(The following is easily adapted to Mormonism and my recent experiences with
some of the Mormon Internet apologists such as Sergio, Daniel, Brian, Linda,
etc.  Also note how many times the article has application to Goldsmith. -
RLBaty)

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/You-Want-To-Be-An-Apologist-For-Christianity-2012\
0616

You Want To Be An Apologist For Christianity?

June 18, 2012

(excerpts)

So you've decided to be an internet apologist for Christianity.

You're going to come up against a lot of people with facts, logic, reason,
complicated arguments, and evidence; people who've studied the Bible; people
who've even studied science and maybe have degrees from universities.

Have no fear.

None of this should bother you if you use the following guide:

(1)

The Bible is inerrant.

Remember that!

The Bible is the inerrant word of an omniscient god so it can't be wrong.  It's
inerrant.  Cling to that in the face of all arguments, evidence and reason. 
These must all be wrong because the Bible is inerrant, otherwise God wouldn't
have said it was in the inerrant Bible.

(2)

Never answer a direct question with a direct answer.

It's probably a trap.

You can recognise these traps because the questions will have words like `why',
`who', `what', 'when', `where' and `how'.

The important thing is not to give your opponent something to check because it
might be wrong.

Tricks you can use are:

(a)

Ask another question to change the subject

(b)

Refuse to answer the question until your
opponent has answered yours.

(c)

Ignore the answer.

(d)

Accuse your opponent of not answering your
question.

(e)

Tell your opponent you're not wasting your
time on someone who won't answer your questions.

Two questions should never be answered at all, ever:

What evidence would you accept as disproving your god?

What evidence would you accept as proof of evolution?

Never EVER take the risk that the evidence you say
you'll accept may be provided.

(f)

Change the subject as soon as possible or break
off the discussion with a departing "I'll pray
for you", or some such phrase.

And remember:  God exists so NOTHING could
disprove him;  evolution is false so NOTHING
can prove it.

Got that?

(g)

Only as a last resort should you answer a question,
but remember to say your opponent hasn't understood
the answer when they point out your answer has
nothing to do with their question.

(h)

When faced with a Bible verse in which God is telling
people to do something wrong, like kill children,
commit genocide, kill your neighbour for eating
shellfish or wearing mixed-fibre clothing, sell your
daughter, etc., you have several choices:

Say it used to be moral to do those
things but Jesus changed that and gave
us some better... er... no, not better,
different morals. Better, means God
didn't give us very good ones, so never
admit they were immoral. They were just
differently moral.

Say it's allegorical.  Always remember
that, even though the Bible is the literal
word of God, that doesn't mean it's always
literal.  It can still be allegorical.

If your opponent asks how you know which
is which, be condescending and say it's
because you have been `saved by grace'.
It's not your fault if they've rejected
God's bountiful... whatever springs to mind.

This will make you feel superior and may
make your opponent angry.

God will appreciate it too.

You can use the allegorical excuse for any
part of the Bible you can't explain, don't
understand or hadn't read and have been
caught out with.

If none of these work, say the Bible used to say something
different but the meaning of the words have changed.  No,
that doesn't make it wrong; it means your opponent is too
ignorant/stupid/lacking in God's bountiful... whatever.

(i)

Always blame your opponent.

Sooner or later, usually sooner, the conversation will turn to evolution.

This will normally be because you've changed the subject to avoid a difficult or
embarrassing question and have said the first thing you thought of, like,

> "So you worship Dawkins and believe
> your grandfather was a monkey."

When discussing evolution it's best to stick to the usual parodies of evolution
because they are easier to attack and you can accuse your opponent of believing
something really absurd that no sane person would believe, so getting that
lovely warm, fluffy, pink feeling of superiority.

And you don't have to bother with learning any biology.

You can find plenty of these parodies of evolution theory and other science at
the AiG (Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis) website. They specialise in making up
things for Christian Creationists and apologists to mislead people with.

Always remember not to learn any real biology or any other science because it
may make you doubt your unshakeable faith and you don't want to start debating
real science with people who know about it, so only the easily attacked
parodies.

Best stay away from the real thing.
Far too risky.

Practice the names, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking as they
are easily confused and you will be using them often.

Einstein will crop up quite often and his name can be a little tricky too.  If
you can at least spell their names people might think you know what you are
talking about, which is always useful in a discussion, especially with people
who probably DO know what they're talking about.

On the subject of spelling, try to remember it's `Holy Bible' not `Holey Bibel'
or `Holly Bibal'.

Remember a few key phrases and use them often:

> If evolution is true
> why are there still monkeys?

> Evolution is just a theory –
> a guess with no evidence.

> Micro-evolution is possible but not macro
> (don't try to explain this one, just keep
> asserting it!)

> There is no evidence for evolution.

Be prepared to be given lots of evidence at this point so you'll need to ignore
it and dismiss it as `not evidence'.

Don't follow those links!

> No monkey ever gave birth to a human.
> No human ever gave birth to a monkey.

> Why are there no crocoduck/half men-half monkeys?

> Why do we never see transitional fossils?
> (Remember, fossils in museums don't count
> and a lot of them are plaster copies – stick
> to that at all costs).

If ever you're shown a series of fossils, point out that there are no fossils in
the gaps between them.

> Charles Darwin recanted on his death bed.
> His daughter's denial of that and the
> evidence that Lady Hope wasn't even present
> is a lie.

Anyway, Darwin is now a Creationist because he converted after death, so even if
that IS a lie it might as well not be.

> Charles Darwin was a friend of Karl Marx
> and so evolution is communist and communism
> is Darwinism.

> Charles Darwin got all his ideas from Mendel
> who was a Christian.

> Evolution is impossible because information
> can't be created. (Don't get involved in this
> one, just assert it...)

> The second law of thermodynamics means evolution
> is impossible. (Never try to explain why; it
> involves complicated stuff like entropy).

> No new species have ever been seen to arise.
> (Dismiss the inevitable long list of new
> species as `not new species, just varieties'.
> If need be, redefine the term `species' to
> win this one. Change the subject as soon as
> you can).

Have a list of questions you keep asking every few days.

If possible, remember who you were debating with and ask them the same questions
every few weeks.

Ignore the answers; they're just trying to put you off your `faith'.

When given a link to an article which answers your question, don't follow it.

Instead, insist your opponent answers the question.

Say you're not going to do their research for them.

Don't read the article; you know it'll be wrong or will be trying to mislead
you.

On Twitter, demand a complete answer in 140 characters explaining the whole of
human evolution in detail. Or ask for the complete history of the universe.

You will also need a list of standard `arguments' against the Big Bang?

The following is a useful list but you should add more as you think of them:

> How could life evolve in a ball of
> poisonous gasses in the Big Bang?

> You can't make something from nothing
> so God must have done it.

(Under no circumstances admit that this also means God couldn't have come from
nothing, or created a universe from nothing either.  If you do, you'll lose!)

> It says in the Bible that God created
> everything so it must be true because
> God doesn't tell lies.

> The universe might look like it's billions
> of years old but that's just to test our
> faith/Satan did it to drive us away from
> God's bountiful bosom...  or something.

> You can't prove God doesn't exist.

When you run out of arguments against science, change the subject to morality.

Ask your opponent to explain where morals came from.

Ignore the answers and claim Atheists are immoral and can't be trusted because
they don't know why it's wrong to kill, rape, rob banks, etc.

When told that there is a long history of Christians killing and raping, say
Stalin and Mao were Atheists.

(You could try saying Hitler was an Atheist too but the risk here is that your
opponent might know he was a Christian and may have some links to historical
data proving it, so exercise caution).

Remember. None of the people who killed and waged genocide in the name of Jesus
and Christianity were real Christians even though you probably wouldn't be
Christian if it wasn't for them.

Hold onto this one.
It'll serve you well in difficult corners.

As a final resort, it's okay to try a disguised threat.

Something like,

> "I hope you like it HOT when you die!"

or,

> "You'll believe when you're roasting in HELL!"

The following is useful list of general techniques you can use:

> Use argumentum ad nauseum (or last one
> standing) – just keep saying the same
> thing over and over again until no one
> answers you. Then you will have won.

> Have the last word. Just like in a
> football game where the last player
> to leave the field is the winner,
> you will win by having the last word.

> Claim you have answered every single
> question in full and none of your claims
> have been refuted.

> Ignore every answer and claim it hasn't
> been given.

> Use ad hominem. Things like saying your
> opponent must be insane/stupid/evil/a
> Satanist/a Stalinist/a Communist/a Muslim, etc.

> Accuse your opponent of resorting to ad
> hominem when they point out that your
> argument isn't logical, doesn't make sense,
> is factually incorrect or has been refuted
> long ago.

> You can also accuse them of being an arrogant
> elitist when they use complicated science or
> information they've learned through study or
> by reading books.

> Remember, you are doing God's work, so anything
> is permitted because God is above human morality.

> When asked a really difficult question wait
> several days then answer a different, easier
> one.  Claim you answered the one asked and
> blame your opponent for not understanding the
> answer.

> When you've been given a really clever answer
> or been asked a really hard question ( this
> will happen a lot so be ready for it) break
> off the discussion – urgent shopping trip is
> a good excuse  – then wait several days and
> suddenly come back on line and demand the
> `answer to my question'.  Don't say what the
> question was or give any clue to when you asked
> it. The chances are your opponent won't be on
> line so you can follow up with a series of
> triumphal messages claiming to have won.

> Type `FACT!!' after a statement, especially
> if you're not sure about it and think it
> might not be true.  This guarantees any
> reader will think it's true anyway.

> Always claim to have `masses of evidence' for
> God.  Never ever say exactly what that evidence
> is but say your opponent is deliberately ignoring
> it/must be blind/must be stupid/hasn't been save
> by God's bountiful... er... thingy,  and you'll
> "pray for him/her".

> Alternatively, give a list of things like sun
> rise, sun set, bird song, a baby's cry, Fall
> in New Hampshire, a Beethoven Symphony, etc,
> etc, and claim they are proof of God.
> Never explain why.

> Ask your opponent why they are so angry and/or
> upset.  This might persuade some of the audience
> that your opponent really IS angry and/or upset.
> You will also get that nice warm feeling of smugly
> condescending superiority.

> Ask your opponent if they were abused as a child
> and feel let down by God.  Be sympathetic.  This
> will make you look like someone who cares.  It
> will make you feel superior and make it more
> likely that you get away with some of the tricks
> you'll be using – for God, remember, so not
> dishonest or immoral.

> Pretend to be a child – somewhere between 8 and
> 12 years old is favourite.  People tend to allow
> for childish mistakes and silly arguments.  This
> gives Christian apologists a particularly strong
> advantage.  If you're using apologetics to make
> money, say you'll use it to buy a university
> education or to pay for your mother's/cousin's
> cancer treatment or to provide shelter for the
> homeless, etc.  This can be a particularly
> rewarding trick if you can pull it off,
> scooping gifts of hundreds or even thousands,
> tax-free, at a time.

> Pretend to be too stupid to understand an
> argument.  This works on Atheists because they
> think stupidity is some sort of divine gift
> which hides a deeper kind of wisdom.  Anyway,
> it'll frustrate your opponent and may even make
> them either angry or patronising so you can use
> that against them.

Lastly, here is a list of useful fallacies you can usually rely on.

No, it isn't `wrong' to use fallacies because you're doing God's work and he is
above human morality. Think of it as a sacrifice which God will forgive you for
because you did it for him.

Anyway, you can always say sorry to God later.

God of the Gaps.

This is when you have a gap in your knowledge and claim no-one knows so it must
have been God.  You can even create gaps if you need to by claiming science
can't explain things that have been explained.

God of Personal Necessity.

This is when you argue that God must exist because life would be
meaningless/purposeless, etc without one.  You can even say there must be a god
because otherwise there would be no after-life and you don't like the thought of
death.

The Numbers Fallacy.

This is where you argue that God must exist because x billion people can't be
wrong.  Of course, even more people who don't believe in your god can be wrong
but you don't meet them very often and they're mostly foreigners anyway.

The Appeal to Authority.

God MUST exists because person x wrote a book saying he does, or "all historians
agree God wrote the Bible/accept Jesus was a real person".  You can also say Ken
Ham,  Kent Hovind, various Creation Scientists or William Lane Craig have proved
God exists.  The good thing about this trick is that you don't have to produce
any evidence and can just tell your opponent to read what they've said.

Faith.

Say your faith tells you God exists and you rely on faith more than evidence
because faith is a gift from God but evidence can be misleading.  God must exist
if you believe in him, otherwise you wouldn't believe in him. You're probably
wondering why no one else can see the logic here.

The Shifted Burden.

Insisting your opponent proves God doesn't exist or else he does exist. Note:
this argument ONLY applies to arguments you want to win.  It obviously can't be
used to prove a false god exists, or Harry Potter, or Spaghetti Monsters, or
that there are bears round the corner waiting for you to step on the cracks.

And that's about it really.

Keep this guide handy and you can take on anyone in on-line discussions.

And never worry about being laughed at.

You're right and all the others are wrong.

Source:  Reproduced with permission of the Author - Rosa Rubicondior, see this
link for the original article:

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/so-youve-decided-to-be-apologist-f\
or.html

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

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=307

Evolution and Carbon-14 Dating

by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to evolutionary scientists, radiocarbon dating (also known as
carbon-14 dating) is totally ineffective in measuring time when dealing with
millions of years. In his 2000 book, Genes, People, and Languages, renowned
Stanford University geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a discussion on the
theory of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon dating, stating:

> "The most crucial dates in modern human
> evolution are unfortunately beyond the
> range of the radiocarbon method, which
> has a limit of about 40,000 years"
> (p. 61, emp. added).

Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins also dealt with the limitations of
radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind
Watchmaker. He was even more critical of this dating method than was
Cavalli-Sforza, saying:

> Different kinds of radioactive decay-based
> geological stopwatches run at different rates.
>
> The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a
> great rate, so fast that, after some thousands
> of years, its spring is almost wound down and
> the watch is no longer reliable.
>
> It is useful for dating organic material on the
> archaeological/historical timescale where we are
> dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years,
> but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale
> where we are dealing in millions of years
> (1986, p. 226 emp. added).

Both evolutionists and creationists stand in agreement that radiocarbon dating,
which can be used only to date organic samples, is totally ineffective in
measuring the alleged millions or billions of years of the evolutionary
timetable.

[In truth, even when dating things that are relatively young, carbon-14 dating
is imperfect and based upon certain unprovable assumptions (see Major, 1993).]

If radiocarbon dating can measure only items that are thousands of years old,
why should evolutionists even consider using this dating method on anything that
they already believe to be millions of years old?

Creationists would like to see evolutionists apply this method to items believed
to be millions of years old, because it might help convince evolutionists that
coal, diamonds, fossils, etc. are not millions of years old, but only thousands
of years old.

Consider that in recent years "readily detectable amounts of carbon-14" in
materials evolutionists suppose are millions of years old "have been the rule
rather than the exception" (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49).

When geophysicist John Baumgardner and colleagues obtained 10 coal samples from
the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon
laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces of carbon.

The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry
(AMS) method.

If the coal were really many millions of years old (as evolutionists suggest),
no traces of carbon-14 should have been found.

> "[A]ny carbon-containing materials that
> are truly older than 100,000 years should
> be `carbon-14 dead' with C-14 levels below
> detection limits" (DeYoung, p. 49).

But, in fact, traces of carbon-14 were found.

> "[A] residue of carbon-14 atoms was found
> in all ten samples.... The amounts of C-14
> in coal are found to average 0.25 percent
> of that in the atmosphere today" (DeYoung,
> p. 53).

Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in
all. Once again, traces of C-14 were found in every sample (see DeYoung, pp.
45-62).

In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the
Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14
analysis.

One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur.

The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction,
Colorado in 1989.

Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones.

(Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would
not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of
years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.)

Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from
10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age
(see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).

What is C-14 doing in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils, if these objects are
really many millions of years old?

Richard Dawkins declared that C-14 dating

> "is useful for dating organic material on the
> archaeological/historical timescale where we
> are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of
> years,"

not millions of years (1986, p. 226, emp. added).

Yet,

> "readily detectable amounts of carbon-14,"

even in coal, diamonds, and various fossils,

> "have been the rule rather than the exception"

in recent years (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49).

Why?

Evolutionists assert that the specimens in every case must have been
contaminated by outside carbon.

After all, everyone "knows" coal is millions of years old, right?

Using C-14 dating on specimens already believed to be only hundreds or a few
thousands of years old is considered acceptable.

Scientists expect to find carbon in samples they perceive as young. But, if
specimens believed to be millions of years old are tested (e.g., coal), and
found to have carbon traces, then they "must" have been contaminated.

Or so we are told.

Informed creation scientists, like members of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the
Age of the Earth) team, contend that the modern "AMS measurements carefully
eliminate all possible sources of carbon contamination.

These include any trace of C-14 which has possibly entered the samples in recent
history, or C-14 introduction during sample preparation and analysis" (DeYoung,
2005, p. 50).

Whereas "unexpected carbon-14 was initially assumed to be a result of
contamination..., as this problem was aggressively explored, it was realized
that most of the carbon-14 was inherent to the samples being measured" (p. 49).

The fact is, significant traces of carbon have been detected in samples that
"should not" contain carbon.

Since evolutionists are unwilling to adjust their million/billion-year
timetable, they are forced to conclude that radiocarbon dating is always faulty
when it comes up with young dates (measured in hundreds or thousands of years)
for assumed old specimens (supposedly millions of years old).

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

The fact is, coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils containing traces of carbon is
no surprise.

One would expect to find such if the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood
are true.


REFERENCES

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North
Point Press).

Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. (1990), "Report on Chemical Analysis and
Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs," Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and
Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship).

Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Major, Trevor (1993), "Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-Ring Dating,"
Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019
.

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

Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

  We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution"
section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following
stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the
original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be
noted; (3) the author's name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any
references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included
with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are
strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must
be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of
written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as
long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a
reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered
for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be
reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not
edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to
Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were
taken.

  For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

  Apologetics Press
  230 Landmark Drive
  Montgomery, Alabama 36117
  U.S.A.
  Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

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

http://global.christianpost.com/news/pentagon-to-celebrate-pride-month-nearly-a-\
year-after-repeal-banning-gays-76679/

(1)

From: wickedwoman13
Time/Date: 5:22 PM EDT on June 18, 2012

Jillian was first person to post on my wall
(besides Jorge) to welcome me.

We can all see she is emotional and if she
is egged on, says things she later regrets.

We all know her personal beliefs and they
seem to be consistent with site.

I can see were she is coming from even if
my opinions difer.

What I don't get is why is she being heckled
days after she has stated she is shaking,
she is intimedated and scared.

(2)

From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 6:10 PM EDT on June 18, 2012

To wickedwoman13 - . . .

The anonymous poster using the ID of "Jillian"
and I have a history here, and I've tried to
preserve the integrity and history of that
matter at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

Christian Post managment has shown that it
is willing to tamper with the evidence
regarding such things, so you can't trust
the record here; so much of it has been deleted.

As to your concern about the alleged heckling,
shaking and fear "Jillian" claims to suffer from,
it is only alleged.

One of the things I have noted repeatedly is that
he/she doesn't get to advance such claims in order
to intimidate and bully his/her adversaries here
where she/he has no interest in demonstrating they
are real concerns.

"Jillian" and I still have unfinished business,
but she/he has indicated that is just not going
to be finished because she/he prefers to remain
anonymous and is not going to repent and bring
forth her/his works meet fore repentance regarding
me.

When I first arrived here, she/he ("Jillian")
claims she/he as going to stop posting about 100
times because she/he didn't like the atmosphere
here.

She/he never followed through with that...and the
rest is history.

If you would like to discuss the details further
regarding me and the anonymous "Jillian", you are
welcome to make your appearance at my place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

See you there, or not!

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

Pi,
Not trying to take up too much of your time. I don't think the hypothetical I
suggested is anything like Brown's. I never agreed with Brown's in the first
place. However, thank you for your analysis on his model. I like to hear both
sides.

In the senerio I put force, I think a model can be worked out to accommodate the
difficulties you raised.

The moon's gravitational pull has an effect on earth's crust and oceans, without
heating up substantially. The relatively close proximity of another
gravitational mass over a period of a few months, exerting movement of the
earth's crust would generate internal heat. The earth already has a great deal
of internal heat which is insulated by the crust. I would suspect the additional
heat created by the crustal movement would be negligable compared to the
existing heat and have a minimal effect at the surface.

In the senerio I put for, the rain is a minimal effect for the flooding, so the
quantity of ice entering the atmosphere would not necessarily boil away and
sterile the earth. As ice falls from the sky it takes much less friction and
heat to vaporize than stone and iron. At a little over 250 degrees the ice is
vaporizing rapidly.

As far as asteriods, that is really of little concern. The direction and angle
of impact with a planet already in a stable orbit could easily keep the
asteriods where they are. This though, is not the issue.

Your basic approach is it couldn't have happened because you are siting the
mechanics of the senerio. I am not concerned about the mechanics at this time.

What I am after is IF something like this occurred, what evidence would remain
and what would the geology of the earth look like?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
> Ray:
> Now, if something like this happened, what evidence would remain on the earth?
>
> Pi:
> My first guess, the evidence would be the Earth would be sterilized.
>
>
>
> Ray:
> Would we be able to detect the cause from the earth's geology?
>
> Pi:
> We wouldn't be here to tell.
>
> There are similarites of the consequences of this scenario with what would
happen if Walt Brown's Hydroplate model were true.  I suggest you look at the
(heat) consequences of only a fraction of the mass you're talking about entering
the atmosphere.  My "Fire and Brimstone" post gives you an idea.
>
> Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/11609
>

(I thought I would post this because of the references to the Mormon
organization and also to the FFRF and its challenge to the income tax free
ministerial housing allowance.-RLBaty)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326916#tab=social&sc=0

Annual cost of tax-exempt status of US religious groups is $71.1B

By JohnThomas Didymus
June 18, 2012

(excerpts)

How much does the U.S. government forgo annually by not taxing religious
institutions? According to a report by University of Tampa Professor Ryan T.
Cragun and his students Stephanie Yearger and Desmond Vega, the government loses
$71.1 billion annually.

The article begins with reference to a photo showing the $1.75 million mansion
of the Reverend Randy White, the former head pastor of Without Walls
International Church in Tampa, Florida.

The writers say:

> "While some people may be bothered by
> the fact that there are pastors who live
> in multimillion dollar homes, this is old
> news to most. But here is what should bother
> you about these expensive homes: You are
> helping to pay for them! You pay for them
> indirectly, the same way local, state, and
> federal governments in the United States
> subsidize religion—to the tune of about $71
> billion every year."

According to tax authorities, tax law exempts religious groups and other
nonprofit organizations because of their charitable nature.

But this assumption has been called to question several times with reference to
extensive business and financial interests of many religious organizations.

Daily Kos expresses the concern about tax-exempt status of churches from the
perspective of their increasing involvement in politics as

> "something which used to be viewed as
> semi-prohibited in exchange for their
> exemption from taxation... They are too
> politically powerful for any politician
> to dare challenge... James Dobson's Focus
> on the Family passed more legislation in
> the Arizona legislature last year than any
> other interest group."

AP reports that Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an organization of
secularists, have twice challenged the parsonage allowance.

According to the authors,

> "Religions are quick to trumpet when they do
> charitable work. But they don't do as much
> charitable work as a lot of people think,
> and they spend a relatively small percentage
> of their overall revenue on such work. For
> instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church),
> which regularly trumpets its charitable donations,
> gave about $1 billion to charitable causes between
> 1985 and 2008. That may seem like a lot until you
> divide it by the twenty-three-year time span and
> realize this church is donating only about 0.7
> percent of its annual income."

Readers' Comments:

(1)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The article mentions the FFRF challenged the income tax free ministerial housing
benefit twice. In the first instance, the case was dismissed, without prejudice,
by mutal consent of the parties. The second case is still pending and the Court
could decide any day regarding the "standing" issue. If "standing" is granted,
the case would be allowed to proceed on its merits. Many tax and legal scholars
have noted the UNconstitutional characteristics of the law. Even Sentator
Grassley's recent investigation took note of this problem; though Grassley and
his investigators deferred taking any action.

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

Ray,

Actually, your scenario is "like" other such speculations about what might have
physically caused a recent, worldwide flood.

As I read your scenario, I was reminded of Velikovsky and the more recent
speculator Marion Fox (my former local preacher, Ph.D., and book writer on the
subject).

Ray, since you are asking about evidence, I am wondering where you came up with
your scenario and what, if any, evidence you might think there is to support the
scenario.

If there is no evidence to support the scenario you submitted, why should it be
given any serious consideration except for possibly an exercise in explaining
what was NOT the cause of the alleged, recent, worldwide flood?

Otherwise, Pi is more skilled in the science of such things.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ray Ausban wrote to Pi:

Thanks for the answer, now another scenerio.

This is hypothetical so follow along for a minute because I have two questions I
would like you critical thinkers to help me with.

Let us suppose for a moment that a few thousand years ago a rouge planet entered
our solar system.

This planet has a gravitation field twice that of the earth and brings with it a
substantial ring set which like Saturn are primarily made of ice.

As it enters the solar system it has a near collision with Uranus which alters
its axial tilt substantially.

This near miss alters the rouge planet's trajectory and brings it in close
contact with earth. This encounter with the earth is not a fly by, but the alien
planet actually moves in a sort of tandem with earth for a number of months.

The gravitation from the visitor would certainly have an effect on the earth's
crust as the moon only bigger and in competition with the moon. The stress on
the earth's crust would be great, causing the one large continent to break up
some what and sink below the waves.

With no land above sea level, the mountainous waves sweep the globe due to the
moon's orbit and earth quaking shifting sea floors. The ice rings striking the
earth's atmosphere melt down and condense to rain adding additional water to the
earth.

Continuing it's own course but being altered again by earth's gravity, the
tandem orbit of the visitor ends as it starts moving off towards deep space only
to have a collision with the planet that resides between Mars and Jupiter.

The collision is a direct hit and obliterates both planets forming the asteroid
belt.

Some of the remaining ice from the rings continues towards the outer reaches of
the solar system, but the sun's gravity eventually prevails and these ice chunks
becomes the deep space sun orbiting comets.

With the extra gravitational stresses removed from the earth, the land masses
rise again above the waves but they are in motion.

Now, if something like this happened, what evidence would remain on the earth?

Would we be able to detect the cause from the earth's geology?

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

The subject line of this thread is based on my repeated efforts to get Ken Ham,
or his AiG surrogate to work through the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise! - RLBaty

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/06/19/only-silence-from-a-p\
ro-evolution-church/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+\
KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

Only Silence from a Pro-evolution Church

By Ken Ham
June 19, 2012

Some of our readers will remember this church in Columbus, Ohio, and its
pro-evolution views—and how it received a Templeton Foundation grant to hold
talks on evolution and Christianity inside the church (and to reach students at
the nearby Ohio State University).

A supporter, Rob, in Columbus has contacted the church several times over the
months to suggest that an AiG scientist like Dr. Georgia Purdom speak at one of
the church's workshops.

http://ubccolumbus.org/Templeton_list.aspx

He did this because he noticed how the church website declares its hope that
"healthy discussions will occur around each topic, and that all will come away
from the workshops better informed about contemporary scientific issues that
intersect with our Christian faith."

Furthermore, the church website states the purpose of Templeton Foundation grant
"is to encourage conversations within congregations about issues that overlap
science and religion."

Yet Rob is being ignored—many times.

The people at the church and university community are thus not being "better
informed" because biblical creationists right now are apparently being excluded
from this series at the church.

Dr. Purdom, one of our scientists, is mentioned in The Columbus Dispatch article
about the church series.

Furthermore, Dr. Purdom earned her PhD in genetics at Ohio State, just a few
blocks from this church, and our AiG supporter in Columbus suggested that she be
a part of the church's series.

As you look at the church website ( http://ubccolumbus.org/ ), notice the
pro-evolution talks given by the senior pastor and an OSU biology professor
(i.e., on evolution and natural selection and on the "Language Development in
Apes").

So much for a church declaring that it is in favor of "encouraging discussion,"
"diversity," and "inclusiveness"!

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/romney-tells-christians-hell-back-israel-santo\
rum-praises-former-rival-76781/

(1)

From: davide12
Time/Date: 9:14 PM EDT on June 17, 2012

To Sergio Roa Prado -

Sergio, with all do respect, you teach what
you believe.

You just do not know the teachings of the
Mormon Church.

One of their strengths is keeping you in the
dark about their real theology.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952801

(2)

From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
Time/Date: 3:40 PM EDT on June 19, 2012

To davide12 -

I was a LDS Missionarie and Iam a Professor.

I know.

There are things and doctrines that not all
the persons are prepared to understand, your
case is the proof.

(3)

From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 3:49 PM EDT on June 19, 2012

Regarding Sergio Roa Prado who has been popping
in and popping out as if to evade engaging in
certain discussions regarding issues he has brought
up:

Last I checked, Sergio seemed to be at odds
with his church regarding what was an acceptable
name for members of his church.

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 4:35 PM EDT on June 03, 2012
>
> The first think to do is call the others in
> the correct way, we are not mormons, it is
> a nickname, we are member of The Church of
> Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, a respectfull
> way to call us is LDS, this will be a good
> comencement.

Sergio, have you figured out yet that it's OK
to call members of your church Mormons???

Regarding Sergio's claim that "he knows", I
am reminded of his following related claims:

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 6:45 PM on February 10, 2012
>
> My authority came from God who
> gave authority to Jesus, to Peter,...
> and finally to me.
>
> This is called authority line.

and this:

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 10:01 AM on February 17, 2012
>
> I win.
> I have authority.
> I have authority line, and
> you have not.

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-make-history-vote-for-first-\
black-president-76923/

Southern Baptists Make History; Vote for First Black President

By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
June 19, 2012

NEW ORLEANS – Southern Baptists made history on Tuesday by electing their first
African-American president. Some 7,700 messengers unanimously and
enthusiastically supported the vote for Fred Luter, Jr., to lead the
predominantly white denomination.

Luter was the sole nominee for president.

In such a situation, it is custom for the secretary to cast the ballot for the
one nominee.

However, the chair on this occasion believed that "this historic moment should
fully belong to the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention."

With that, the Southern Baptists rose in applause – with some in tears –
agreeing that the ballot should be cast for Luter.

Luter, 55, admitted that when he was first asked to lead an SBC church –
Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans – in 1986, he was not aware of the
history of the SBC.

If he knew, he said he might have taken a different path.

"As I look back I'm probably glad I didn't [know] because it may have changed my
decision," he told The Christian Post.

The former street preacher is excited – he's excited that his Southern Baptist
brothers and sisters respect what he has done through the years, like reviving a
dying church and rebuilding the congregation after Hurricane Katrina. And he's
excited that the nearly 16 million members trust him to lead the largest
Protestant denomination in the country.

He knows it's a big deal, considering he was just "a street kid from the Lower
Ninth Ward."

Luter isn't your typical Southern Baptist president. He grew up in "the hood" as
he calls it. His parents divorced when he was 6 years old and he raised himself
as his mom was busy working two to three jobs to support the family.

He hung out with a lot of "crazy dudes" as a teenager, he said. But everything
changed when he got saved in 1977.

Every Saturday at noon, he'd go on the street corner and preach. Part of his
motivation was to lead the "crazy dudes" to Christ.

"I really was excited about what God did in my life," he explained. "When you
first get saved, you feel like you can go to hell with a water pistol and just
do a drive-by. That's what I felt like."

Now, as he stands at the helm of the SBC, he's not looking at the past but
rather the future.

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/popular-atheist-blogger-announces-conversion-t\
o-catholicism-76905/

(1)

From: Miles Patrick
Time/Date: 6:44 PM EDT on June 19, 2012

To DisOpin -

She probably concluded that Catholicism is the right
decision since it is not a Denomination, it is
Pre-Denominational.

My priest at my church was an avowed atheist with a
PhD in History. He used a historical approach to find
the church of Christ which can be no other than the
Catholic Church.

He then concluded by logic; Jesus founded a Church,
Christ promised that church into All Truth, that it
would never fail, the gates of HeII would never over
come her and she has all His authority on earth to
bind and loose, only one church headed by the Apostle
Peter and his fellow Apostles were given this authority
by Christ, only one church can be this church and that
is the Catholic Church.

(2)

From: NonAnonymous
Time/Date: 8:00 PM EDT on June 19, 2012

To Miles Patrick -

You might want to talk to Sergio about that.
He's got a little different take on it.

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 6:45 PM on February 10, 2012
>
> My authority came from God who
> gave authority to Jesus,
> to Peter,
> to Joseph Smith,
> and finally to me.
>
> This is called authority line.

and this:

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 10:01 AM on February 17, 2012
>
> I win.
> I have authority.
> I have authority line, and
> you have not.

I'm not buying it, but apparently many do in one
form or another (e.g., Catholicism, Mormonism, etc.,
etc.).

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

Hi Ray,

My response to this will be brief.

First, the terminology is the same or similar to language already in the Bible.

Second, where it's different, there are two things going on: (1) Smith is, of
course, writing things in connection with certainly things he's made up in
regard to religious beliefs he was making up (which is what has gone into making
up some of the religious doctrines of Mormonism distinct from traditional
Christian doctrines; such as multiple gods, and multiple worlds created by God).
(2) Concerning our universe in particular, in fact, Immanuel Kant, as one quite
prominent example, talked about the concept of the universe being infinite and
about innumerable stars and planets before Smith was even born. Kant was
certainly not the only one. The "infinite steady-state universe" concept was
around in the 18th through 20th centuries. (It's still around, but has fallen
into serious disfavor in science.) This is *not* to say that astronomical
science of the time was caught up to dealing with the cosmological concepts,
because it just was not, since the necessary technology to actually
scientifically investigate these concepts didn't exist yet. It's merely to point
out the obvious historical fact that humans came up with these ideas, which
means this doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that Smith had to have got
the ideas from a god. The statement that Smith "was merely the first one to
claim it was literally true in describing the number of stars" is, simply,
factually wrong. The statement that "Joseph's vision of the universe was vast as
well as it was old and a fantasy compared to the science of his day" is
exaggerated hyperbole. While it's certainly true to point out that the general
concept was "fantasy" compared to what was actually known through astronomical
study at that time, it is quite wrong to pretend that the idea was not around,
since it was in fact exactly what the scientific speculation of his day was
(with Kant's discussion of the subject several decades earlier being a prime
example).

Third, the interpretation of "heavens" as "galaxies" is merely an example of
what I have called "retroactive interpretation" for many years. It is not based
on what the text actually says, but on taking ideas from modern science and
reading them into the text. If the text actually taught about galaxies, then
Mormons would have been teaching about galaxies before astronomers did. We know
that isn't the case.

Fourth, therefore, the argument that "statistical impossibility for him to have
guessed such things correctly" is simply illogical, unless you want to argue
that it was also statistically impossible for Kant, and all the other "natural
philosophers", who advocated the speculation of a vastly immense universe before
astronomical science caught up to actually be able to investigate the matter to
have guessed such things correctly.

Fifth, on another topic, you wrote, "...then plenty of transitional forms would
be found in the fossil record. Unfortunately, this prediction did not work out
so well."

Au contraire. That prediction has worked out fantastically. Including in regard
to human evolution.

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007)
by Donald Prothero
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0231139624

There are all sorts of prominent example of transitional fossils corresponding
to evolution. For example, there are the transitional ancestors of whales, the
transitional ancestors of horses, the transitional ancestors of the first
mammals (the mammal-like reptiles), the small dinosaurs with "primitive"
feathers who were the ancestors of birds, and the transitional ancestors of
amphibians, such as Tiktaalik roseae and Acanthostega gunnari.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think we can dismiss Joesph's view of the universe so easily. I should
have been more articulate previously. 
>  
> You are right that the terms "as the number of stars in heaven" or "the sands
of the sea" are used in the Bible as a figure of speech representing large
numbers of people. This in most of the texts represented millions of people,
except in one place referring to thousands of millions of people in the future.
The term was not applied to the stars themselves though the inference can be
made in a couple of places and in those places it is figurative for large
numbers.
>  
> Joseph was not an astronomer or scientist but a religionist. However, the
universe in 1830 was known to consist of a few planets and several million
stars.
> Joesph did not copy that phrase, "as the sands of the seas", he was merely the
first one to claim it was literally true in describing the number of
stars, based on the following from his Book of Moses work:
>  
> "And worlds without number have I created..."
> "And were it possible that a man could number the particles of the earth, yea,
millions of earth's like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy
creations..."
>  
> These statements in and of themselves called for a much larger universe than
what was known at the time.
>  
> "The heavens they are many and they cannot be numbered unto man..."
> "...Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth..."
>  
>   Anciently, the term "heaven" nearly always referred to that which is seen
in the sky from the earth, so to have 'many heavens' means something else. The
inference was clear "the heavens" are a different sets of stars and planets
than "this heaven" in the text; these many heavens being located some place
else.
>    Forty years after Joseph's death, multiple "heavens" were suspected to
exist in the 1880's as telescopes improved and was not confirmed until 1924.
Today, we call these star sets galaxies.
>  
>   Joseph's vision of the universe was vast as well as it was old and a
fantasy compared to the science of his day. The latter day saints were well
aware of the vastness of the universe before it was known and it's basic
construction of huge quantities of planets, stars and galaxies.
>  
> >>> This is supposed to prove what?
>
> I said Joseph's concept of the scope and age of the universe has been
vindicated and the other things he could not have known about makes it a
statistical impossibility for him to have guessed such things correctly.
>  
>    The reason I brought this up is to illustrate that if there is a correct
understanding of things, whether it be Astronomy, Geology, or in this case
God, then the discoveries which follow will reflect that understanding. For
example, Darwin predicted since evolution was an ongoing process, then plenty
of transitional forms would be found in the fossil record. Unfortunately, this
prediction did not work out so well. 
>    About ten years ago, I decided to collect newspaper clipping of all the
science stories. Nearly every headline read something like this: "Scientists
surprised at new discovery...", "Scientists scratch heads on this one...".
>  I've read plenty of articles that refer to the "mysteries of science". If
the subject matter is science (hard facts) then why are there so many mysteries
and surprises about it? And if most of these types of sciences are actually an
exploratory process, then why is it promoted as fact and taught that way in
schools? 
>  
>  
> I'm not being snarky, I'm asking serious questions.
>  
> - Ray
>  
>  
>                
> From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
> To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:53 PM
> Subject: [M & B] Re: What do you know about geology?
>
>
>  
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, "Ray" <rayausban@> wrote (post #27411):
> > Hey Todd,
> >
> > My claim was that the universe is old but that our earth
> > is a relatively speaking, recent development.
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> My bad. I didn't know that. (Or if I did, I've long since forgotten it, in
regard to Mormon belief.) I'll modify my discussion accordingly.
>
> > Just to clarify something, Joseph Smith, the earthly
> > founder of my church, was the first to record that the
> > heavens (plural implying galaxies before galaxies were
> > known) could not be numbered, that the age of the universe
> > were extremely old and that the stars in the heavens out
> > numbered the "sands of the seas". Besides this, the number
> > of 'lucky guesses' by Joseph is astonishing, actually
> > statistically impossible.
>
> I suppose that such language of metaphor like "as many descendants as the
stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore"
have never been used before in the history of mankind, especially not in the
Bible, and that that Joseph Smith did not intentionally copy a great deal of
material from the Bible and try to emulate a lot of the language.
>
> Or perhaps you should read, for example, Hebrews 11:12 in the New Testament,
which uses exactly that language.
>
> I think you can see why I reject such rhetorical arguments for religious
belief as you've presented here. They're apparently good enough for consumption
by people who already buy into the basic religious beliefs, but the eyes of
critical scrutiny see what is clearly erroneous. I certainly never buy arguments
based on retroactive interpretation of metaphorical language after the fact,
pretending it taught the latest scientific discoveries (alleging the revealed
knowledge from a vastly superior intelligence). I always find it amusing how God
apparently taught these things through such revealed knowledge supposedly
centuries or millenia before humans discovered them through science, yet somehow
no one actually knew it until *after* they were discovered through science.
>
> >> When the real world facts are contrary to faith, faith is
> >> wrong.
> >
> > The "real world facts" at the time Joseph recorded the
> > above were not real at all and time and research has
> > vindicated Joseph. So, needless to say, I do not fully
> > agree with your statement.
>
> What? Because he copied metaphorical language that had already been used in
the Bible almost two thousand years before? This is supposed to prove what?
>
> Bear in mind the context of our discussion: The Bible, and apparently the Book
of Mormon emulates this, teaches the religious myth of the creation of the earth
couched in the framework of a seven-day week (with the seventh day being the
"rest" from the work of creation) taking place around several thousand years ago
(e.g., the several millenia time frame background portrayed by Genesis chapters
1, 5, and 11). Yet in fact we know by studying the actual geology of the earth,
the geological features of the earth and the nature of the geological processes
that produce such features, that a 6,000 year time frame - or even a 100,000
year time frame - is completely wrong.
>
> I'll say it again: When the real world facts are contrary to faith, it is
faith that is wrong. It can never be the other way around, because of the nature
of the case. Indeed, to try to turn it around backward immediately involves one
in the obviously fallacious method of circular argument (a point I happen to
have discussed quite thoroughly at previous times right here in this discussion
group, in regard to the creationist and/or anti-atheist rhetoric of a preacher
named Terry Benton, among others). It is the real world facts that dictate
whether or not some particular empirically related idea we have is right or
wrong, and nothing else. How we feel about it, for whatever reason, including
the reason called "religious faith", is utterly irrelevant. Reality is
determined by reality itself, and our personal feelings are irrelevant.
>
> > I think because of theoretical physics and serious
> > difficulties in geology and dating methods that it is
> > sheer arrogance on the part of science to believe we know
> > 'every thing' that we think we know about the past to be a
> > fact. I'll explain more on this later.
>
> First of all, scientists do not believe or say that "we know everything that
we think we know about the past to be a fact". That's simply not how science
works. For example right now there's this idea that there was a major asteroidal
impact on the earth about 65 million years ago, which created the worldwide
iridium layer at that geological level, and which was the major factor in the
extinction of all dinosaurs (with the exception of some of the ones that were
evolved into what we call birds, which are, in effect, the only kind of dinosaur
still around; note that feathers had evolved with dinosaurs before there were
any birds around).
>
> The iridium layer about 65 million years ago is the fact known with a high
degree of certainty based on the results of numerous geological studies. There's
a very large crater that's still around, under the water in the Gulf of Mexico
just north of the Yucatan peninsula, that is strongly suspected to be the
"smoking gun" of the asteroid impact, but that's lower on the scale of
certainty/doubtfulness than the 65 million year old iridium layer. In this
context there's also the related geological facts about relatively massive level
of volcanic activity during the same time frame, known as the "Deccan Traps".
>
> Deccan Traps
> (Wikipedia entry, 6/15/2012)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
>
> | The Deccan Traps are a large igneous province located on
> | the Deccan Plateau of west-central India...and one of the
> | largest volcanic features on Earth. They consist of
> | multiple layers of solidified flood basalt that together
> | are more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick and cover an area
> | of 500,000 km^2 (193,051 sq mi) and a volume of 512,000
> | km^3 (123,000 cu mi). The term "trap", used in geology for
> | such rock formations, is derived from the Swedish word for
> | stairs and refers to the step-like hills forming the
> | landscape of the region.
>
> | The Deccan Traps formed between 60 and 68 million years
> | ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period. The bulk of the
> | volcanic eruption occurred at the Western Ghats (near
> | Mumbai) some 65 million years ago. This series of
> | eruptions may have lasted less than 30,000 years in total.
> |
> | The original area covered by the lava flows is estimated
> | to have been as large as 1.5 million km^2, approximately
> | half the size of modern India. The Deccan Traps region was
> | reduced to its current size by erosion and plate
> | tectonics....
>
> And so on. My point is that there are a "gradation" of ideas used in science
from the quite certain, to hypothetical, to merely speculative. It is absolutely
wrong to pretend that this kind of gradation doesn't exist, or to pretend that
it's all just hypothetical, all just to try to sweep all the geological facts
that contradict young earth creationism under the rug using a mere rhetorical
maneuver.
>
> Indeed, for those who actually do know something about geological science, we
observe creationist rhetoric like "sheer arrogance on the part of science" to
itself be demonstrative of sheer arrogance on the part of young earth
creationists.
>
> >> Incidentally, there is no "theory of uniformity".
> >
> > Do you mean the theory of uniformity is no longer accepted
> > by the scientific community or that you have never heard
> > of it?
>
> My bad. I should have been (much) clearer. The "theory of uniformitarianism"
was previously and also called the "the theory of uniformity of causes", which
is actually a good description of it. (I actually didn't know that the
terminology "theory of uniformity of causes" was an alternative form of "theory
of uniformitarianism". Thanks for the heads up.) The concept is that what we
observe about the results of physics and chemistry as we examine them can be
applied to the features of the past that we look at. In other words, for
example, we can examine the physical features of the landscape produced by a
hurricane today, and apply that information to what we observe in the geologic
record when we happen to observe the same kinds of features. Of course, it
doesn't just apply to broad features, but also to the details of physics and
chemistry, such that we use what we know (and continue to learn through further
research) to understand details about what is
>  observed in the fossil record. (For example, what are the conditions of
pressure and temperature, for various kinds of rocks of different mineral
constituents, that cause them to bend rather than break or shatter?)
>
> Every time creationists argue in opposition to the theory of uniformitarianism
(as it is actually used in science) they demonstrate two things: (1) Their
tendency to misrepresent matters, when for example they straw-man the concept of
uniformitarianism as being the idea that the antiquity of the earth in geology
is merely based on the assumption that processes always occur at the same rate;
and (2) their denial of the facts of science precisely because they know that
their ideas cannot stand up to the scientific facts we know from physics,
chemistry, and so on (even while they like to use the rhetorical argument of
falsely pretending that it's not the facts they deny but merely certain
interpretations of those facts).
>
> It is for the first reason that I have stated "there is no 'theory of
uniformity'", because there is no such thing as "the theory of uniformity" as
young earth creationists typically portray it. At the same time, there certainly
is "the theory of uniformity of causes" as it is used in science, also called
"actualism" (as I believe Charles Weston just pointed out a couple days ago).
Note in particular, for example, that there is nothing about "the theory of
uniformity of causes", or "actualism", that is contrary to serious planet-wide
catastrophes, such as caused by asteroid impact, or to regional catastrophes,
such as massive flooding caused in what is now the northwest U.S. by the melting
of ice dams toward the end of the last ice age, known as the Lake Missoula
floods. There is nothing about uniformitarianism that is contrary to the rates
of geological processes changing dynamically, even quite radically at times, due
to the particular circumstances in
>  which the laws of physics and chemistry play out.
>
> The whole straw man of the misrepresentation of uniformitarianism by
creationists is used to falsely pretend that geologists merely deny the notion
of Noah's Flood (a global flood wiping out all mankind except for people on the
ark) a few thousand years ago because of an "assumption" of uniformitarianism
that causes them to deny such a massive catastrophe. But denying massive
catastrophes has nothing to do with it. Geologists deny it simply because the
facts about the geological features of the earth don't sustantiate the idea
(i.e., Noah's Flood doesn't have scientific evidence to support it; it's just a
religious myth propagated in a religious book).
>
> > Actually, I find your post about your church experience
> > very interesting.
> >
> > You were very active and believing but turned from it.
> > Please, let me ask, did you ever pray and did you ever
> > feel the witness of the Holy Ghost?
> >
> > Sincerely, Ray
>
> Of course I prayed.
>
> In regard to "the witness of the Holy Ghost" I would make the point that I do
find the so-called "witness of the Holy Ghost" to be merely a piece of
metaphorical religion-based rhetoric that a lot of religious people use in
reference to their own personal feelings and thoughts, making themselves believe
that those feelings and thoughts come from God - which doesn't of course change
the fact that they are simply their own feelings and thoughts. We only witness
the fact of religious people doing this all the time. (Note that in Church of
Christ theology, the Bible, as the revelation of God, is "the witness of the
Holy Spirit". Ironically, Church of Christ members are just as skeptical as the
atheist concerning modern day claims of miracles, revelations, speaking in
tongues from God, faith healing, and the like. There are more details of that
aspect of Church of Christ theology, obviously, such as concerning the
"apostolic period" and so on, but I really
>  don't feel like taking the time to get into it right now since it isn't
relevant. Perhaps you can discuss that with Robert Baty, should you be
interested. I believe it's actually an aspect of Church of Christ theology he's
familiar with discussing.)
>
> Now let me back up for a minute. It's also necessary for me to point out that
people who have little to no familiarity with the science of geology are
incapable of know what geologists know and don't know, and have no basis on
which to be able to determine how well established or not well established any
particular conclusion of geological research is. So, quite honestly, such a
statement as "it is sheer arrogance on the part of science to believe we know
'every thing' that we think we know about the past to be a fact' is not only
completely meaningless - since it's not based on anything other than pure
personal conjecture - and in fact it's a bit hypocritical to cast the arrogance
on the scientists when it is in fact people who make such statements without
really knowing what they're talking about in the first place (since they don't
really know anything about the actual science, but are merely attacking it
however they see fit because of their beliefs
>  in their particular religious doctrines) who are displaying the arrogance
they criticize.
>
> You do see this, don't you?
>
> To me, this point is transparently obvious. It's one of the reasons that I not
only rejected young earth creationism in the first place but also realized how
an awful lot of the anti-science rhetoric of the creationists has a corrupt
nature (because they so often portray those they attack as possessing nefarious
attitudes that instead are rife in the creationist mindset).
>
> Well, enough said for now. Have a good weekend.
>
> - Todd Greene
>

I was trying to be brief, but I think I was a little too brief. I should stated
the specific reference in my reference to Kant...

he Universal Natural History and Theory of Heaven (1755)
by Immanuel Kant
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/kant/kant2e.htm

Three example excerpts:

| The theory which we have proposed opens up for us a view of
| the infinite field of creation and offers an idea of the
| work of God appropriate to the infinite nature of the Great
| Master Builder. If the size of a planetary system in which
| the Earth is hardly seen as a grain of sand fills the
| understanding with astonishment, how delightfully astounded
| we will be when we examine the infinite crowd of worlds and
| systems which fill the totality of the Milky Way. But how
| much greater this wonder when we know that all these
| immeasurable arrangements of stars once again create a
| numbered unity, whose end we do not know and which is
| perhaps, like the previous one, inconceivably large and yet,
| once again, only a unit in a new numbered system. We see the
| first links of a progressive relationship of worlds and
| systems, and the first part of this unending progression
| already allows us to recognize what we are to assume about
| the totality. Here there is no end, but an abyss of a true
| infinity, in which all capacity of human thought sinks, even
| when it is uplifted with the help of mathematics. The wisdom,
| goodness, and power which has revealed itself is limitless
| and, to exactly the same extent, fruitful and busy. The plan
| of its revelation must, therefore, be, just like it, infinite
| and without borders.

| He, who through vast immensity can pierce,
| See worlds on worlds compose one universe,
| Observe how system into system runs,
| What other planets circle other suns,
| What varied Being peoples every star,
| May tell why Heaven has made us as we are.
[Kant is actually quoting the poet Alexander Pope here.]

| Given the richness of nature, where worlds and systems are
| only sunny dust specks compared to the totality of creation,
| there could, in fact, also be deserted and uninhabited
| regions without the slightest function in nature's purpose,
| namely, the contemplation by sensible beings. It would be
| conceded, even if one wished to consider things on the basis
| of God's wisdom, that sandy and uninhabited deserts make up
| large stretches of the earth's surface and that there are in
| the earth's oceans abandoned islands where no human being is
| found. Meanwhile, a planet is far less in relation to the
| totality of creation than is a desert or an island in
| relation to the earth's surface.
|
| Perhaps all the celestial bodies have not yet completely
| developed. Hundreds and maybe thousands of years are
| necessary for a large celestial body to reach a stable
| material condition. Jupiter still appears to be in this
| state of disharmony. The remarkable changes in its form at
| different times have already led astronomers for a long
| time to assume that the planet must be experiencing large
| upheavals and is a long way from having a calm outer
| surface, a condition which must pertain for a planet to be
| inhabited. If Jupiter is uninhabited and even if it is never
| to have any inhabitants, would that not be an infinitely
| small natural expenditure compared to the immeasurable size
| of the total creation?

By the way, notice how Kant got the time scale very wrong - just like Joseph
Smith did, apparently. Anyway, I think you can see - quite obviously - why it's
just absurdly wrong to say that Joseph Smith was the first guy to ever say
things like this. He just wasn't, not by a long shot.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> My response to this will be brief.
>
> First, the terminology is the same or similar to language already in the
Bible.
>
> Second, where it's different, there are two things going on: (1) Smith is, of
course, writing things in connection with certainly things he's made up in
regard to religious beliefs he was making up (which is what has gone into making
up some of the religious doctrines of Mormonism distinct from traditional
Christian doctrines; such as multiple gods, and multiple worlds created by God).
(2) Concerning our universe in particular, in fact, Immanuel Kant, as one quite
prominent example, talked about the concept of the universe being infinite and
about innumerable stars and planets before Smith was even born. Kant was
certainly not the only one. The "infinite steady-state universe" concept was
around in the 18th through 20th centuries. (It's still around, but has fallen
into serious disfavor in science.) This is *not* to say that astronomical
science of the time was caught up to dealing with the cosmological concepts,
because it just was not, since the necessary technology to actually
scientifically investigate these concepts didn't exist yet. It's merely to point
out the obvious historical fact that humans came up with these ideas, which
means this doesn't constitute any kind of evidence that Smith had to have got
the ideas from a god. The statement that Smith "was merely the first one to
claim it was literally true in describing the number of stars" is, simply,
factually wrong. The statement that "Joseph's vision of the universe was vast as
well as it was old and a fantasy compared to the science of his day" is
exaggerated hyperbole. While it's certainly true to point out that the general
concept was "fantasy" compared to what was actually known through astronomical
study at that time, it is quite wrong to pretend that the idea was not around,
since it was in fact exactly what the scientific speculation of his day was
(with Kant's discussion of the subject several decades earlier being a prime
example).
>
> Third, the interpretation of "heavens" as "galaxies" is merely an example of
what I have called "retroactive interpretation" for many years. It is not based
on what the text actually says, but on taking ideas from modern science and
reading them into the text. If the text actually taught about galaxies, then
Mormons would have been teaching about galaxies before astronomers did. We know
that isn't the case.
>
> Fourth, therefore, the argument that "statistical impossibility for him to
have guessed such things correctly" is simply illogical, unless you want to
argue that it was also statistically impossible for Kant, and all the other
"natural philosophers", who advocated the speculation of a vastly immense
universe before astronomical science caught up to actually be able to
investigate the matter to have guessed such things correctly.
>
> Fifth, on another topic, you wrote, "...then plenty of transitional forms
would be found in the fossil record. Unfortunately, this prediction did not work
out so well."
>
> Au contraire. That prediction has worked out fantastically. Including in
regard to human evolution.
>
> Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007)
> by Donald Prothero
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0231139624
>
> There are all sorts of prominent example of transitional fossils corresponding
to evolution. For example, there are the transitional ancestors of whales, the
transitional ancestors of horses, the transitional ancestors of the first
mammals (the mammal-like reptiles), the small dinosaurs with "primitive"
feathers who were the ancestors of birds, and the transitional ancestors of
amphibians, such as Tiktaalik roseae and Acanthostega gunnari.
>
> - Todd Greene
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we can dismiss Joesph's view of the universe so easily. I
should have been more articulate previously. 
> >  
> > You are right that the terms "as the number of stars in heaven" or "the
sands of the sea" are used in the Bible as a figure of speech representing large
numbers of people. This in most of the texts represented millions of people,
except in one place referring to thousands of millions of people in the future.
The term was not applied to the stars themselves though the inference can be
made in a couple of places and in those places it is figurative for large
numbers.
> >  
> > Joseph was not an astronomer or scientist but a religionist. However, the
universe in 1830 was known to consist of a few planets and several million
stars.
> > Joesph did not copy that phrase, "as the sands of the seas", he was merely
the first one to claim it was literally true in describing the number of
stars, based on the following from his Book of Moses work:
> >  
> > "And worlds without number have I created..."
> > "And were it possible that a man could number the particles of the earth,
yea, millions of earth's like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of
thy creations..."
> >  
> > These statements in and of themselves called for a much larger universe than
what was known at the time.
> >  
> > "The heavens they are many and they cannot be numbered unto man..."
> > "...Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth..."
> >  
> >   Anciently, the term "heaven" nearly always referred to that which is seen
in the sky from the earth, so to have 'many heavens' means something else. The
inference was clear "the heavens" are a different sets of stars and planets
than "this heaven" in the text; these many heavens being located some place
else.
> >    Forty years after Joseph's death, multiple "heavens" were suspected to
exist in the 1880's as telescopes improved and was not confirmed until 1924.
Today, we call these star sets galaxies.
> >  
> >   Joseph's vision of the universe was vast as well as it was old and a
fantasy compared to the science of his day. The latter day saints were well
aware of the vastness of the universe before it was known and it's basic
construction of huge quantities of planets, stars and galaxies.
> >  
> > >>> This is supposed to prove what?
> >
> > I said Joseph's concept of the scope and age of the universe has been
vindicated and the other things he could not have known about makes it a
statistical impossibility for him to have guessed such things correctly.
> >  
> >    The reason I brought this up is to illustrate that if there is a
correct understanding of things, whether it be Astronomy, Geology, or in this
case God, then the discoveries which follow will reflect that understanding.
For example, Darwin predicted since evolution was an ongoing process, then
plenty of transitional forms would be found in the fossil record. Unfortunately,
this prediction did not work out so well. 
> >    About ten years ago, I decided to collect newspaper clipping of all the
science stories. Nearly every headline read something like this: "Scientists
surprised at new discovery...", "Scientists scratch heads on this one...".
> >  I've read plenty of articles that refer to the "mysteries of science". If
the subject matter is science (hard facts) then why are there so many mysteries
and surprises about it? And if most of these types of sciences are actually an
exploratory process, then why is it promoted as fact and taught that way in
schools? 
> >  
> >  
> > I'm not being snarky, I'm asking serious questions.
> >  
> > - Ray
> >  
> >  
> >                
> > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@>
> > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:53 PM
> > Subject: [M & B] Re: What do you know about geology?
> >
> >
> >  
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty, "Ray" <rayausban@> wrote (post #27411):
> > > Hey Todd,
> > >
> > > My claim was that the universe is old but that our earth
> > > is a relatively speaking, recent development.
> >
> > Hi Ray,
> >
> > My bad. I didn't know that. (Or if I did, I've long since forgotten it, in
regard to Mormon belief.) I'll modify my discussion accordingly.
> >
> > > Just to clarify something, Joseph Smith, the earthly
> > > founder of my church, was the first to record that the
> > > heavens (plural implying galaxies before galaxies were
> > > known) could not be numbered, that the age of the universe
> > > were extremely old and that the stars in the heavens out
> > > numbered the "sands of the seas". Besides this, the number
> > > of 'lucky guesses' by Joseph is astonishing, actually
> > > statistically impossible.
> >
> > I suppose that such language of metaphor like "as many descendants as the
stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore"
have never been used before in the history of mankind, especially not in the
Bible, and that that Joseph Smith did not intentionally copy a great deal of
material from the Bible and try to emulate a lot of the language.
> >
> > Or perhaps you should read, for example, Hebrews 11:12 in the New Testament,
which uses exactly that language.
> >
> > I think you can see why I reject such rhetorical arguments for religious
belief as you've presented here. They're apparently good enough for consumption
by people who already buy into the basic religious beliefs, but the eyes of
critical scrutiny see what is clearly erroneous. I certainly never buy arguments
based on retroactive interpretation of metaphorical language after the fact,
pretending it taught the latest scientific discoveries (alleging the revealed
knowledge from a vastly superior intelligence). I always find it amusing how God
apparently taught these things through such revealed knowledge supposedly
centuries or millenia before humans discovered them through science, yet somehow
no one actually knew it until *after* they were discovered through science.
> >
> > >> When the real world facts are contrary to faith, faith is
> > >> wrong.
> > >
> > > The "real world facts" at the time Joseph recorded the
> > > above were not real at all and time and research has
> > > vindicated Joseph. So, needless to say, I do not fully
> > > agree with your statement.
> >
> > What? Because he copied metaphorical language that had already been used in
the Bible almost two thousand years before? This is supposed to prove what?
> >
> > Bear in mind the context of our discussion: The Bible, and apparently the
Book of Mormon emulates this, teaches the religious myth of the creation of the
earth couched in the framework of a seven-day week (with the seventh day being
the "rest" from the work of creation) taking place around several thousand years
ago (e.g., the several millenia time frame background portrayed by Genesis
chapters 1, 5, and 11). Yet in fact we know by studying the actual geology of
the earth, the geological features of the earth and the nature of the geological
processes that produce such features, that a 6,000 year time frame - or even a
100,000 year time frame - is completely wrong.
> >
> > I'll say it again: When the real world facts are contrary to faith, it is
faith that is wrong. It can never be the other way around, because of the nature
of the case. Indeed, to try to turn it around backward immediately involves one
in the obviously fallacious method of circular argument (a point I happen to
have discussed quite thoroughly at previous times right here in this discussion
group, in regard to the creationist and/or anti-atheist rhetoric of a preacher
named Terry Benton, among others). It is the real world facts that dictate
whether or not some particular empirically related idea we have is right or
wrong, and nothing else. How we feel about it, for whatever reason, including
the reason called "religious faith", is utterly irrelevant. Reality is
determined by reality itself, and our personal feelings are irrelevant.
> >
> > > I think because of theoretical physics and serious
> > > difficulties in geology and dating methods that it is
> > > sheer arrogance on the part of science to believe we know
> > > 'every thing' that we think we know about the past to be a
> > > fact. I'll explain more on this later.
> >
> > First of all, scientists do not believe or say that "we know everything that
we think we know about the past to be a fact". That's simply not how science
works. For example right now there's this idea that there was a major asteroidal
impact on the earth about 65 million years ago, which created the worldwide
iridium layer at that geological level, and which was the major factor in the
extinction of all dinosaurs (with the exception of some of the ones that were
evolved into what we call birds, which are, in effect, the only kind of dinosaur
still around; note that feathers had evolved with dinosaurs before there were
any birds around).
> >
> > The iridium layer about 65 million years ago is the fact known with a high
degree of certainty based on the results of numerous geological studies. There's
a very large crater that's still around, under the water in the Gulf of Mexico
just north of the Yucatan peninsula, that is strongly suspected to be the
"smoking gun" of the asteroid impact, but that's lower on the scale of
certainty/doubtfulness than the 65 million year old iridium layer. In this
context there's also the related geological facts about relatively massive level
of volcanic activity during the same time frame, known as the "Deccan Traps".
> >
> > Deccan Traps
> > (Wikipedia entry, 6/15/2012)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
> >
> > | The Deccan Traps are a large igneous province located on
> > | the Deccan Plateau of west-central India...and one of the
> > | largest volcanic features on Earth. They consist of
> > | multiple layers of solidified flood basalt that together
> > | are more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick and cover an area
> > | of 500,000 km^2 (193,051 sq mi) and a volume of 512,000
> > | km^3 (123,000 cu mi). The term "trap", used in geology for
> > | such rock formations, is derived from the Swedish word for
> > | stairs and refers to the step-like hills forming the
> > | landscape of the region.
> >
> > | The Deccan Traps formed between 60 and 68 million years
> > | ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period. The bulk of the
> > | volcanic eruption occurred at the Western Ghats (near
> > | Mumbai) some 65 million years ago. This series of
> > | eruptions may have lasted less than 30,000 years in total.
> > |
> > | The original area covered by the lava flows is estimated
> > | to have been as large as 1.5 million km^2, approximately
> > | half the size of modern India. The Deccan Traps region was
> > | reduced to its current size by erosion and plate
> > | tectonics....
> >
> > And so on. My point is that there are a "gradation" of ideas used in science
from the quite certain, to hypothetical, to merely speculative. It is absolutely
wrong to pretend that this kind of gradation doesn't exist, or to pretend that
it's all just hypothetical, all just to try to sweep all the geological facts
that contradict young earth creationism under the rug using a mere rhetorical
maneuver.
> >
> > Indeed, for those who actually do know something about geological science,
we observe creationist rhetoric like "sheer arrogance on the part of science" to
itself be demonstrative of sheer arrogance on the part of young earth
creationists.
> >
> > >> Incidentally, there is no "theory of uniformity".
> > >
> > > Do you mean the theory of uniformity is no longer accepted
> > > by the scientific community or that you have never heard
> > > of it?
> >
> > My bad. I should have been (much) clearer. The "theory of uniformitarianism"
was previously and also called the "the theory of uniformity of causes", which
is actually a good description of it. (I actually didn't know that the
terminology "theory of uniformity of causes" was an alternative form of "theory
of uniformitarianism". Thanks for the heads up.) The concept is that what we
observe about the results of physics and chemistry as we examine them can be
applied to the features of the past that we look at. In other words, for
example, we can examine the physical features of the landscape produced by a
hurricane today, and apply that information to what we observe in the geologic
record when we happen to observe the same kinds of features. Of course, it
doesn't just apply to broad features, but also to the details of physics and
chemistry, such that we use what we know (and continue to learn through further
research) to understand details about what is
> >  observed in the fossil record. (For example, what are the conditions of
pressure and temperature, for various kinds of rocks of different mineral
constituents, that cause them to bend rather than break or shatter?)
> >
> > Every time creationists argue in opposition to the theory of
uniformitarianism (as it is actually used in science) they demonstrate two
things: (1) Their tendency to misrepresent matters, when for example they
straw-man the concept of uniformitarianism as being the idea that the antiquity
of the earth in geology is merely based on the assumption that processes always
occur at the same rate; and (2) their denial of the facts of science precisely
because they know that their ideas cannot stand up to the scientific facts we
know from physics, chemistry, and so on (even while they like to use the
rhetorical argument of falsely pretending that it's not the facts they deny but
merely certain interpretations of those facts).
> >
> > It is for the first reason that I have stated "there is no 'theory of
uniformity'", because there is no such thing as "the theory of uniformity" as
young earth creationists typically portray it. At the same time, there certainly
is "the theory of uniformity of causes" as it is used in science, also called
"actualism" (as I believe Charles Weston just pointed out a couple days ago).
Note in particular, for example, that there is nothing about "the theory of
uniformity of causes", or "actualism", that is contrary to serious planet-wide
catastrophes, such as caused by asteroid impact, or to regional catastrophes,
such as massive flooding caused in what is now the northwest U.S. by the melting
of ice dams toward the end of the last ice age, known as the Lake Missoula
floods. There is nothing about uniformitarianism that is contrary to the rates
of geological processes changing dynamically, even quite radically at times, due
to the particular circumstances in
> >  which the laws of physics and chemistry play out.
> >
> > The whole straw man of the misrepresentation of uniformitarianism by
creationists is used to falsely pretend that geologists merely deny the notion
of Noah's Flood (a global flood wiping out all mankind except for people on the
ark) a few thousand years ago because of an "assumption" of uniformitarianism
that causes them to deny such a massive catastrophe. But denying massive
catastrophes has nothing to do with it. Geologists deny it simply because the
facts about the geological features of the earth don't sustantiate the idea
(i.e., Noah's Flood doesn't have scientific evidence to support it; it's just a
religious myth propagated in a religious book).
> >
> > > Actually, I find your post about your church experience
> > > very interesting.
> > >
> > > You were very active and believing but turned from it.
> > > Please, let me ask, did you ever pray and did you ever
> > > feel the witness of the Holy Ghost?
> > >
> > > Sincerely, Ray
> >
> > Of course I prayed.
> >
> > In regard to "the witness of the Holy Ghost" I would make the point that I
do find the so-called "witness of the Holy Ghost" to be merely a piece of
metaphorical religion-based rhetoric that a lot of religious people use in
reference to their own personal feelings and thoughts, making themselves believe
that those feelings and thoughts come from God - which doesn't of course change
the fact that they are simply their own feelings and thoughts. We only witness
the fact of religious people doing this all the time. (Note that in Church of
Christ theology, the Bible, as the revelation of God, is "the witness of the
Holy Spirit". Ironically, Church of Christ members are just as skeptical as the
atheist concerning modern day claims of miracles, revelations, speaking in
tongues from God, faith healing, and the like. There are more details of that
aspect of Church of Christ theology, obviously, such as concerning the
"apostolic period" and so on, but I really
> >  don't feel like taking the time to get into it right now since it isn't
relevant. Perhaps you can discuss that with Robert Baty, should you be
interested. I believe it's actually an aspect of Church of Christ theology he's
familiar with discussing.)
> >
> > Now let me back up for a minute. It's also necessary for me to point out
that people who have little to no familiarity with the science of geology are
incapable of know what geologists know and don't know, and have no basis on
which to be able to determine how well established or not well established any
particular conclusion of geological research is. So, quite honestly, such a
statement as "it is sheer arrogance on the part of science to believe we know
'every thing' that we think we know about the past to be a fact' is not only
completely meaningless - since it's not based on anything other than pure
personal conjecture - and in fact it's a bit hypocritical to cast the arrogance
on the scientists when it is in fact people who make such statements without
really knowing what they're talking about in the first place (since they don't
really know anything about the actual science, but are merely attacking it
however they see fit because of their beliefs
> >  in their particular religious doctrines) who are displaying the arrogance
they criticize.
> >
> > You do see this, don't you?
> >
> > To me, this point is transparently obvious. It's one of the reasons that I
not only rejected young earth creationism in the first place but also realized
how an awful lot of the anti-science rhetoric of the creationists has a corrupt
nature (because they so often portray those they attack as possessing nefarious
attitudes that instead are rife in the creationist mindset).
> >
> > Well, enough said for now. Have a good weekend.
> >
> > - Todd Greene
> >
>

160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically
modern humans
by Robert Sanders
(Univ. of California at Berkeley, June 11, 2003)
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

Excerpt:

| The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered
| in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at
| 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of
| modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27454
Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

> The scenario I suggested...

Ray,

Are you proposing that "scenario" is of your own making?

If not, where did you come up with it?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/06/22/feedback-old-earth-god

Feedback: The God of an Old Earth

by Troy Lacey and
Tim Chaffey
June 22, 2012

> On his blog in 2010, Ken Ham writes,
>
>> "old earthers and young earthers
>> can agree in regard to the message
>> of salvation, as this blogger and I
>> do."
>
> He also states,
>
>> ". . .I do not say, and have never
>> said, that a person has to believe
>> in a young earth to be a Christian.
>> Salvation is conditioned upon faith
>> in Christ, not what one believes
>> about the age of the earth. I have
>> stated this clearly many times over
>> the years. But sadly, I still read
>> those who falsely claim we at AiG
>> tie salvation to the age of the earth."
>
> Yet in his '07 article "Couldn't God Have Used
> Evolution" Mr Ham writes,
>
>> "the god of an old earth destroys
>> the gospel."
>
> And also,
>
>> "the god of an old earth cannot
>> therefore be the God of the bible
>> who is able to save us from sin
>> and death."
>
> No wonder people make the claim that you tie
> salvation to YE. Please explain. I believe
> you should remove one of these two articles.
> You cannot say both remain credible.
>
> I'm a YE Pastor but my Sr. Pastor recoils at your
> vitriolic speech.
>
> – T. B.

Hi, T. B., thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.

In these comments Ken is discussing two different things, so there is no
contradiction. One can say both things and remain credible.

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that John Doe is saved and believes
salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I can call him a brother in Christ because we are both claiming salvation
through Christ's death, burial, and Resurrection. However, let's also assume
that John Doe is a theistic evolutionist and believes that mankind was not
created but evolved. Although he is still a Christian, his belief is
inconsistent, and I would have to reject certain aspects in his view of God.

Why?

Because the God revealed in Scripture created a perfect world, a world with no
death, suffering, or disease.

Yet to believe that He used evolution is to deny what God says He did in
creating everything in six normal-length days.

It also denies that He created a perfect universe, perfect world, and a perfect
first man and woman (who was made from the man).

Genesis 1:31 states that everything God made was ""very good"." Since 1
Corinthians 15:26 calls death the ""last enemy"" that will be destroyed, how
could we possibly think that God called death very good? Why did Jesus (who is
the same yesterday, today, and forever according to Hebrews 13:8) heal the sick
and raise the dead if sicknesses and death are very good?

If God used evolution, then it logically follows that death and disease were His
doing rather than ours, and Jesus would have been sent to cover God's mistakes.

That is, if the Lord gave the first spark of energy and life to the universe,
and then let it run amok, He would have sent His Son to atone for His own
mistakes.

This is not an accurate description of the God of the Bible.

The statements from Ken that you cited are not contradictory; they just require
the proper context.

While old-earth creationists may believe the gospel, they unwittingly ascribe
false attributes to God and thus essentially attack God's character.

Most old-earth creationists either do not recognize this truth or have chosen to
ignore the dichotomy their belief creates.

Also, theistic evolutionists generally accept the big bang theory, which creates
additional problems.

Many have confused the issue here by claiming that we say old-earth Christians
are not really saved.

In another recent feedback email, we were accused of being mean-spirited when we
point out the dangers inherent in old-earth teachings and when we attempt to
correct our brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, we have repeatedly stated that we do not question the faith of
old-earth creationists, and that many of them have done great things for the
Lord.

Our criticism of these brothers and sisters in Christ relates to how they handle
Genesis 1–11 and some related passages.

We believe they are allowing the ever-changing opinions of man override the
clear teaching of Scripture in this area, and this sets a very dangerous
precedent for other areas of Scripture—including the gospel itself.

For example, the majority of scientists believe in billions of years, so we are
pressured to find some way to make Genesis accommodate such a belief. But the
majority of scientists also reject Christ's Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

To be consistent, should old-earthers call for the reinterpretation of these
teachings?

Praise God that they do not, but they are being inconsistent in their
hermeneutic (interpretation).

In some ways, the Christian who believes in billions of years is like some of
the kings of Judah, such as Asa and his son Jehoshaphat.

Here is what Scripture has to say about these men.

> Asa did what was right in the eyes of the
> Lord, as did his father David. And he
> banished the perverted persons from the land,
> and removed all the idols that his fathers had
> made . . . but the high places were not removed.
> Nevertheless Asa's heart was loyal to the Lord
> all his days. (1 Kings 15:11–14)

> Jehoshaphat the son of Asa . . . walked in all
> the ways of his father Asa. He did not turn
> aside from them, doing what was right in the
> eyes of the Lord. Nevertheless the high places
> were not taken away, for the people offered
> sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.
> (1 Kings 22:41–43)

Both of these men were said to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord.
However, they both failed in one area—they did not remove the ""high places"."
These were sites on hills and mountains where some of the people worshiped false
gods (2 Kings 17:11–16) and others attempted to worship the true God in a wrong
manner (2 Kings 17:32; 2 Chronicles 33:17). Even godly men and women can be in
serious error.

The Apostle Peter seriously compromised the gospel message though his actions by
siding with the Judaizers—those who tried to add circumcision and works of the
law to the gospel. Paul had to confront Peter face-to-face in the presence of
other believers to correct this serious error (Galatians 2:11–16).

Sadly, too many people in the church today look at Paul's actions as unloving
and harsh, yet what Paul did was necessary for the sake of the gospel.

Furthermore, it was actually a very loving action.

Paul demonstrated a deep love for the truth of God's Word, as well as a love for
his brother Peter. His actions also displayed a love for the church, since he
cared enough about God's people to not allow them to be led astray.

Consider the final words of the book of James. ""Brethren, if anyone among you
wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who
turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a
multitude of sins"" (James 5:19–20). Of course, this must be handled with
gentleness and respect. Paul wrote, ""Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any
trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness,
considering yourself lest you also be tempted"" (Galatians 6:1).

Our goal in pointing out the error of old-earth creationism is driven by a love
for Christ's church. We do not want to see them led into a serious error, and we
desire to see our brothers and sisters remove the "high places" of old-earth
beliefs. Still, we realize we are sinful and fallible.

If our actions are ever motivated by our own pride instead of love for God and
for fellow believers, then we would be in the wrong.

If such a case arises, we hope someone would love us enough to respectfully
point out these faults.

Think about this carefully—if we don't correct fellow believers who are in
error, then we don't truly love them.

No sane parents would fail to correct their own child who runs dangerously into
the street, because they love the child and don't want harm to come to him or
her.

Similarly, we do not want to see our brothers and sisters led astray by worldly
teachings that have done so much to undermine people's trust in Scripture.

What we are saying to old-earth Christians is that they need to cling to the
biblical view of God and jettison the faulty views of God demanded by their
old-earth views.

They need to accept biblical authority and all that comes with it, including the
Father who loved us so much He sent His Son to die for our sins—not His own
carelessness or ineptitude.

Consider the following well-known verses and pay close attention to how all of
them state that Jesus died for our sins—not for mistakes made by God during
creation:

> For God so loved the world that He gave
> His only begotten Son, that whoever believes
> in Him should not perish but have everlasting
> life. (John 3:16)

> But God demonstrates His own love toward us,
> in that while we were still sinners, Christ
> died for us. (Romans 5:8)

> In this is love, not that we loved God, but
> that He loved us and sent His Son to be the
> propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

If we fail to recognize the significance of the biblical teaching that Adam's
sin caused death, and that the last Adam, Jesus Christ, gave His life for
sinners, then we miss key elements of the gospel, which is encapsulated in the
following passage:

> Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
> even over those who had not sinned according
> to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,
> who is a type of Him who was to come. But the
> free gift is not like the offense. For if by
> the one man's offense many died, much more the
> grace of God and the gift by the grace of the
> one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And
> the gift is not like that which came through
> the one who sinned. For the judgment which came
> from one offense resulted in condemnation, but
> the free gift which came from many offenses
> resulted in justification.

> For if by the one man's offense death reigned
> through the one, much more those who receive
> abundance of grace and of the gift of
> righteousness will reign in life through the
> One, Jesus Christ.)

> Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment
> came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even
> so through one Man's righteous act the free gift
> came to all men, resulting in justification of
> life. For as by one man's disobedience many were
> made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many
> will be made righteous. (Romans 5:14–19)

For a more detailed (and painfully graphic) example of this type of theology,
please see this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/01/interpret-the-bible-2-genesi\
s .

We hope this has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Troy Lacey and
Tim Chaffey

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-many-americans-dont-know-obama-is-christi\
an-77124/

(1)

From: Jorge Fernandez (aka Rick Warren follower)
Time/Date: 11:02 PM on June 23, 2012

To stitch -

If I falsely accused anyone I am sorry__
GOD knows who they are?

(2)

From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 11:09 PM on June 23, 2012

To Jorge Fernandez -. . . .

I think you know that you have yet to repent and bring
forth your works meet for repentance regarding your false
accusations regarding me for daring to reference and
comment on Rick Warren's tax matters and how Congress
and the President (Bush) were involved in getting him
off the hook and preserving the income tax free ministerial
housing allowance.

Remember, Jorge; when I was using the ID of
"MandBGroupOwner???

> From: Fernandez Jorge
> Time/Date: 11:41 AM EDT on May 30, 2012
>
> To MandBGroupOwner -
>
> I am sorry but you are a deceiver...

and

> From: Fernandez Jorge
> Time/Date: 11:44 AM EDT on May 30, 2012
>
> To MandBGroupOwner
>
> Your wrong and a liar like everyone else
> on this post and I will refute you in a
> GODLY manner.

See you at my place if you decide on a course of
repentance regarding that outstanding matter:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

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

[Updated to add Jorge's reply to my comments; see item (3) below.  Looks like
Jorge is, unquestionably, one of many unworthy correspondents who like to post
to The Christian Post. - RLBaty]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-many-americans-dont-know-obama-is-christi\
an-77124/

(1)

From: Jorge Fernandez (aka Rick Warren follower)
Time/Date: 11:02 PM on June 23, 2012

To stitch -

If I falsely accused anyone I am sorry__
GOD knows who they are?

(2)

From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 11:09 PM on June 23, 2012

To Jorge Fernandez -. . . .

I think you know that you have yet to repent and bring
forth your works meet for repentance regarding your false
accusations regarding me for daring to reference and
comment on Rick Warren's tax matters and how Congress
and the President (Bush) were involved in getting him
off the hook and preserving the income tax free ministerial
housing allowance.

Remember, Jorge; when I was using the ID of
"MandBGroupOwner???

> From: Fernandez Jorge
> Time/Date: 11:41 AM EDT on May 30, 2012
>
> To MandBGroupOwner -
>
> I am sorry but you are a deceiver...

and

> From: Fernandez Jorge
> Time/Date: 11:44 AM EDT on May 30, 2012
>
> To MandBGroupOwner
>
> Your wrong and a liar like everyone else
> on this post and I will refute you in a
> GODLY manner.

See you at my place if you decide on a course of
repentance regarding that outstanding matter:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

See also:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27458

See you there, or not!

(3)

From: Jorge Fernandez
Time/Date: 12:31 AM EDT on June 24, 2012

To NonAnonymous -

Haha come again??
Haha

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

Ray,

Thanks for your statement about making up the scenario.

I take it from your statements that you don't have a theological or scientific
basis for your scenario.

That's fine; it's just nice to know it results from a mental exercise and not an
evaluation of any theological or scientific information.

I suppose Pi has already adequately, even if superficially, indicated some of
the physical problems with your scenario.  In such cases, as has been my
experience and observation, promoters of such things reserve the right to invoke
"miracles" in order to solve any scientific problems with their proposed
scenario.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27459
Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

> The scenario I put forth was a
> quick hypothetical, not a defined
> theory.

> I thought of my particular hypothetical.

That hypothetical was as follows:

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27439
Ray Ausban wrote, in part:

(1)

> Let us suppose for a moment that a few thousand
> years ago a rouge planet entered our solar system.

(2)

> This planet has a gravitation field twice that of
> the earth and brings with it a substantial ring
> set which like Saturn are primarily made of ice.

(3)

> As it enters the solar system it has a near
> collision with Uranus which alters its axial tilt
> substantially.

(4)

> This near miss alters the rouge planet's trajectory
> and brings it in close contact with earth.

(5)

> This encounter with the earth is not a fly by, but
> the alien planet actually moves in a sort of tandem
> with earth for a number of months.

(6)

> The gravitation from the visitor would certainly have
> an effect on the earth's crust as the moon only bigger
> and in competition with the moon.

(7)

> The stress on the earth's crust would be great,
> causing the one large continent to break up some
> what and sink below the waves.

(8)

> With no land above sea level, the mountainous waves
> sweep the globe due to the moon's orbit and earth
> quaking shifting sea floors.

(9)

> The ice rings striking the earth's atmosphere melt
> down and condense to rain adding additional water
> to the earth.

(10)

> Continuing it's own course but being altered again
> by earth's gravity, the tandem orbit of the visitor
> ends as it starts moving off towards deep space only
> to have a collision with the planet that resides
> between Mars and Jupiter.

(11)

> The collision is a direct hit and obliterates both
> planets forming the asteroid belt.

(12)

> Some of the remaining ice from the rings continues
> towards the outer reaches of the solar system, but
> the sun's gravity eventually prevails and these ice
> chunks becomes the deep space sun orbiting comets.

(13)

> With the extra gravitational stresses removed from
> the earth, the land masses rise again above the
> waves but they are in motion.

(14)

> Now, if something like this happened, what evidence
> would remain on the earth?

> Would we be able to detect the cause from the
> earth's geology?

Ray,

I will look forward to your continued interest in discussing your speculation on
the matter and what, if any, replies Pi and/or Todd might offer in explaining
why there is no good reason to consider your speculations as anywhere near the
facts of the matter regarding the Earth's recent cosmic history.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

> See:
>
> http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2904/

Here's an excerpt from today's posting which I found interesting:

> A (Radiometric Airborne Mapping System) RAMS unit
> was ordered and arrived yesterday afternoon. The
> radiometric imaging system, attached to the bottom
> of a helicopter, will provide infrared information
> similar to what officials have been using, with some
> key differences. The advantage of the RAMS unit is
> that it can be used during the daytime, and it can
> provide real time GPS coordinates for areas of
> identified heat. In addition it can provide
> information about the heat source (open flame,
> smoldering, buried, or diminishing heat). This
> information will help firefighters determine where
> suppression efforts should be focused.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

See:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/06/24/when-you-have-to-kill-a-man-\
it-costs-nothing-to-be-polite/

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

Here's another example, recently posted, that reflects a fundamental issue
between various religious parties (an issue I have repeatedly noted):

http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-it-a-sin-to-be-gay-76746/

> From: "idoubtit8o" (Goldsmith)
> Time/Date: 3:47 PM EDT on June 24, 2012
>
> To John Roberts -
>
> (excerpts)
>
> The spirit does speak to Christians.
>
> He tells us the New Testament is correct.
>
> Your words cannot deceive us.

That explains, in part, why it is so difficult at times to carry on a reasonable
and reasoned discussion with certain folks who are really in to believing the
above doctrine.

Compare to how Sergio, the LDS apologist, put it recently:

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 6:45 PM on February 10, 2012
>
> My authority came from God who
> gave authority to Jesus,
> to Peter,
> to Joseph Smith,
> and finally to me.
>
> This is called authority line.

and this:

> From: Sergio Roa Prado (LDS Apologist)
> Time/Date: 10:01 AM on February 17, 2012
>
> I win.
> I have authority.
> I have authority line, and
> you have not.

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/marco-rubio-says-he-felt-called-to-leave-mormo\
n-church-for-catholic-church-77156/

From: NonAnonymous (aka Robert Baty)
Time/Date: 9:31 PM EDT on June 24, 2012

(Updated 9:43 & 7:49 PM EDT)

Another report puts it this way regarding Rubio's
Mormon beginnings:

> In his new autobiography...Florida
> Sen. Marco Rubio, writes about his
> Christian faith and a fact that is not
> widely known — as a child he and his
> cousins were baptized in the Mormon
> church.
>
>> "We were in the Mormon church I
>> guess by the time I turned eight,"
>
> he told ABC News' David Muir.

I read somewhere that 8 is the minimum requirement
for membership.

I also read:

> In the 2000 Florida House Clerk's Manual,
> Rubio described himself as Catholic. Two
> years later he listed himself as Baptist,
> then two years after that, he identified
> himself as Catholic.

It's that same ol' issue! :o)

Did Rubio receive a personal, literal, direct, sensory
communication from God which led him to become a Mormon?

Did Rubio receive a personal, literal, direct, sensory
communication from God which led him to become a Catholic?

Did Rubio receive a personal, literal, direct, sensory
communication from God which led him to become a Baptist?

I don't think so!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty