I who forwarded to this group a post that VR
              sent to
              > me privately. VR sent it to me privately, because he had been
              blocked
              > from sending any more posts to the group. As I recall, VR's
              banning had
              > been done without warning and struck me as arbitrary.
              > On another matter, you keep bringing up human remains earlier
              > than dinosaurs in the geologic column, and then you ask those who
              > disagree with you to refute this fact. However, you have offerred
              no
              > fact to refute. Please tell us exactly what you mean as to what
              humans
              > remains you are talking about. A couple of references on this
              would be
              > most helpful.
              > Danny



              Mark: I am at school currently but will get the references when I
              get home. Off the top of my head I would say that it was discussed
              in one of my geology classes as well as an article I read(AIG???).

              What I was trying to say was that since humans have been found in
              lower strata that dinosaurs (and we "know" that the lower strata are
              older), shouldn't humans be considered older that dinosaurs? This is
              rediculous of course. However, the observed fact is that humans have
              been found in lower strata. I was trying to show that the idea of
              older age = lower strata is a philosophical argument rather than
              scientific one. The mere existance of the Coelecanth today should
              refute this in itself.

              As for posting what the moderator banned, if a list is truly
              moderated (as Kyle asked for ironically enough), and someone steps
              on the toes of the moderator, they are usually banned in my
              experience. The actions of a moderator are never democratic and
              shouldn't be. A moderator for his own reasons chose to not allow a
              post, and someone posted it anyway, they should be booted or at
              least warned not to do it again.

              I am sorry it was you (good men of science who haven't compromised
              the scriptures are hard to come by and greatly appreciated) but the
              actions of a moderator should be supreme as chances are that it is
              his list and he can choose the content and direction. Sadly this is
              necessary. Check out a list where Atheists, Evolutionists, OEC'ers,
              and Rossites are allowed to post freely without moderation. More
              wicked venom against the uncompromised gospel you will never see.

              That was all I was trying to say and I find it supremely
              hypocritical that someone (Kyle) who calls for moderation in here
              would bring this up as somehow wrong or flawed. Then again, I have
              come to expect dishonesty and hypocracy from the OEC'er/Rossites.
            • Kyle Witten
              For simplicity s sake, I am combining two of your posts on this subject into a single reply. First, the fact that remember things like this has nothing to do
              Message 6 of 29 , Apr 1 9:19 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                For simplicity's sake, I am combining two of your posts on this subject into a single reply.

                First, the fact that "remember things like this" has nothing to do with being "vindictive and bitter" rather, my memory was refreshed when Danny made reference to the content of VR's post in message 3362 dated 3/5/04. If anything, that I "remembered" is more indicitive of the fact that, once reminded, I recalled the event that Danny was referencing in its full and complete context.

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/3362

                Additionally, Sarfati on p. 16 of "Refuting Compromise" makes the following statement, "Also, we note the Latin saying scripta manent, meaning, 'What is written, stands,' with the implication, 'unless rescinded, equally in writting.' Therefore, this book will hold Ross to errors in his books unless retracted in writting."

                Do you not feel that you should be held to the same standard that what you say stands until such time as you retract it? If not, is it because you feel that AIG is promoting an unfair/unreasonable standard that is only held by "vindictive and bitter" [your words, not mine] individuals and organizaitons?

                As to you quesiton about an apparent inconsistency regarding my views on the need for fair and consistant moderation [i.e., a single set of standards of conduct that is binding on all list participants irregardless of their view on the age of the earth], in this case, no it isn't hypocritical, and I'll tell you why. VR's post, which Danny had the integrity to post on his behalf, contained evidence that Kurt, then moderator, was abusing his position to cover up evidence of his own misconduct on the list, specifically that he was masqurading as multiple individuals.

                It must be further noted that as a consequence of VR's evidence, and Danny's willingness to post it, that Archomai asked Kurt to resign his position as moderator.

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/2039

                Kyle

                -----Original Message-----
                From: yecreationist [mailto:krinks@...]

                Mark: You may be vindictive and bitter to remember things like this,
                but I have no mind to go back and read and try to figure out exactly
                what you are talking about.

                Isn't it hypocritical of you to on one hand call for
                moderation and censorship and then on the other attack someone who
                actually had practiced moderation in here? Me thinks so. But then
                again I am not vindictive and bitter and can actually hold to and
                discuss actual valid topics.




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • aigsfavoriteperson
                ... Duh! How ignorant are you? It has all been laid before your feet! 1. Kyle said you asked that Danny be baned 2. You called Kyle a liar 3. Kyle showed where
                Message 7 of 29 , Apr 1 3:16 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "yecreationist"
                  <krinks@v...> wrote:

                  > Mark: You may be vindictive and bitter to remember things like
                  > this, but I have no mind to go back and read and try to figure out
                  > exactly what you are talking about.


                  Duh! How ignorant are you? It has all been laid before your feet!

                  1. Kyle said you asked that Danny be baned
                  2. You called Kyle a liar
                  3. Kyle showed where you clearly said this
                  4. Danny even asked you to apologize

                  Now it is we that are vindictive and bitter... While you FALSELY call
                  us liars!

                  And your best defense is that you can't figure it out?

                  And you expect us to trust your word and science -- WOW!!!
                • aigsfavoriteperson
                  ... I don t believe you. Besides like you say all the time... READ THE ARCHIVES! Even the links have been provided for you. ... Please, you can t stop foaming
                  Message 8 of 29 , Apr 1 3:29 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "yecreationist"
                    <krinks@v...> wrote:

                    > ** I can't say as I honestly remember what the beef was here

                    I don't believe you. Besides like you say all the time...

                    READ THE ARCHIVES!

                    Even the links have been provided for you.

                    > (but then again I am not vindictive or bitter).

                    Please, you can't stop foaming at the mouth at OECs...

                    > But for the sake of
                    > argument if it was anyone is particular, and this person posted
                    > something that the moderator did not allow to be posted, then said
                    > person should be banned.

                    Duck, dodge, bobble, weave!

                    > Isn't it hypocritical of you to on one hand call for
                    > moderation and censorship and then on the other attack someone who
                    > actually had practiced moderation in here? Me thinks so.

                    Meesa thinks u change-a-the-subject!

                    You obviously are too little of a man to own up to your actions.
                  • yecreationist
                    ... wrote: Mark: Face it, I have exposed your hypocrasy as all here can see. Don t try to argue your way out of it. How many times must you
                    Message 9 of 29 , Apr 1 9:07 PM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kyle Witten"
                      <Kyle_Witten@b...> wrote:



                      Mark: Face it, I have exposed your hypocrasy as all here can see.
                      Don't try to argue your way out of it.

                      How many times must you post diversionary nonsensze such as this
                      instead of showing me where Ross has ever recanted his claim the the
                      historic Christian faith believed in long ages for Genesis 1? Of
                      course we both know you can't as they didn't. The only folks who
                      believed in an Old Earth in the early Church were pagans that the
                      church rebuked as heretics for doubting a literal Genesis.

                      Do yourself a favor sometime and check out Christian history. If you
                      did you would see the teachings of Hugh Ross were held by those the
                      church rebuked as heretics.

                      The Young Age of the Earth certainly was as important an issue then
                      as it is today as the Early Church knew. They knew that to pervert
                      Genesis 1 to 11 was to pervert the meaninf of sin and marriage. It
                      is no coincidence that those "churches" that accept evolution
                      and/or OEC are the very same "churches" that have allowed arbortion
                      and same-sex marriages. You'll find no such heresy among those that
                      hold to a literal Genesis and literal days for creation.
                    • yecreationist
                      ... Mark: This again is exactly what I have been saying. I asked many times for one of you to prove me wrong and show me how Ross really didn t lie and never
                      Message 10 of 29 , Apr 1 9:12 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > And you expect us to trust your word and science -- WOW!!!



                        Mark: This again is exactly what I have been saying. I asked many
                        times for one of you to prove me wrong and show me how Ross really
                        didn't lie and never said the historic christian faith believed in
                        long ages as he does today. Of course instead I get this
                        diversionary nonsense that only goes to prove your intellectual as
                        well as spiritual emptiness. Thanks for proving my point once again.

                        Do I really have to give a logic lesson and show you the fallacy
                        trying to attack the message by insulting the messenger as if that
                        did something to disprove the message?

                        A mind is a terrible thing to waste and you shouldn't.Try taking a
                        class sometime.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.