Buff & The Grand Canyon Problem!  (10/30/03) Re: Grand Canyon  (11/02/03) Re: Todd Greene's Sentiments on Biblical Testimony  (11/02/03) Re: The Grand Canyon Problem  (11/03/03) Re: The Grand Canyon Problem  (11/03/03) Re: The Grand Canyon Problem  (11/03/03) Re: The Grand Canyon Problem  (11/04/03) Re: Age Of The Earth & Dinosaurs  (11/04/03) Re: Infiltrators of our Lists <-- LOL!  (11/06/03) Buff Scott's worldwide atheist conspiracy  (11/07/03)

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #11416):
> REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
> Buff Scott, Jr.
> ________________________
> Questions For Today
>
> Q. "Buff, I don't recall your touching upon the Grand Canyon and
> how it was formed. The common view is that it was cut out by the
> Colorado River over a period of millions of years. Is this your
> view, or do you have another? I'd appreciate your position on
> this subject, because my children are being taught in school that
> the Canyon was created by a continual flow of water over many
> millions of years."---Nathan.
>
> A. Yes, I have a another view, and it differs from the agnostic,
> evolutionary theory. The evolutionary view is full of loopholes
> and inconsistencies.
>
> Let's approach your question with a little bit of common
> intelligence. The Nile River in Egypt is as old as the Colorado
> River, perhaps even older. If age and continual flow are the key
> factors, why hasn't the Nile River cut out a canyon as awesome,
> or at least similar to, the Grand Canyon? Then there's the
> Mississippi, the Ohio, the Rio Grande, and many other old
> waterways. Why haven't they hewed out canyons? Well, why?
>
> The answer is obvious. Time and continual flow have little if
> anything to do with canyons whose walls are sheer rock, like the
> Grand Canyon. And we'll even allow for a little erosion along the
> way. That still doesn't cut it, however. For if erosion carved
> out the Grand Canyon, why hasn't erosion carved out other old
> waterways, thus forming canyons of them? Well, why? Again, age
> and continual flow have little to do with canyons whose walls are
> compacted rock.
[snip]

Hi, everyone.

Actually, while time and flow are necessary factors, Buff completely
neglects to mention the most important factor: Plate tectonics and
its effect in that region over the last several million years. The
Colorado River flows through a geologic region called the Colorado
Plateau. This region has experienced considerable uplift over the
last several million years. Buff is exactly right that time and river
flow alone will not create a canyon like the Grand Canyon. There are
additional factors involved, and in this case Buff fails to mention
the most important factor of geologic uplift.

>
> Vertically Inlaid Sediments
>
> During the Summer of 2000, my two sons, a grandson, and I hiked
> the Grand Canyon from rim-to-rim. We hiked out on the 14-mile
> North Kaibab Trail. Usually, layer upon layer of solidified
> sediment form the Canyon's sheer walls. On our trek this time, we
> saw unique rock formations we had not seen previously. Instead of
> horizontal layers of solidified sediment that are found
> throughout the Canyon, we observed many solidified sediments that
> are vertically inlaid.
>
> We also noticed that the major rock formations had vertical sheer
> markings rather than diagonal, as one would expect from a flowing
> river.

Does Buff mean "shear" here? It is not clear to me what he is
referring to.

> I wondered to
> myself: How do evolutionists and atheists explain this aside from
> a violent revolution of the Earth, "when all the springs of the
> great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of heaven were opened,
> and rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights" (Genesis
> 7:11-12).
>
> A Geological Fact
>
> Consequently, it seems the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon
> were deposited by the violent upheaval of the global flood in
> Noah's day. When we ponder the geological fact that in different
> parts of the world, young strata---which should be at the top of
> rock layers---are at or toward the bottom (called "flip-flopped"
> or "reversed strata"), we are compelled to admit that at one time
> the earth experienced a spasmodic revolution or convulsion, such
> as the one described during the global flood of Noah's day. But
> whatever happened, God was behind it. And it seemed to have come
> about quickly, not over a period of millions of years. On that
> note, I have no doubt.<>

Regarding Buff's comment about "vertical sheer [shear?] markings
rather than diagonal," he needs to be clearer about what he is
referring to. Regardless of how long it took the Colorado River to
carve out the Grand Canyon, the geologic strata of the region (the
Colorado Plateau) were laid down previous to this, and thus
considerations about these geologic strata are a separate issue. In
other words, there are the geologic strata themselves which were laid
down over a period of time, and then there is the Grand Canyon that
was eroded into these strata after the strata were laid down.

Actually, the specific details of the geologic strata of the Grand
Canyon give unequivocal proof that they were not laid down by a year-
long global flood a few thousand years ago. For example, there are
many different layer boundaries that show where the lower layer had
lithified (i.e., turned to rock) and then experienced a period of
erosion (which produced eroded bits of rock - not unconsolidated
sediment) after which the upper layer was produced (by sedimentation
which buried the lower layer). Unfortunately for young earth
creationist global flood advocates, in the real world sedimentary
layers don't turn to rock and then get eroded in a period of time of
only a few months. This only occurs in the fantasy world of young
earth creationism. In the case of what is observed in the Grand
Canyon, though, with respect to what YECs advocate this would not
only have to have taken place at least once but actually a number of
times (sedimentation, lithification, erosion of lithified stratum,
then sedimentation again), all within one year.

This is just one of the many, many reasons showing why the global
flood idea is a wrong idea about the history of the earth. Indeed,
let's keep in mind that it is Christians who began with a belief in a
global flood who gave birth to geological science in the 18th century
and early 19th century who are the ones who ended up abandoning the
idea of a global flood taking place a few thousand years ago, because
the geological evidence that they found and analyzed showed that such
an event had never occurred.

By the way, when Buff uses the phrase "How do evolutionists and
atheists explain..." it is encouraging to note that he recognizes the
fact that this is not actually a theist versus atheist issue, because
of the fact that many, many Christians do recognize that the idea of
a global flood having taken place a few thousand years ago is a false
idea about the real world based in empirical examination of the world
itself.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

* How old is the Earth? Why should we care?, by Martin G. Miller
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/geotime.html

* Creationist Grand Canyon Argument, by Frank Steiger
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/grandcyn.htm

* Geological Formations/Genesis Flood, by Frank Steiger
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/flood.htm

* Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
by Jon Woolf
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_intro.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_rocks.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_canyon.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_summary.html

* Strata of the Grand Canyon
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2b.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm

* Geology of the Grand Canyon
http://www.hartwick.edu/envirsci/Careers/portfolio/fieldst/
grandc.html
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* Grand Canyon Geology
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage1.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage2.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage3.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage4.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage5.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage6.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage7.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage8.html

* The Geology of the Grand Canyon, by Bob Ribokas
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

* Grand Canyon Rock Layers, by Bob Ribokas
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

* Map of The Colorado Plateau (filesize: 161 KB)
http://www.kaibab.org/gct/coloplat.htm

* Overview of Grand Canyon Geology and Rock Formations
by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml

* The Grand Canyon Supergroup Formations, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/
supergroup_formations.shtml
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* The Kaibab Formation, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/
kaibab_formation.shtml
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* Stromatolite Fossils in the Hakatai Shale, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/hikes/
stromatolites_in_the_hakatai/
[note line-wrapping of the link]

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101670):
> Brother Todd:

Hi, Buff.

I think I need to correct a misunderstanding here. I believe that you
are referring to me as "Brother" in the religious affiliation sense,
and thus I think it is proper for me to point out that I am not a
member of the Church Of Christ and have not been a member of it since
1984. I'm not a member of any church. I'm an agnostic/atheist.

>
> In reference to your remarks about the Grand Canyon's creation, I
> think most of us are aware that the convulsive global flood of
> Noah's day changed the Earth's surface. It reeked havoc to every
> corner of our planet. It is my view, based upon a number of
> factors, that the Canyon is the result of such havoc.

Most of us are *not* aware that a global flood took place a few
thousand years ago which wreaked havoc on the earth's surface. I'm
quite sure that the vast majority of the members of this group
*believe* this because of their *religious* beliefs, but the
geological facts are otherwise. Professional geologists know that the
statement "a global flood took place a few thousand years ago which
wreaked havoc on the earth's surface" is a false statement because
they are aware, on a professional basis (i.e., working with the
relevant detailed information day in and day out), that the
geological information shows otherwise. And historically it was
European young earth creationist global flood advocates themselves
who, based on their geological exploration and research, abandoned
the idea of a global flood - over two hundred years ago.

> Your logic possibly
> encompasses millions of years. The upheaval associated with the
> global flood took only a matter of days.

This is your *claim*, and specifically in regard to the Grand Canyon.
However, as I pointed out in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/11418

| For example, there
| are many different layer boundaries that show where the lower
| layer had lithified (i.e., turned to rock) and then experienced a
| period of erosion (which produced eroded bits of rock - not
| unconsolidated sediment) after which the upper layer was produced
| (by sedimentation which buried the lower layer). Unfortunately
| for young earth creationist global flood advocates, in the real
| world sedimentary layers don't turn to rock and then get eroded
| in a period of time of only a few months. This only occurs in the
| fantasy world of young earth creationism. In the case of what is
| observed in the Grand Canyon, though, with respect to what YECs
| advocate this would not only have to have taken place at least
| once but actually a number of times (sedimentation,
| lithification, erosion of lithified stratum, then sedimentation
| again), all within one year.

That isn't "logic," Buff. It is a statement of empirical fact
regarding what geologists have observed at the Grand Canyon. The fact
is that sediment doesn't turn to rock, and then this rock (rock, not
sediment) get eroded, and then have another sedimentary layer laid on
top of this eroded rock, not once but many times across several
different layers, in "only a matter of days." This kind of thing
simply does not occur in the real world. This is the sheer fantasy of
young earth creationists.

>
> I don't know if you've read "The Flood" by Alfred M. Rehwinkel,
> published in 1951 by Concordia Publishing House of St. Louis. It
> explains the drastic changes that occurred during the flood. I
> recommend that you try to find a copy, if you haven't read it. I
> may have more to say about your remarks in a few days. I'll share
> my findings with the Berean group. ---Buff.

No, I have not read that book. I have read other books that are part
of the YEC library, including *The Genesis Flood* by Henry Morris and
John Whitcomb.

I would also ask you if you have read any science book on geology. I
can recommend to you the following three excellent references:

Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd Ed. (2002)
by Stanley S. Beus, Michael Morales
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195122984
(This is the foremost text today on the geology of the Grand Canyon.)

Evolution of the Earth, 6th Ed. (2001)
by Donald R. Prothero and Robert H. Dott
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661872

Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd Ed. (1996)
by George H. Davis and Stephen J. Reynolds
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471526215

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101741):
> Todd:
>
> I have visited your Web site to some extent, and I have lifted the
> following quotations for the purpose of making a few comments and
> asking a few questions in relation to our potential dialogue on
> the general subject of creation vs. evolution, and the Grand
> Canyon. Note, please, that I said "potential dialogue." For if
> there develops no meaningful dialogue between us on these
> subjects, it will be because I perceive you as rebuffing heaven's
> testimony regarding---in particular---creation as described in
> Genesis 1 and elsewhere.
>
> For it would be futile to involve ourselves in a discussion of
> biblical proportions if either one of us dismisses the biblical
> evidence. I have little sufferance for this sort of thing. I am
> utterly convinced, based on heaven's witness---the scriptures---
> that the Earth and universe were created in six solar days, as
> detailed in Genesis 1, and that the global flood, as chronicled
> in Genesis 6-8, occurred. I not only believe in the biblical
> account and consider it evidence, but I also believe scientific
> creation provides ample evidence.

Hi, Buff.

It seems to me that your discussion here is based on the following
premise:

* Since what I believe is based on what I've read in this book (the
* Bible), then I can ignore true information about the real world
* that has been acquired by looking at the real world itself.

Is this a fair representation of your basic argument?

I would also point out here that your discussion above is exactly the
same argument that the geocentrists made - and not only were they
wrong in principle (i.e., philosophically) but they were demonstrated
to be completely wrong empirically as well. The truth about the real
world (the way the world is) based on looking at the real world
itself (empirical examination) is a very important aspect of truth.
We know that the earth orbits the sun because of human beings who
diligently acquired and analyzed relevant information from the real
world about the real world. People who depended *solely* on biblical
statements didn't have a clue. The same thing can be said about such
empirically-related subject areas as disease microorganisms,
electricity, refrigeration, internal combustion engines, transistors,
and computer chips. If a person is going to make empirical claims
about the physical world then he or she doesn't have the right to
start complaining hypocritically when other people bring up relevant
empirical information about the world that contradicts those claims.

>
> Having noted all of that, if our dialogue does not materialize,
> based upon the above reasons, I will do another column on the
> subjects at hand to share with my 1,500 readers who subscribe to
> my "Reformation Rumblings." In said column, I will use as a
> backdrop all or some of your remarks that were posted to
> the "Berean," "GospoelAdvocating," and "KnowingGodsWay" discussion
> lists.

If you choose not to "dialogue" that is completely your choice, not
mine. I have discussions with those who discuss the issues with me.
At the same time I'm also known to produce unsolicited discussion. ;-)

> I will not,
> of course, quote you out of context.

Cool. Thank you!

> And now for
> some of your statements on your Web site:
>
> 1) "I was raised to believe in creationism, and I believed it.
> But my study of the issues relevant to creationism led me to
> reject it."
>
> Buff's Comment & Question: What part of Genesis 1 don't you
> accept? How do you understand "create"? Assuming God did not
> create the Earth and Universe in six solar days, as you allege,
> do you believe He had the power to create both in six solar days?
> Do you, to any extent, limit His power?

I'm not sure just how to respond to your questions. As I pointed out
in a previous post, I'm an agnostic/atheist, and I don't think you
were aware of this. However, I want to say a little more with respect
to your questions.

I would not accept anything that is stated in Genesis 1 (or anywhere
else in Genesis) merely because "The Bible says this." We know that
God did not create the universe and the earth in six 24-hour days
several thousand years ago, because when we look at the universe and
the earth themselves we observe that they have been in existence for
far longer periods of time than just several thousand years. Knowing
about the world's antiquity is something that we learn about by
looking at the real world itself, not by any kind of exegetical
analysis of some biblical texts. The same thing can be said - and has
been said - about the fact that the earth orbits the sun, among other
pieces of empirical information.

The issue about the antiquity of the world is not some kind of
question about God's power. In fact, many (if not most) Christians
accept the fact that the world is ancient, even while they fully
believe that God is omnipotent. Indeed, we can turn the question
around: What prevents an omnipotent God from having created the world
billions of years ago in such a manner that its subsequent
development was guided by physical laws embedded in the "fabric" of
the world?

Thus, the issue is not "What could God have done?" but "What did God
actually do?", and what does the relevant empirical information that
we have acquired by looking at the real world itself actually show?

>
> 2) "Here I present my perspective on creationism as one who used
> to be a creationist, and who continues to believe now, just as I
> did then, that truth-seeking really is more important than your
> personal religious beliefs."
>
> Buff's Comments and Questions: My "personal religious beliefs"
> are founded in heaven's revelations. Are your "personal religious
> beliefs" founded in heaven's revelations? Or, is there a
> possibility you are basing your primary beliefs in the
> conceptions of man's wisdom?

All of our beliefs are based in the conceptions of human thinking.
The grand conceit of young earth creationism is that this statement
is not correct. As a result young earth creationists like you present
this popular "apples to oranges" comparison.

The fact is that the real world exists apart from human thinking and
we can examine the real world with respect to claims that are made
about the real world. I realize that you believe that *in addition*
to the real world you have access to truth with the Bible itself.
However, what it seems to me that you are trying to do with your
rhetoric is to promote the false argument that it is okay to ignore
the real world. But the fact remains that *even if I grant you your
premise that the Bible constitutes a part of truth* this does *not*
imply that it is legitimate to ignore the real world, but merely
means that where the Bible and the real world "intersect" then they
should correspond to each other and not contradict each other.

So I'll say it again: Truth-seeking really is more important than
your personal religious beliefs. Incidentally, I derived this
statement from what "Church Of Christers" tell members of other
religious denominations all of the time. So in fact you don't have
any ground to dispute me on this very basic principle, since it is a
basic principle that has been taught and advocated in the Church Of
Christ for many, many decades.

>
> 3) "If You Can't Stand The Truth, Don't Pretend To Be A
> Truth-Seeker!"
>
> Buff's Comments and Questions: Is there a possibility your
> conceptions of "truth" on some or all of these matters are
> faulty? In other words, can you be mistaken in your hypothesis on
> any of these matters?

It is obvious that I am not the arbiter of truth. Of course, neither
are you. I suppose that it is indeed possible in a philosophical
sense that I could be mistaken in my acceptance of the idea that the
earth orbits the sun. But I am not mistaken, I advocate, *because*
the relevant information from the real world about the real world
shows this to be the case.

> How do you
> understand the following biblical pronouncement?
>
> "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's
> command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was
> visible" (Heb. 11:3).

What I can tell you is that young earth creationists have presented
this verse to me in such a manner as to imply that *they* think it
means that they can believe whatever they want to believe even if the
relevant information acquired from the real world about the real
world contradicts their belief.

>
> Do you attribute your "findings" and "evidence" to the Creator of
> our universe?

No. Of course, this is irrelevant. The color of the car(s) in your
driveway is irrelevant to a person's concept of God, or whether or
not he or she believes in God. A person's belief or lack of belief in
God is irrelevant to the fact that the earth orbits the sun - or that
adiabatic principles are what they are, and as empirical features of
the real world can be explored by people (whether theist or atheist)
who can then take advantage of them to make refrigerators.

> In closing this
> post, I'll lift a quotation of mine from my own Web site.
>
> "We stand in awe of the infinite power of God as He mobilizes and
> activates all the stars and governs all the galaxies that
> sprinkle the night's sky. I take it to be as great a wonder that
> he should even know that such insignificant creatures as we
> humans exist. And we live and enjoy His bounties in our tiny
> dimension or 'microscopic world' because of His express decree!
> The heavens obey His every command. Without His oversight, there
> would be utter chaos among the galaxies and in the universe at
> large."
>
> "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast
> array" (Genesis 1:31). "And these are but the outer fringe of his
> works" (Job 26:14). ---Buff.

So isn't it ironic that young earth creationists bury their heads in
the sand and tell everyone to ignore information about the world that
happens to contradict what young earth creationists believe?

| The heavens are telling the glory of God;
| and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
| Day to day pours forth speech,
| and night to night declares knowledge.
| There is no speech, nor are there words;
| their voice is not heard;
| yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
| and their words to the end of the world.
| (Psalm 19.1-4a)

| The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
| the ears of the wise seek it out.
| (Proverbs 18:15)

| He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
| (Proverbs 12:17)

| If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
| (Matthew 15:14)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, everyone.

Please note that I'm consolidating part of this discussion by
responding here to all three of the following posts by Buff Scott,
Jr.:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101806
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101807
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101815

Please also note that I have retrieved the original subject header,
since this is what the subject at issue was in the first place. (And
I ask you to keep this clearly in mind!) If you doubt me, here are
the posts so you can see for yourself:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101633
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

Also, before I discuss Buff's most recent comments I just want to
mention something about an earlier comment by Buff that has been
bothering me. In one of the posts that Buff made on another
discussion list, he made the following comment (but this comment was
not in the equivalent post here in the BereanSpirit list), "I've
visited part of your Web site and must say I'm astounded at your
stance on a number of matters." What did he then quote from my
website? There were three things he quoted. (1) "I was raised to
believe in creationism, and I believed it. But my study of the issues
relevant to creationism led me to reject it." Well, this is the very
subject at issue and Buff already knew this. A lot of people -
including a lot of Christians - reject creationism based on being
aware of relevant information that contradicts it. What is astounding
about this? (2) "Here I present my perspective on creationism as one
who used to be a creationist, and who continues to believe now, just
as I did then, that truth-seeking really is more important than your
personal religious beliefs." Truth-seeking really is more important
than your personal religious beliefs. Buff considers this basic,
obvious principle to be astounding? Buff certainly has me scratching
my head on this one. (3) "If You Can't Stand The Truth, Don't Pretend
To Be A Truth-Seeker!" This is astounding? (To Buff: Hey, man, I'm
sorry, but I really just don't get it. What's your beef with these
straightforward statements. If I say 2 + 2 = 4, are you going to jump
on me for that, too?)

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

In post #101806, Buff wrote: "The real mystery is WHY you want to
contribute material to a Christian list when you deny the
supernatural. I question your motives. No offense intended."

Why is Buff trying to create a nonexistent mystery? There is no
mystery. Buff published an empirical claim about the Grand Canyon
that is wrong. I happen to be aware that his claim is wrong. So I
criticized his claim, giving a little bit of information and
explanation about my criticism.

Buff questions my motives. Here is explanation of my motive: Buff
made an erroneous empirical claim, specifically, a claim about the
Grand Canyon. I criticized his claim because it is erroneous. It's
that simple.

I note here that in all of the verbiage that Buff has provided in
response to my criticism of his Grand Canyon claim, he has not yet
addressed a single thing that I stated in my criticism. If you doubt
me, then go take a look for yourself:

The Grand Canyon Problem
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

To Buff I would simply make the following point of order: If you are
not going to address my specific criticisms of your specific
empirical claims about the Grand Canyon, then why don't you just say
so? If you *are* going to address my criticisms of the empirical
claims that you made, then why don't you just do it, without all of
these irrelevant tangents? I responded to your tangents a bit,
because I knew you didn't know me and so I kindly obliged you with
several responses to your various questions, but now I hope that you
will actually discuss what is relevant to the original topic. (In
other words, I certainly don't mind a little chit-chat, but, please,
let's not let the chit-chat cause us to totally forget about the
issue at hand.)

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

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff had written (post #101741):
>> it would be
>> futile to involve ourselves in a discussion of biblical
>> proportions if either one of us dismisses the biblical evidence.
>> I have little sufferance for this sort of thing. I am utterly
>> convinced, based on heaven's witness --- the scriptures --- that
>> the Earth and universe were created in six solar days, as
>> detailed in Genesis 1, and that the global flood, as chronicled
>> in Genesis 6-8, occurred. I not only believe in the biblical
>> account and consider it evidence, but I also believe scientific
>> creation provides ample evidence.

In post #101792, I responded to this with:

>> It seems to me that your discussion here is based on the
>> following premise:
>>
>> * Since what I believe is based on what I've read in this book
>> * (the Bible), then I can ignore true information about the real
>> * world that has been acquired by looking at the real world
>> * itself.
>>
>> Is this a fair representation of your basic argument?

In post #101807, Buff replied:

> No, your analysis is not a fair representation. It is best to
> permit a man to state his own "representation," don't you think?

Well, let's see, Buff had made some statements, and I then summarized
back to him what seemed to me to be a fair representation of what he
was saying. But not being sure about it, I then specifically asked
him, "Is this a fair representation of your basic argument?" because
I wanted to know if he thought it was or not. So I'm curious as to
why he would try to criticize me for asking him the question.

However, Buff in turn asks me if I think it is best to permit a man
to state his own representation. I have to answer that in general I
think that it is. The problem, and the very problem I was addressing
here, is that people frequently state ideas, concepts, and
information in an ambiguous manner. Sometimes even in a contradictory
way. (These problems can also occur with the receiver of the
communication as well as with the sender.) This is why we have
discussion and questions for the purpose of prodding and probing what
has been stated in order to clarify things and try to clear up any
contradictions. What I did is actually considered a standard and
effective part of discussion.

My question to Buff would be this: When a person makes statements
that are not clear due to unstated thoughts or unstated information,
or that appear to contradict one another, isn't it best to have a
little discussion and mention back to him or her, "Here's what I
think you're saying. Have I understood you correctly?" Don't you
think?

> I will accept
> "true information" from any source, including the devil himself
> ---yes, even from an agnostic/atheist!

It is good that Buff acknowledges this, because in doing so he
acknowledges what we know to be obviously correct: The truth of a
claim is determined by evaluating the information that is relevant to
the claim. If an atheist says, "The earth orbits the sun," this claim
is not false (or true) because an atheist has said it. Any such claim
is correct or incorrect based on the information that is relevant to
it, and has nothing to do with whether or not the claimant is a
theist, an atheist, or even a Coke or Pepsi drinker for Pete's sake.
(Well, I'm not so sure about the Pepsi drinkers!) I surely hope that
this principle is clear and obvious to everyone.

> But if said "true information" collides with what I'm firmly
> convinced is divine truth, I will accept the latter and dismiss
> the former.

Now this is so very strange! Here Buff has contradicted himself. The
whole point is that we're talking about true information. Truth is
truth. Period. Truth is not going to contradict truth.

Here's what I wrote to Buff about this, also in post #101792:

>> The fact is that the real world exists apart from human thinking
>> and we can examine the real world with respect to claims that
>> are made about the real world. I realize that you believe that
>> *in addition* to the real world you have access to truth with
>> the Bible itself. However, what it seems to me that you are
>> trying to do with your rhetoric is to promote the false argument
>> that it is okay to ignore the real world. But the fact remains
>> that *even if I grant you your premise that the Bible
>> constitutes a part of truth* this does *not* imply that it is
>> legitimate to ignore the real world, but merely means that where
>> the Bible and the real world "intersect" then they should
>> correspond to each other and not contradict each other.

Look again at what I wrote to Buff about his premise:

>> It seems to me that your discussion here is based on the
>> following premise:
>>
>> * Since what I believe is based on what I've read in this book
>> * (the Bible), then I can ignore true information about the real
>> * world that has been acquired by looking at the real world
>> * itself.
>>
>> Is this a fair representation of your basic argument?

Buff immediately replied, "No, your analysis is not a fair
representation." But just three sentences later Buff clearly states
that if the relevant empirical information about the real world that
we acquire by looking at the real world itself contradicts his
understanding of what the Bible says, then he will "dismiss" (his
word) the empirical information. So we see that my initial analysis
(the asterisked statement) is actually correct. From Buff's own
statements, both before and now, it still seems very much to me that
his position is, "Don't bother me with the relevant real world
information (which I will dismiss anyway), my mind is already made
up."

By the way, young earth creationism is a false idea about the real
world *because* we know that the world has been in existence far
longer than just 6,000 years ago or so. For example, here is an
astronomical observation of the explosion of a star that took place
about 168,000 years ago:

Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1997/03/

SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/04/

Therefore, young earth creationism is simply a false doctrine.

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

In post #101815, Buff wrote:

> Inasmuch as [Todd] dismisses the supernatural and miraculous
> ---in essence, the divine testimony---and inasmuch as he freely
> confesses to be an agnostic/atheist, it would be extremely
> difficult for me to acquire enough patience to address his
> "wisdom." For I do not wish to engross myself in, or surround
> myself with, futility. Such would be a waste of time on the part
> of both of us. I will not now, or ever, reject divine testimony.

I daresay that Buff has completely missed the point. The point, for
those who may need a reminder is that Buff made some empirical claims
about the Grand Canyon that happen to be incorrect. Here are the
original posts on the subject, the first by Buff, the second by me:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101633
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

Note that in post #101657 I also praised Buff in the following way:

| By the way, when Buff uses the phrase "How do evolutionists and
| atheists explain..." it is encouraging to note that he recognizes
| the fact that this is not actually a theist versus atheist issue,
| because of the fact that many, many Christians do recognize that
| the idea of a global flood having taken place a few thousand
| years ago is a false idea about the real world based in empirical
| examination of the world itself.

Yet now we see here in post #101815 that Buff is getting caught up in
the popular, false young earth creationist rhetoric implying that
anyone who thinks that young earth creationism is doing so *for the
reason* that they reject the Bible and reject Christian belief in the
supernatural. I had thought that Buff already understood that this
rhetoric was false, and had even praised him for it, but now I'm
seeing that apparently my praise may have been premature.

I say the following to Buff, and to other young earth creationists
who use this same kind of rhetoric: You are the ones who make
specific empirical claims about the physical world. Your empirical
claims have been examined and demonstrated to be wrong time and time
again. *Furthermore*, when you repeatedly make these false empirical
claims and then your claims come under critical scrutiny you have
absolutely no right to try to ward off such critical scrutiny of your
empirical claims by pretending that there is something wrong with
taking a critical look at what you have stated. When someone
specifically criticizes an erroneous claim that you have made it is
utter arrogance to pretend that criticism of your erroneous has
anything whatsoever to do with rejection of divine testimony. *Your*
testimony is not divine testimony.

To Buff specifically, I close this post with this: Here again is my
criticism of the incorrect statements you made with respect to the
Grand Canyon:

The Grand Canyon Problem
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

If you are not going to address the subject, then just say so. If you
*are* going to address the subject, then please just do it.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101810):
> Todd:
>
> You wrote, "We know that God did not create the universe and the
> earth in six 24-hour days several thousand years ago, because
> when we look at the universe and the earth themselves we observe
> that they have been in existence for far longer periods of time
> than just several thousand years."
>
> Hold on a moment, my friend! "We" do not know that God did not
> create the universe and Earth in six solar days.

Hi, Buff.

Oh, I know that *you* don't know it. However, I used the word "we"
purposely because it is not just me that knows that the universe and
the earth have been in existence far longer than any six or ten
thousand years. Just as one example, I can point out that
professional astronomers and geologists also know it. The *reasons*
we know it are due to empirical observations of the universe and the
earth themselves.

Just as one specific example, there are geologic layers in the Grand
Canyon that take far, far longer than "only a matter of days" - and
far longer than just 6,000 years - to develop. I already pointed this
out in this post:

The Grand Canyon Problem
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

As another specific example, here are astronomical observations of
the aftermath of the explosion of a star that took place about
168,000 years ago:

Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1997/03/

SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/04/

> "We" are convinced
> He did. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens [universe and
> our solar system] and the Earth, the sea, and all that is in
> them" (Exodus 20:11).
[snip]

I have no doubt that people are convinced of all kinds of things
based on their religious beliefs. Does this mean that you think God
has a long nose because your Hindu friend is convinced of the
existence of Lord Ganesha. I doubt it.

When you make *empirical* claims, Buff, then you'd better back it up
with relevant *empirical* data. If you can't do this - or worse, if
the *empirical* data contradicts your *empirical* claims - then you
should not make such *empirical* claims. And when you do, people who
know better are going to point out the errors of your claims. This is
the way things are supposed to work. Don't you think?

In specific regard to your interpretation of the Bible, I couldn't
care less - which I'm sure you probably understand. That's up to you
guys and gals who believe in the Bible and who also believe that the
Bible is supposed to be infallible (because if it's infallible then
it shouldn't be saying things that are wrong).

However, what I can point out to you from my "detached" perspective
is that *because* we know that the universe and the earth have been
in existence far longer than any six or ten thousand years, *then* if
the Bible really does teach that the universe and the earth did not
exist more than several thousand years ago then the Bible teaches a
false idea about the real world. If this point is of interest to you,
then I would direct you to my expanded explanation of this particular
point here:

A Dangerous Implication of YEC
http://www.creationism.cc/steveheiden02.html

I would simply state the additional point here that there are a great
many Christians who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible on
this, including such theologians as Charles Hodge, Alexander
Campbell, Benjamin Warfield, and J. D. Thomas.

> For if yom
> is translated "era" or "epoch" and applied to the six days of
> creation, sea creatures and the birds of the air lived to be
> millions of years old for they were created before land animals
> and man. Sea creatures and birds were created on the fifth day;
> land animals and man were created on the sixth day.
>
> Am I saying there was no death of sea, air, and land animals
> prior to the Fall? That's precisely what I'm saying! Adam's fall
> resulted in both physical and spiritual death. It appears that
> death among sea, air, and land creatures was non-existent prior
> to the Fall. In regards to death before the Fall, we might ponder
> the words of the great apostle Paul. He wrote, "For since death
> came through a man [Adam], the resurrection of the dead comes
> also through a man" (I Cor. 15:21). In the very next passage,
> Paul announces, "For in Adam all die."
[snip]

The fact of the matter is that there is a fossil record, embedded in
a geological record, that shows that plants and animals were living
and dying for millions of years before humans were ever on the
planet. This is the relevant empirical information from the real
world about the real world.

Additionally, and again, I would simply point out that there are a
lot of Christians who disagree with your interpretation of the Bible
on this.

>
> Geologists, like our friend Todd, tell us the Earth is millions,
> perhaps even billions, of years old. I will note that perhaps
> parts of the Earth do appear to be billions of years old.
> However, if God's awesome power could create a man, as opposed to
> a child, and make him look biologically older than he actually
> is, could He not create an Earth and make it appear older than it
> actually is? If not, why not? As I view it, God's unequaled power
> created the stars and transported their light to Earth
> instantaneously---not over a period of billions of years. Enough
> for now.

Now we see that you actually *agree with me* that astronomy and
geology are *correct* that the relevant empirical information shows
that the universe and the earth have been in existence far longer
than just six or ten thousand years, but you wish to argue that God
has "faked the data."

So when we watch the explosion of a star that took place in the Large
Magellanic Cloud galaxy about 168,000 years ago, your argument is
that we are seeing something that never really happened. When we
examine the melted fragments of rock after doing an excavation near
an eroded earth impact crater, your argument is that no asteroid or
comet ever really hit the earth since the crater is fake. When a
paleontologist finds a 500 million year old trilobite fossil found in
the geologic stratum of an ancient ocean, well, that ocean never
existed and that trilobite was never alive, but what we're seeing is
just fake stuff that God put there when He instantaneously created
the earth 6,000 years ago.

In reference to the Grand Canyon in particular, it looks like Buff's
answer to my criticism is really something like this: The Grand
Canyon shows a geologic history of events, because God made it
looking like that. My response to Buff would be, well, water doesn't
cut through thousands of feet of rock in "only a matter of days." Of
course, with the apparent age argument, Buff could always argue that
God simply made that that way too. In other words, as far as Buff is
concerned the real world evidence doesn't matter, since God can make
anything appear to be any which way He chooses.

If Buff wants to promote this argument, that's fine with me -
because, after all, my whole point all along has been simply to point
out that the geological information shows an ancient history of
events (like trilobite fossils in ancient oceans, and earth impact
craters) and that the astronomical information shows an ancient
history of events (such as a stellar explosion in the Large
Magellanic Cloud). When Buff argues that "God just made it that way"
then he is agreeing with me that the science is correct, contrary to
what many other young earth creationists try to claim.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd Ed. (2002)
by Stanley S. Beus, Michael Morales
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195122984
(This is the foremost text today on the geology of the Grand Canyon.)

Evolution of the Earth, 6th Ed. (2001)
by Donald R. Prothero and Robert H. Dott
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0073661872

Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd Ed. (1996)
by George H. Davis and Stephen J. Reynolds
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471526215

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

* How old is the Earth? Why should we care?, by Martin G. Miller
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/geotime.html

* Creationist Grand Canyon Argument, by Frank Steiger
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/grandcyn.htm

* Geological Formations/Genesis Flood, by Frank Steiger
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/flood.htm

* Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
by Jon Woolf
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_intro.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_rocks.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_canyon.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_summary.html

* Strata of the Grand Canyon
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2b.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm

* Geology of the Grand Canyon
http://www.hartwick.edu/envirsci/Careers/portfolio/fieldst/
grandc.html
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* Grand Canyon Geology
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage1.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage2.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage3.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage4.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage5.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage6.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage7.html
http://edu-source.com/GCpages/CVOpage8.html

* The Geology of the Grand Canyon, by Bob Ribokas
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

* Grand Canyon Rock Layers, by Bob Ribokas
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_layer.htm

* Map of The Colorado Plateau (filesize: 161 KB)
http://www.kaibab.org/gct/coloplat.htm

* Overview of Grand Canyon Geology and Rock Formations
by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml

* The Grand Canyon Supergroup Formations, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/
supergroup_formations.shtml
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* The Kaibab Formation, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/
kaibab_formation.shtml
[note line-wrapping of the link]

* Stromatolite Fossils in the Hakatai Shale, by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/hikes/
stromatolites_in_the_hakatai/
[note line-wrapping of the link]

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101863):
> "Buff, disagreeing with you in this [age of Earth & Canyon] is
> not the same as necessarily denying the supernatural or
> necessarily disagreeing with God. All we are doing is disagreeing
> with you. And there is an eternity of difference in the two
> situations, whether or not you grasp it.---Bob Brandon.
>
> Granted, Bob. You don't deny the supernatural by disagreeing with
> me.

Hi, everyone.

It is good to see this explicit acknowledgement. But the question is,
will Buff practice what he preaches here?

> You deny the
> supernatural by denying the supernatural.

Precisely.

> And that is
> how I see my good friend Todd Greene and others who espouse his
> views on the subjects at hand.

If I recall correctly...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101633
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

...yes, looks like I do! - the subjects at hand concern the erroneous
claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by a global flood a few
thousand years ago.

Yet again Buff is pretending that I'm disputing his claim about the
Grand Canyon based on my skeptical perspective toward the
supernatural. *This claim is false*. I realize that this kind of
claim is a popular one in young earth creationist rhetoric, but it is
entirely false nonetheless. Does Glenn Morton (a Christian) deny the
supernatural? Does Davis A. Young (a Christian) deny the
supernatural? Does Steven Krogh (a Christian) deny the supernatural?
Does Tom Couchman (a Christian) deny the supernatural? Does David
Mathews (a Christian) deny the supernatural? No.

Yet all of these Christians, and many, many more, agree that the
young earth creationist claim that the Grand Canyon was formed by a
global flood a few thousand years is wrong. Why? *Because of what is
observed to be the actual case with regard to the physical evidence
that is in the Grand Canyon itself.* It seems like Buff keeps trying
to pretend that claims about the physical evidence at the Grand
Canyon are some kind of theist versus atheist issue, even though we
know that it is not anything of the sort. The objective, observable
details about the physical evidence are what they are, and our
religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs are completely
irrelevant to what this evidence is. Regardless of what we believe
about Lord Ganesha, or faery dust, or how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin, or even whether or not we drink Coke, our beliefs
are not going to change the physical evidence concerning the Grand
Canyon one whit.

I'm curious as to how many more times I'll have to point this out to
Buff before it's going to sink in.

> Look for my
> upcoming column later today, please.

I look forward to Buff addressing the substance of the issue at hand:

The Grand Canyon Problem
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

Hi, everyone.

Even while Buff Scott continues to use a great deal of false rhetoric
that is typical of young earth creationist propaganda, I'm at least
thankful that he has at least tried to address the real world data
somewhat. By the way, I want everyone to know that in looking at
Buff's website I get the impression that he's a really neat guy. I
would certainly love to hike parts of the Arizona with Buff! I think
that would be a lot of fun. It's just too bad Buff has chosen to
ignore some of the geologic features found in his own state by
putting on the ideological blindfold of young earth creationism.

--- In GospelAdvocatingForum, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101881):
[Todd Greene wrote (post #101657):]
>> Actually, while time and flow are necessary factors [in forming
>> the Grand Canyon], you completely neglect to mention the most
>> important factor: Plate tectonics and their effect in that
>> region over the last several million years. The Colorado River
>> flows through a geologic region called the Colorado Plateau.
>> This region has experienced considerable uplift over the last
>> several million years. You are exactly right that time and river
>> flow alone will not create a canyon like the Grand Canyon. There
>> are additional factors involved, and in this case you fail to
>> mention the most important factor of geologic uplift.
>
> It was around the early part of the last century that geologists
> accepted the biblical story of a universal flood as a historical
> fact and were largely agreed in attributing to this global
> upheaval many of the phenomena in and on the surface of the
> earth's crust. Then developed a movement throughout Europe and
> the Western World, which came to be known as "Rationalism."
> Whatever was not compatible with mortal reason---or "Rationalism"
> ---was rejected.

First of all, in terms of the history of the early development of the
science of geology this characterization is simply incorrect.
Historically speaking, geologists (actually called "naturalists" -
one who studies nature - at that time, since the terms "geology"
and "geologist" had not yet been coined) have *not* been "largely
agreed in attributing to this global upheaval many of the phenomena
in and on the surface of the earth's crust" since the beginning of
the 18th century (i.e., around 1700). There were still a number of
naturalists who advocated this in the middle of the 1700s, but at the
same time there were a number of other naturalists who would raise
serious geological criticisms and objections to these ideas when they
were published.

Second, contrary to the popular rhetoric of young earth creationists,
the problems with young earth creationist claims concerning geology
in general, and the Grand Canyon in particular, have nothing to do
with some kind of ideological prejudice against religion. Everyone
who reads the publications and discussions of the early European
naturalists discussing geology knows that most of these men were
people who believed in God and who believed in the divinity of Christ
in the traditional Christian sense. This *includes* those naturalists
who criticized ideas advocated by proponents of the global flood
being a major factor in the geology of the earth.

For those who are not familiar with this history I recommend the
following excellent detailed overview of the historical development
of geological science:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to
Extrabiblical Evidence (1995)
by Davis A. Young
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802807198

>
> In the field of biology, "Rationalism" led to the development of
> the theory of evolution, a process of thought that, in essence,
> rejects the miraculous and supernatural in favor of human
> reasoning or wisdom. As a result, the story of creation, as told
> in Genesis, is rebuffed; the shaping of the Grand Canyon by the
> Flood is spurned; and other phenomena that are biblical
> associated with creation and the Flood are repudiated. The great
> apostle Paul was not "whistling in the dark" when he declared,
> "So that your faith may not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's
> power" (1 Cor. 2:5).

Contrary to Buff's claim here, the Bible doesn't say one single word
about the Grand Canyon (or the Colorado Plateau). You can read the
Bible forwards, backwards, sideways, and upside down, and do this ten
times a month every month for the next 50 years, and you will not
find one single word about the Grand Canyon in the Bible. If you
doubt what I'm saying here, then go to the Bible Gateway online,
which has the Bible in a number of different translations, run a word
search, or just crack open your Strong's or Thayer's, and see for
yourself that the Bible doesn't say one single word about the Grand
Canyon:

Bible Gateway
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible

Search for "Grand Canyon". Try "Colorado Plateau" too if you like.

Here again we see Buff's use of the popular young earth creationist
rhetoric that is intended to persuade people to *ignore* the
objective data of the physical evidence. In other words, since young
earth creationists are aware of the fact that the physical evidence
contradicts their position, they are forced to couch acceptance of
the objective, physical data as being some kind of ideological
rejection of religious belief.

The facts, however, are otherwise. First of all, historically, as
I've already pointed out, many (and probably most) of the men
involved in the development of geological science in the 18th century
(1700s) were Christians. It is these very same men who by examination
of the earth itself acquired the physical data that showed that the
global flood ideas were wrong. *Moreover*, all of this took place
*decades before* Darwin's publication of the *Origin of Species* in
1859. Second, when young earth creationists today make specific
empirical claims that are shown to be wrong, we are dealing with
their own human rejection of factual information based on their own
ideology and fallibility. But rather than admit this they continue to
pretend that any rejection of erroneous claims made by *them* is the
same thing as rejecting God. So again we see the utter arrogance that
is inherent in the young earth creationist rhetoric.

>
> I am convinced the above correspondent---and I say this without
> intending to offend---has placed his "faith" in men's wisdom
> instead of in God's power. This is evidential when we consider
> that on his Web site, he admits, "I was raised to believe in
> creationism, and I believed it. But my study of the issues
> relevant to creationism led me to reject it." (For a detailed
> explanation, click on his Web page at
> http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/ ). Additionally,
> in a statement issued within the past 24 hours, he confessed,
> "I'm not a member of any church. I'm an agnostic/atheist."
>
> At this junction, I must admit that I have little sufferance---
> and even less time---for belaboring an issue with someone who
> once accepted as reality the creation story, as recounted by
> heaven's prophet, but then turned his back upon it. For to do so
> is an exercise in futility.

In Buff's earlier response to my criticisms of his erroneous claims
about the Grand Canyon he kindly referred me to the 1951 book *The
Flood* by Alfred M. Rehwinkel. Last time I checked my copy of the
Bible (actually, I have two, a New International Version, and a
Revised Standard Version), I did not notice that Rehwinkel's 1951
discussion was anywhere in there. Additionally, I have never noticed
in the Bible any of the Grand Canyon claims that Buff made in his
10/30/03 issue of his *Reformation Rumblings*. So I'm confused about
what point Buff is trying to make. He *says* that we should not
depend on "man's wisdom" and yet he himself asks us to depend
on "man's wisdom" concerning his Grand Canyon claims. What am I
missing here? Is Buff a man? Is Alfred Rehwinkel a man? Is Henry
Morris a man? Is Bert Thompson a man? Did I criticize some erroneous
claims about the Grand Canyon made by a man named Buff Scott Jr.
made, or not? The fact of the matter is that I criticized the
fallible "human wisdom" of Buff himself concerning some incorrect
statements that he made about the Grand Canyon.

Rejection of erroneous claims made by Buff, Rehwinkel, Morris,
Thompson, or any other young earth creationist is simply not the same
thing as rejection of belief in God. Did Charles Hodge (a Christian)
reject belief in God's power? Did Alexander Campbell (a Christian)
reject belief in God's power? Did Benjamin Warfield (a Christian)
reject belief in God's power? Did J. D. Thomas (a Christian) reject
belief in God's power? Does Glenn Morton (a Christian) reject belief
in God's power? Does Davis A. Young (a Christian) reject belief in
God's power? And the list goes on and on and on of the *Christians*
who completely disagree with the *human ideas* of Buff and other
young earth creationists. Much as Buff tries to cast this discussion
as a theist versus atheist issue, the *fact* of the matter is that
Christians disagree with Buff just as much as atheists do. If Buff
made the false claim that the sun is really only 9 million miles from
the earth, there would be all kinds of people who would dispute his
empirical claim and they would do so based on the objective data
about the physical world itself *regardless* of belief or disbelief
in God. When Buff (a man, not a god) makes erroneous claims about the
Grand Canyon, his claims are determined to be wrong by reference to
the actual physical data about the Grand Canyon. The personal
religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the critic are totally
irrelevant to what this physical data is.

I (and others) have pointed this out to Buff a number of times, but
unfortunately Buff doesn't seem to be paying any attention. I'm still
wondering if and when Buff is going to correct his false statements
about this.

> Nonetheless, I will
> address a few of his concerns for the benefit of my readers.
>
> Todd says the Colorado Plateau "has experienced considerable
> uplift over the last several million years." He makes at least
> two mistakes: 1) Span of time; and 2) Denial that the universal
> Flood shaped the Grand Canyon. Whatever took place occurred
> quickly, as geologic and biblical evidence testify, not millions
> of years.

First of all, it is the geologic evidence that we are discussing. On
this point, Buff is merely begging the question. Second, the Bible
does not say anything at all about a global flood shaping the Grand
Canyon. Indeed, as I've already pointed out, the Bible doesn't say
anything about the Grand Canyon at all. What we are dealing with here
is Buff's fallible "human wisdom," despite all of this rhetorical
pretensions to the contrary.

> The "mis-placement" of
> sedimentary rock---that is, old strata at the top and young
> strata at the bottom---points strongly to a rapid convulsion of
> the earth's crust, which would naturally unfold in a global
> deluge, such as detailed in Genesis.

Floods don't pick up hundreds or thousands of feet of layers of rock
miles wide and flip them over. Buff is simply making things up here.

>
> We may call it an "uplift," as Todd refers to it, or describe it
> by other modes, but the reality is that God was its Author and
> the terrestrial "seizure" transpired over a period of 40 days and
> 40 nights.

Again, the Bible does not talk about the Grand Canyon. Here we are
dealing solely with the human speculations of Buff Scott Jr. (and
other young earth creationists).

> The great Grand
> Canyon was one of the numerous "deliveries" of such torrential
> action and the spasms and "uplifts" that accompanied it.

Hundreds of feet of limestone do not form in 40 days - and not even
in 4,000 years. Water does not erode through hundreds and thousands
of feet of rock in 40 days - and not even in 4,000 years. These are
just a couple of examples of the factual errors of Buff's statements.

>
> But Todd says that "the geologic strata themselves were laid down
> over a period of time, and then there is the Grand Canyon that
> was eroded into these strata after the strata were laid down."
> This is simply evolutionary theory.

Buff's statement here is wrong on two counts. First, it is geology
we're dealing with, not "evolutionary theory." Second, and this one
is rather bizarre, Buff here challenges me for pointing out the
obvious: The geologic strata were laid down first and *then* the
Grand Canyon was eroded into these strata. Is Buff implying that the
Canyon was eroded into thin air, and then while the Canyon boundaries
were maintained by a supernatural force field the geologic strata
were laid down?

> Anyone who has
> visited, hiked, and inspected the Canyon can easily see that the
> layers of sedimentary rock (strata) were deposited at the same
> time the Canyon was being formed. And it happened quickly, not
> over millions of years.

Actually, anyone who has visited, hiked, and inspected the Canyon can
see and has observed what I already pointed out in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657

| ...there are many
| different layer boundaries that show where the lower layer had
| lithified (i.e., turned to rock) and then experienced a period of
| erosion (which produced eroded bits of rock - not unconsolidated
| sediment) after which the upper layer was produced (by
| sedimentation which buried the lower layer). Unfortunately for
| young earth creationist global flood advocates, in the real world
| sedimentary layers don't turn to rock and then get eroded in a
| period of time of only a few months. This only occurs in the
| fantasy world of young earth creationism. In the case of what is
| observed in the Grand Canyon, though, with respect to what YECs
| advocate this would not only have to have taken place at least
| once but actually a number of times (sedimentation,
| lithification, erosion of lithified stratum, then sedimentation
| again), all within one year.

Geologists have been studying the Grand Canyon for over a hundred
years and they all knew and know that Buff's statement here is
incorrect. So please note the completely misrepresentative nature of
Buff's comment, and also note that these kind of misrepresentative
comments are typical of YEC rhetoric.

> But aside from
> God's awesome power demonstrated in the Flood, may a gorge,
> similar to the Grand Canyon's sedimentary rock, be formed quickly
> by natural causes? The answer is yes.
>
> Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980. Some years later, a
> monument scientist examined the hardrock canyon, created by the
> eruption, and remarked:
>
> "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of
> thousands of years old. But this one was cut in less than a
> decade." (National Geographic, May, 2000).
>
> Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student of geology, says of this
> revealing statement:
>
> "Pretty convincing evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't take
> millions of years to form. If you can research it out, Mount St.
> Helens has proven to be a huge geologic laboratory that has
> overturned a great many uniformitarian assumptions."

This is a *classic example* of young earth creationists quoting
something out of context and misrepresenting its meaning. The gorge
eroded into the volcanic ash and mud on the side of Mt. St. Helens
after its eruption is nothing at all like the Grand Canyon. The whole
point of this quoted statement from the National Geographic article
is that the gorge cut into the side of Mt. St. Helens is *not* a
hardrock canyon *because* it takes hundreds of thousand of years for
erosion to create a hardrock canyon, whereas the gorge on the side of
Mt. St. Helens was eroded into *soft sediment* - not hardrock - in a
relatively very short period of time.

While Mt. St. Helens certainly *is* a great geologic laboratory, it
certainly has *not* "overturned a great many uniformitarian
assumptions." While Rick Presley may be a student of geology, his
statement here proves that he isn't very knowledgeable about geology.

>
> Those of you who believe the Grand Canyon was formed over a
> period of millions of years should re-examine your evidence by
> examining the canyon formed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens.

The gorge in the side of Mt. St. Helens is not like the Grand Canyon
or other hardrock canyons, so why is it relevant? The Grand Canyon
was not formed in the side of an erupted volcano. The Grand Canyon
was not eroded into the soft sediment of volcanic ash and mud. The
Grand Canyon was eroded into *rock*, and thousands of feet deep. This
is like saying a man should be able to lift thousands of pounds,
because an ant can lift several times its own weight. It simply
doesn't make any sense. The objective physical characteristics of the
geologic contexts are completely different - as anyone who has
observed them knows.

Scott A. Barboza, who was a geologist at the University of Washington
until recently (he now works for ExxonMobil in Houston, Texas),
points out some of the substantial differences between Mt. St. Helens
and the Grand Canyon:

| ...other than the
| fact that both are big holes in the ground, there is NO
| similarity between the Grand Canyon and small gorges at Mt. St.
| Helens. I have seen and observed both the Grand Canyon and the
| gorges at Mt. St. Helens personally and my basis for stating that
| there is no similarity is the following:
|
| 1) Scale. Although the gorge at Mt. St. Helens is a few hundred
| feet deep, it is really of no comparison to the dimensions of the
| Grand Canyon.
|
| 2) Time. The volcanic sediments that make up the gorge at Mt. St.
| Helens are primarily derived from two eruptions (one in the late
| 1800's and the 1980 eruption). Both deposits were laid down over
| a very short period of time as opposed to the sediments of the
| Grand Canyon which were deposited and lithified over millions
| (billions if you count the protolith for the Vishnu Schist) of
| years before the Colorado River was a gleam in her mother's eye
| (so to speak).
|
| 3) Lithology. The gorge at Mt. St. Helens is composed of volcanic
| sediments, not rocks. Sediment weathers MUCH more easily than
| rock. This was stated before and is so obvious that it seems
| almost ridiculus to state it, but I felt the need here.
|
| 4) Lithology again. There is a wide variety of rock preseved at
| the Grand Canyon, some of it is volcanic, most of it is not.
| There is no question that volcanic ash is laid down rapidly. When
| it is observed in the rock record it is never interpreted as
| being the result of slow deposition of sediments. It is pretty
| silly to suggest that geologists haven't noticed that volcanoes
| put out a lot of ash all at once and, as a result, interpret
| large ash layers in the rock record as anything other than
| catastrophic.
|
| 5) Time again. The gorges at Mt. St Helens are a transient
| feature on the landscape. The very rapidity of their erosion
| ensures that. Take a look at any active volcano that hasn't had a
| major eruption in the last 100 years and guess what - no gorges.
| The Grand Canyon was nearly completely formed over a million
| years ago... - the gorges at Mt. St. Helens won't see the 22nd
| century.
|
| ------------------------------------------------
| Re: Geology of Mt St Helens Canyon (04/10/96)
| http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=
| Pine.OSF.3.92a.960410131951.30298A-100000%40saul4.u.washington.edu
| ------------------------------------------------

[note that the link is line-wrapped]

>
> Geologists claim that "before the uplifting of the Colorado
> Plateau, the region was very low in elevation---in fact, slightly
> lower than sea level." I offer no objections to this claim if we
> ascribe the "uplifting" to God and not stretch it out over
> millions of years. So, when did this "uplifting" occur? The ideal
> time would have been during the global flood, when the earth
> experienced a violent convulsion.

Buff here simply ignores the fact that in the real world rivers do
not cut through thousands of feet of rock in "only a matter of days,"
not in 40 days, not in a year, and not in 4,000 years. This only
happens in the fantasy world of young earth creationism.

By the way, please note that here Buff acknowledges the uplift of the
Colorado Plateau region, which is precisely the important geologic
fact he had ignored in his intial statements in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101633

when he was talking about the Colorado River. I thank him for
acknowledging this oversight.

>
> Really, it makes little difference how we peel the orange, we
> discover and uncover God and the Flood in the process! There's
> simply no getting around it; therefore, no need to fight it and
> no need to reject it as "Cinderella fantasy."

There is no evidence whatsoever at the Grand Canyon of a global flood
having taken place a few thousand years ago. Martin G. Miller, a
geologist at the University of Oregon (Ph.D. from University of
Washington), has mentioned some additional examples of how we know
that the geologic strata observed at the Grand Canyon took many
millions of years to form:

| Creation Scientists like to say all this material was deposited
| by Noah's flood, rapidly. But what types of material would you
| expect to see left by such a flood? Boulders and gravel -- not
| the fine-grained sand, shale, or limestone in the Grand Canyon,
| Zion, and Bryce.
|
| Instead of travelling north or west, try hiking down to the
| bottom of the Grand Canyon. At the top of the Inner Gorge, the
| horizontal layers of sedimentary rock rest on top of tilted and
| faulted layers of other sedimentary rock. These sediments were
| deposited, cemented into rock, faulted, tilted, and then eroded
| flat before the horizontal layers above could accumulate.
|
| And below the tilted and faulted layers? An entirely different
| type of rock: metamorphic rock. Look at a metamorphic rock and
| you'll see that it consists of small crystals which have grown
| together to make a crude, irregular banding. These types of rocks
| can only form under conditions of high temperatures and
| pressures. These rocks formed perhaps 10 miles beneath the
| earth's surface.
|
| Somehow, that metamorphic rock moved from great depths below the
| surface up to the earth's surface where we see it today. And
| because sedimentary rock was deposited on top of it, it must have
| come up before the sedimentary rock formed. How long did that
| take? Our fastest long-term uplift rates are on the order of 2
| miles per million years. So at minimum, uplift of the metamorphic
| rock took 5 million years.
|
| This description is, of course, a simplification. Every added
| detail adds more time. What about the multiple periods of erosion
| through earth history that removed, rather than deposited
| material? What about the several periods of mountain building
| that are recorded by buried fault zones and coarse-grained
| erosional debris? The whole picture, which does get very
| complicated, is one of an earth whose surface changes over an
| immense amount of time. To deny that is to miss out on much of
| the beauty and mystery of our planet.
|
| ------------------------------------------------
| How old is the Earth? Why should we care? (11/8/99)
| http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~millerm/geotime.html
| ------------------------------------------------

No geologist in the past or today has been able to successfully
identify a single geologic layer produced by a global flood occurring
a few thousand years ago, and this is not to say they haven't tried
(especially during the first several decades of the beginnings of
geological science). If a person wishes to believe on the basis of
religious faith that a global flood took place a few thousand years
ago, this is certainly his or her perogative to do so. Where we come
into conflict is when a person who believes this on the basis of
*faith* starts making *empirical* claims about the physical world
that are known to be *factually wrong*. When this happens, such
erroneous claims need to be criticized and corrected - unless, of
course, you think it's okay to believe what is known to be wrong.

| The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
| the ears of the wise seek it out.
| (Proverbs 18:15)

| He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
| (Proverbs 12:17)

| If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
| (Matthew 15:14)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

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

* Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
by Jon Woolf
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_intro.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_rocks.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_canyon.html
http://www.erinet.com/jwoolf/gc_summary.html

* Strata of the Grand Canyon
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2b.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm

* The Geology of the Grand Canyon, by Bob Ribokas
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

* Overview of Grand Canyon Geology and Rock Formations
by Bob Keller
http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml

Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd Ed. (2002)
by Stanley S. Beus, Michael Morales
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195122984

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #101965):
> DINOSAURS AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
>
> If death was absent until Adam and Eve fell from God's grace, as
> deity's testimony seems to teach, dinosaurs and man walked the
> Earth together. There's no other logical conclusion. Dinosaurs
> probably became extinct shortly after the Flood, due to drastic
> climatical changes. But regardless of when they became extinct,
> the truth remains they and man existed in the same time span.

Hi, everyone.

FYI, like the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau, the Bible does
not talk about dinosaurs, and so the Bible doesn't say one single
world about when or why the dinosaurs became extinct. Here we are
reading the fallible "human wisdom" of Buff Scott (and other young
earth creationists).

FYI, there are a lot of Christians in the past who thought, and a lot
of Christians today who think, that the Bible does not "seem to
teach" that physical death was absent until Adam and Eve fell from
God's grace. People like Charles Hodge, Alexander Campbell, Benjamin
Warfield, J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, James I. Packer, Jack
Wood Sears, John T. Willis, Gleason Archer, Davis A. Young, Hill
Roberts, Tom Couchman, Shane Scott, and also a number of Christians
who happen to be members of the BereanSpirit discussion list, such as
Al Maxey. (FYI, all of the men I listed by name I happen to know for
a fact believe/believed and teach/taught the doctrine of biblical
infallibility.) These Christians say that "deity's testimony seems to
teach" that the biblical reference is to *spiritual death*, not
physical death. When Buff says that "there's no other logical
conclusion" he is merely begging the question. (Actually, he's
begging a number of questions!)

And how about what the Bible itself says quite clearly?

Genesis 2:16-17 (NASB)

| The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the
| garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge
| of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you
| eat from it you will surely die."

Did Adam die the day he ate from the tree, or not? Does Buff believe
what the Bible says, or not?

Anyway, and regardless of all of Buff's human speculation, the
empirical facts of the matter are that the earth has been in
existence far longer than just six or ten thousand years *and* we
have a fossil record that shows that plants and animals were living,
and dying, for millions of years before humans ever walked on the
planet.

I have a trilobite fossil sitting on my desk in front of my as I type
this. Trilobites - thousands of different species - lived hundreds of
millions of years ago, yet every single one of them is dead.
Trilobite fossils are only found in ocean strata, and the geologic
strata that they are found in are no more recent than what was
deposited up to about 250 million years ago.

A Guide to the Orders of Trilobites
by Sam Gon III
http://www.aloha.net/%7Esmgon/ordersoftrilobites.htm
(This is by far the best website about trilobites.)

If the Bible really does teach that there was no physical death
before Adam (and this is what Buff says it teaches), then the logical
conclusion ("there's no other") is that the Bible teaches a false
idea about the real world since when we objectively examine the real
world itself we see that the real world contradicts what Buff says
the Bible teaches. Should I applaud Buff for "infiltrating this list"
and promoting an atheistic argument?

A Dangerous Implication of YEC
http://www.creationism.cc/steveheiden02.html

>
> According to the humanist theory, dinosaurs became extinct 60 to
> 70 million years before man walked the Earth.

Actually, this is according to *geology*, not "humanist theory"
(whatever that is supposed to be).

> However, some years ago, near Glen Rose, Texas, in the Paluxy
> River bed, human footprints and dinosaur tracks were discovered
> side by side in the same layer of rock (stratum). Evolutionary
> scientists admit the dinosaur prints are real, but they're now
> claiming the human prints are bogus---and all because of
> evolutionary bias.

FYI, the Bible doesn't say one single word about the Paluxy River.

And let's get something straight. The bias here has to do with the
ideological blinders that young earth creationists have due to their
religious belief in a particular doctrine. The fact - which Buff has
purposely ignored - is that Christians disagree with Buff just as
much as anyone else. The objective physical data concerning the
Paluxy River tracks are what they are, and the facts surrounding
young earth creationist claims about various tracks are what they are
too.

>
> Dr. Ronald T. Bird, a paleontologist, remarked, "Yes, they
> apparently were real enough---real as rock could be...the
> strangest things of their kind I had ever seen. On the surface of
> each was sprayed the near-likeness of a human foot, perfect in
> every detail" (Journal of the American Association for the
> Advancement of Science, Nov/Dec., 1979, pages 87-88). But notice
> the outlandish turn of events. When Dr. Bird discovered there
> were also dinosaur tracks nearby, made in the same time span, he
> dismissed the human prints as skillful carvings because "no man
> had ever existed in the Age of Reptiles" (Natural History, May,
> 1939, pages 255-257). Is this not the history of many, perhaps
> even most, evolutionists, agnostics, and atheists? They invent a
> deduction, and then fit everything into that deduction---
> regardless of the evidence.

Actually, this is precisely the history of young earth creationists,
who to this day are still pushing dozens (hundreds?) of arguments
that have are *known* to be wrong - some of which have known to be
wrong for decades. (Indeed, you have observed an example of this
right here in how we have patiently explained and proved to Buff how
it is that this issue is not really a theist versus atheist issue -
and yet he purposely ignores what has been pointed out to him and
continues to cast the issue as such. Another specific example of this
behavior is where Bert Thompson pushed the YEC moon dust argument for
at least 20 years starting by at least the early 1980s - even though
the argument was already known to be wrong in the 1960s! - and did
not stop promoting this false argument *until just this year*!) The
fact of antiquity has not been "invented" but has been discovered by
extensive examination of the earth and the universe themselves, it
was discovered over 200 years ago, and yet here we are in the year
2003 with young earth still denying reality. The geocentrists could
only have dreamed about being so biased!

In regard to the Ronald Bird quote, I simply don't trust what has
been quoted out of context. Why? Because I have read dozens of these
kinds of quotes that are circulated through young earth creationist
propaganda literature which I have been able to check personally, and
in every single case I've found that what the person has actually
said has been misrepresented. Unfortunately, this particular one is
pretty obscure, and I'm not able to check it. I ask Buff to provide
us with the additional context of the quote of Bird here. (Of course,
I know he won't because Buff just picked up this isolated quote from
young earth creationist propaganda, and has no idea of the context of
what Bird was talking about.)

In regard to the Paluxy River tracks themselves, I can report to you
that the claims of some prints being human are so lacking in
credibility that even the two major YEC organizations Institute for
Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) haved backed
away from support of these claims. The ICR was questioning
this "evidence" as early as 1986 - 17 years ago. AiG has this claim
on their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" web page in
the "Which arguments should *definitely* not be used?" section (the
emphasis on the word "definitely* is theirs), where they point out
that "Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long
since withdrawn their support." Is Buff going to tell us that the
ICR, AiG, and earlier creationist promoters of the tracks now dismiss
these claims "because of evolutionary bias"?

For the most extensive detailed information online about the YEC
claims of human prints in rock at the Paluxy River in Texas, I
suggest you take a look at this website:

The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
by Glen J. Kuban
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm

>
> Dinosaur carvings have been found on the cliff walls of the Hava
> Supai Canyon of Arizona. Not too far from this site, dinosaur
> tracks were discovered. The external, non-biblical evidence is
> clear-cut and testifies that dinosaurs and man existed in the
> same time span.---Buff.

FYI, the Bible doesn't say a single thing about the Havasupai Canyon.
And there's nothing in the Bible about dinosaur carvings or drawings
either. The Bible doesn't even say a word about anything in the whole
state of Arizona! (And the Bible doesn't say anything about the
Mayans, or the Havasupai, coming from the Lost Tribes of Israel,
either.)

So here we have more obscure and erroneous "human wisdom" by young
earth creationists. (Hey, Buff, did you pick this one up from Wayne
Jackson?) Leave it to a young earth creationist, with his "fringe
science" mentality, to gravitate to such bogus information. (Can
anyone say, "Keith Sisman"?) This is just another one of these weird
claims that gets started by some young earth creationist and then
gets amplified a hundred times or more by repetition in sermons (from
preachers who read the stuff), church bulletins, and websites (like
Buff's); like the quote Buff used earlier where a comment about a
gorge at Mt. St. Helens has been, due to being pulled out of context,
completely misinterpreted to refer to a hardrock canyon even though
the comment about the gorge is stating exactly the opposite, that the
Mt. St. Helen gorge is not at all like a hardrock canyon. These out-
of-context quotes and comments get started and then will get recycled
in YEC propaganda for the next forty or fifty years, such that fifty
years later some critic is left scratching his head,
wondering, "Where do they get this obscure stuff?"

Incidentally, I have just created a new page on my website with some
pictures of this petroplyph, as its called, along with a lot of
additional information about southwest U.S. petroglyphs in general.
You can take a look at it here:

YEC Misrepresentation of a Havasupai Petroglyph
http://www.creationism.cc/havasupaipics.html

(By the way, I wonder if Buff thinks we should give "equal time" to
Havasupai religious beliefs about creation in science classes?)

Incidentally, you can get a cool screensaver showing some beautiful
pictures of the Havasupai area, at this website:

http://www.havasupaitribe.com/

I have observed that when it comes to empirical claims by Mormons
about Mormonism, Buff is a great skeptical critic. Unfortunately, he
is not using this same critical approach with his own young earth
creationist beliefs. That's a shame.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #102055):
> Nelta:
[snip]
> You and the other lists managers should be aware that
> infiltrators under the banner of "Christianity" have "crept in
> unawares" in an attempt to convert as many as possible to their
> evil causes.... I am also convinced our recent atheist writers
> have done the same.

Hi, everyone.

Atheist writer*s*? Hmmm... I wonder who Buff thinks the other atheist
writers are. From the posts I have read discussing this subject of
young earth creationism, I am the only one. Oooo... Maybe there's a
secret conspiracy! Do you think?

Anyway, I find it most interesting that when a person points out some
erroneous statements made by the fallible human being Buff Scott Jr.,
rather than address the substance of the criticism he chooses to
engage in irrelevant (and misrepresentative) *ad hominem* rhetoric
about that person "infiltrating," "creeping in unawares,"
and "attempting to convert as many as possible to their evil causes."
Buff seriously needs to explain to us how pointing out specific
errors of claims made by him - a fallible human being - is
somehow "attempting to convert as many as possible to their evil
causes." Yet again we are seeing Buff, like so many other young earth
creationists, trying to place his own fallible "human wisdom" on a
divine pedestal.

Besides this, I have only pointed out to Buff several times that
Christians disagree with his claims just as much as I do (and I have
named names, too!) - and yet Buff has studiously ignored this fact.
What is it that motivates a man to purposely ignore the truth that is
pointed out to him? And since Buff is the one who wishes to talk
about people who try to convert others to their evil causes (keep in
mind that Buff is the one who has brought up this rhetoric, not me -
because I will remember), what can we say about those who purposely
ignore the truth and try to persuade others to ignore the truth as
well. Don't you think that's an evil cause?

>
> Don't misunderstand me at this point. I'm a supporter and
> promoter of freedom of speech.

But here he is consciously, purposely supporting the suppression of
specific criticism of erroneous statements that he has made.

> Our discussion lists
> are not "up for grabs" for cultists, atheists, and others who
> show little or no respect for Deity and their revelations.

If I started expressing disrespect for theistic belief, I would
expect to be banned from the list immediately. Of course, I have not
done this. If I started arguing in support of atheism, I would expect
to be banned from the list immediately. Of course, I have not done
this either. What I have done is point out some errors in some claims
made by the fallible human being Buff Scott Jr. Clearly, Buff wants
people to think otherwise.

Moreover, in a few of my posts on the discussion of Buff's erroneous
statements I have purposely and explicitly pointed out a number of
examples of Christians - and Christians who are well known in the
Church Of Christ (well, at least most of the are well known) - who
*agree with me* about the serious problems of young earth
creationism. Here are some of those names again: Alexander Campbell,
J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, Jack Wood Sears, John T.
Willis, Hill Robert, Tom Couchman, and Shane Scott. What we are
seeing here is that Buff is so worried about having the errors of his
statements pointed out that he seeks to silence the criticism by
attacking me in an irrelevant and misrepresentative manner, rather
than dealing with the criticism itself.

>
> If I might advance a suggestion: If you're suspicious of new
> members and what they're presenting, screen them early on by
> asking specific questions about their beliefs. I don't think any
> of us have the time, nor the patience, to listen to the baseless
> rhetoric of cultists and atheists. This is not the place for
> them. Peter warns us: "Just as there will be false teachers among
> you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
> denying the sovereign Lord who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1).
[snip]

Yet even though Buff himself is making statements and claims that are
known to be false, he seeks to silence serious criticism.

| The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
| the ears of the wise seek it out.
| (Proverbs 18:15)

| He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
| (Proverbs 12:17)

| The man of integrity walks securely,
| but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.
| (Proverbs 10:9)

| If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
| (Matthew 15:14)

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

--- In BereanSpirit, Buff Scott Jr. wrote (post #102150):
> Todd:
>
> With all due respect, I don't know why you insist on remaining on
> a list that is basically, if not altogether, Christian, when your
> agenda is evolutionary and atheistic. What do you hope to achieve
> by parroting your atheistic and evolutionary views to those of us
> who will never be convinced of atheism and evolution? Is there
> some way you might find a different audience to promote your
> agenda?

Hi, Buff.

[parody: on]
Oh, golly, you *caught me*!!! I'm really a special agent with the
Worldwide Atheist Conspiracy (WAC). Please don't let anyone else know
or I might have to kill you. (Actually, I'm not in that branch; we
contract that sort of business out to other WAC agents.) We members
of WAC have successfully taken over the entire world of science. We
have carefully infiltrated every geological research group of every
university, oil company, environmental engineering group, and
government organization across the entire planet. Are there
archaeologists or paleontologists on a dig? We've got that covered
with agents whose specialty is in those areas. Usually they just
plant the evidence (which is made up in highly sophisticated WAC
laboratories set up for just this purpose). We secretly control every
astronomical facility, with special super-secret special effects
devices attached to every telescope. We even nail all of the larger
amateur telescopes, just to make sure. The Hubble Space Telescope,
and other space telescopes? Heck, those are actually pretty easy -
all we have to do is replace their onboard computers with our own!
The ancient universe that everyone thinks has been observed? It's
nothing more than a WAC-fabricated illusion! Occasionally, some non-
WAC man or woman somehow gets through the great web that we've laid,
and unfortunately we have to kidnap them and conduct intense hypnosis
and brain-washing sessions, to wipe out all memory of any schemes of
deception they may have noticed. Of course, these don't take too long
and once they're done they don't even remember. This is why we also
have so many Christians on our side. Yes, it's an awful lot of work,
but WAC has been up to the cause! FYI: WAC people tampered with
Galileo's telescope too!
[parody: off]

Incidentally, that's pretty funny how you tack on "With all due
respect" to remarks that are completely disrespectful (and purposely
misrepresentative). Indeed, you have adamantly refused to respect a
single thing I've said.

Not so incidentally, I went back through all of my posts looking for
my alleged discussion of *atheism* and *evolution*, and, Buff, golly,
I couldn't find a single thing! I found where I discussed various
points of information about the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River, Mt.
St. Helens, the Paluxy River, a supernova in the Large Magellanic
Cloud galaxy, and even petroglyphs made in the Havasupai area of
Arizona, and I discussed various other related issues of geology,
paleontology, and astronomy - but not once did I discuss atheism or
evolution.

Anyone who doubts me can look for themselves at what I have written
in this discussion:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101657
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101790
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101792
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101837
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101838
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101865
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/101922
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/102091
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/102095

Anything about atheism or evolution in there? Nope!

What is going on here, Buff, is that I criticized some specific
claims you made that are known to be wrong, you were unable to
explicate your claims from the problems that were pointed out, but
rather than acknowledge any problem whatsoever you choose to
misrepresent the situation. You could have been honest and above-
board on these issues and just explained, "I'm not able to address
these problems that you've pointed out," but instead you chose to
take the wrong way out by trying to *attack me* instead of
*explaining the problems with your claims* that I pointed out. That
certainly doesn't seem right to me, but, hey, isn't this a typical
approach for young earth creationists? Indeed, it is. And what else
is new?

I have pointed out to you (and to everyone else) *several times* that
*Christians* disagree with the young earth creationist claims you
have made about the Grand Canyon (and other related claims) just as
much as I do. I pointed out that *Christians* would disagree, as I
would, if you tried to claim that the sun was only 9 million miles
away from the earth too. You know - and I know that you know - that
you would be wrong *because of the facts of the matter* that show
that your claim is wrong, and it wouldn't matter diddly-squat if the
person who pointed out the errors of your claim happened to be an
atheist or a Christian, or even a corrupt Pepsi-drinker like Al Maxey.

So this is one of the facts on this that you have purposely ignored,
a fact that has been explicitly pointed out to you numerous times:

*******************************************************
* Christians and atheists and many others disagree *
* with the empirical claims you have made about the *
* Grand Canyon, because of the relevant empirical *
* information observed about the Grand Canyon itself. *
*******************************************************

What do you hope to achieve by parroting the young earth creationist
lie that the antiquity of the universe and the earth is a theist
versus atheist issue? Everyone who is reading this - including you,
Buff - knows fully well that Christians the world over have long
since accepted the antiquity of the world. *Since* Christians accept
the empirical facts on this just as atheists do, it is *wrong* for
you to falsely pretend that this issue is a theist versus atheist
issue. The antiquity of the universe and the earth *cannot* be a
theist versus atheist issue *because* there are millions of
Christians who *agree* that the empirical facts show that the world
is ancient.

What gives you the right to purposely ignore the facts, and then to
make misrepresentative statements based on intentionally ignoring
these facts?

>
> You remarked, "Did Adam die the day he ate from the tree, or not?
> Does Buff believe what the Bible says, or not?" Now what kind of
> a question is this? Most believers know that Adam died
> spiritually at that moment, and physically later. And you're
> asking me if I believe the Bible! What difference does it make
> to you, inasmuch as you dismiss much if not all of it? Your
> rhetoric, my friend is "pleasing to the eye," but I'm afraid it
> contaminates the minds and hearts of many.

I quoted the Bible to you. Do you have a problem with that? Do you
claim that you have the right to make a claim about what the Bible
says, but that no one has the right to then quote the Bible itself in
order to compare what it actually says to your representation of it?
If you do not claim this, then why would you try to ward me off from
quoting it for comparison to your representation of it? What it says
is really clear. Here it is again:

Genesis 2:16-17 (NASB)

| The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the
| garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge
| of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you
| eat from it you will surely die."

The *whole point* is that if Adam physically died *later*, then this
verse is referring to spiritual death and not physical death - and
*this is just what many Christians teach*, and so *these many
Christians disagree with you*. Buff, there's no need to engage in
rhetoric to try to distract everyone from this very simple point. Do
you agree that my point is correct? Or do you think that my point is
incorrect, because, of course, you wish to pretend that an atheist
can't possibly say anything that's right?

Everyone who reads this knows that *what I have stated is the truth*:
Many Christians believe that this verse is a reference to *spiritual
death* and *not* to physical death. When I explain that there are
many Christians who *disagree* with you (as I did), *I am pointing
out the truth*. But you are so wedded to your prejudice-pandering
approach that instead of acknowledging *such a simple truth as this*
you choose to play a rhetorical game to try to hide the truth, to try
to pretend that I, a mere atheist, can't possibly say something that
is right. Look at the misrepresentative manner that your prejudice
has locked you into.

>
> Look, our discussion has ended. May I suggest that you devise
> your own column, as I have, rig up an audience, as I have, and
> promote your agenda "until kingdom come," as I have? You can
> blast me through your column until the cows come home, if you
> wish, but our discussion has reached the end.

For now, I suspect so. Cool. But in the long run? I seriously doubt
it, Buff, because I'm fairly certain that you will continue to
espouse the exact same claims I have explained the errors of. After
all, this is just what young earth creationists like you do, continue
to recycle and promote the same errors that have been exposed a
thousand times, memetic zombies that roam the memetic earth. (Hey,
Bert Thompson pushed the moon dust argument for at least 20 years,
even though the argument was known to be wrong for at least 15 years
before he even started!) This is what YEC propaganda is all about.

Of course, maybe - just maybe - my cynicism is ill-founded. Maybe
you'll actually stop for a minute (well, okay, a bit more than a
minute) and take a more detailed and substantive look. Now that would
actually be quite interesting!

| The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
| the ears of the wise seek it out.
| (Proverbs 18:15)

| He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
| (Proverbs 12:17)

| The man of integrity walks securely,
| but he who takes crooked paths will be found out.
| (Proverbs 10:9)

| If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
| (Matthew 15:14)

I close this post by saying - again - that unless Buff or someone
else further addresses this particular topic that we've been
discussing, this will be my last post at this time to the
BereanSpirit group.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene