TOPThe debate Jerry wanted to have
(Nov 6, 2007)

Just to make this explicit, here's the debate Jerry really wanted to
have:

Proposition: Resolved, the age of the earth is not really geological
science but is just used by geologists to try to prop up biological
evolution.

I would not allow him to change the subject like that. I intended to
discuss examples from geological science that showed that the earth
has been around far longer than just 10,000 years (note that I
purposely have 100,000 years in the proposition I wrote specifically
to give young earth creationists plenty of "leeway"). But Jerry did
not want to debate the geology about the antiquity of the earth, he
wanted to debate the YEC conspiracy theory about scientists
promoting biological evolution with fake geology, and that's why the
debate was called off.

- Todd Greene

TOPStill laughing about Jerry trying to capitalize on my own lazy error
(Nov 6, 2007)

I was just checking out my books page (thinking about adding another
book or two), and just had to post here about this - I'm still
laughing over Jerry's basing his argument on my lazy failure to make
a new picture for that video! In the other video (the first one, the
one that's not even on YouTube yet, because I'm still working on
it), I'm specifically giving references to GEOLOGY books, in
addition to books on paleontology and biology, because in the video
I made that particular picture for in the first place I'm talking
about where ICR creationists refer to all of science they don't like
as "evolution" (the worldwide conspiracy to prop up the religion of
biological evolution, according to young earth creationists) and I'm
showing people specific examples of books packed with SCIENCE
information in respective fields of science, which in the case of
the book *The Age of the Earth* (by G. Brent Dalrymple; 1991) is
about GEOLOGY. Incidentally, here's the link to my Books page

http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/books/

where you can see where some of the pictures came from.

It was just so ironic how Jerry was promoting EXACTLY the false
deceitful rhetoric of young earth creationists that I talk about in
that first (currently unpublished) video, using exactly the picture
I made for that video, that I had myself lazily used in the other
video by not making a new picture with only biology- and
paleontology-related books in it.

Here's a quote from the current draft of the script I have for the
pre-draft video (note that in the video I have excerpts of comments
being made by ICR creationists, that my comments are in direct
response to):

| In reality, it is creationists themselves who have
| been engaging in vehement attacks and false
| accusations against scientific results that are
| contrary to their religious dogma, and against
| professional scientists who work in these fields of
| research. One example of this is how creationists
| attack astronomers and geologists by falsely
| pretending that they are not actually doing research
| in astronomy and geology - this is when creationists
| pretend that these scientists are just making things
| up as part of a conspiracy to promote evolution.
| Indeed, toward the end of this radio broadcast we're
| listening to, we'll hear one of the creationists
| pretend that scientists are just making things up as
| part of a conspiracy to promote atheism! So when
| creationists preach against attacks and false
| accusations, they are demonstrating an absurd degree
| of hypocrisy.

| "Scientific evidence seems to be lacking"???
| "Scientists don't give any evidence"??? Astronomy,
| geology, and evolutionary biology can't stand the
| test of science??? Didn't these guys just get done
| telling us that they're supposedly opposed to
| "belittlement" and "false accusations." So why don't
| they practice what they preach? There are literally
| thousands - and this is no exaggeration - thousands
| of professional research articles published each and
| every year in astronomy, geology and geophysics,
| paleontology, biology, molecular biology, genetics,
| population mechanics, and so on that back up the
| facts that our world has been around for millions
| and billions of years, and that biological evolution
| has been taking place on our planet. All you have to
| do is take a look at any college textbook in these
| various fields of science - and there are literally
| dozens of such textbooks - and you'll see the
| massive amount of research that exists - and it's
| all contrary to this creationist rhetoric. All you
| have to do is take a look at the articles published
| in the professional science journals in these
| various fields to see the many different kinds of
| evidence that exist and that continues to be
| produced, that is consistent with the standard
| scientific perspective. So the real question is -
| why are creationists falsely pretending this
| evidence doesn't exist?

| In this video I'm now showing you a link to a page
| at the Greene's Creationism Truth Filter website
| where I give you direct links to over forty
| professional science journals that publish research
| relevant either to evolutionary biology or to
| paleontology research that's relevant to evolution.
| Go to that page when you get some time and check out
| all of this professional science research relevant
| to evolution that is being published on a routine
| basis. (I'll leave you to use Google to search out
| professional journals that publish research in
| astronomy and geology for yourself.)
|
| Now I'm showing you a link to a page at the site
| that gives you just a few examples of the dozens of
| science textbooks that are filled with detailed
| scientific evidence for the astronomical age of the
| universe, for the geological ages of the earth, for
| the evolution of life over time as observed through
| the fossil record, and for our the processes that
| cause biological evolution to occur.
|
| When creationists pretend that the scientific
| research doesn't exist, it makes you want to say
| something like, "Excuse me??? Why don't you try
| stepping out of your creationist Twilight Zone, and
| deal with reality."

This sentence, "All you have to do is take a look at any college
textbook in these various fields of science - and there are
literally dozens of such textbooks - and you'll see the massive
amount of research that exists - and it's all contrary to this
creationist rhetoric," is the specific context in the video that I
made the picture for (I have the picture displayed in the video as
the backdrop to that particular narration). When I made the later
quick video, I lazily did not make another picture but just re-used
the picture I'd already made, and then Jerry based his own
fallacious argument on my own deliberate oversight due to laziness.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate status!
(Nov 6, 2007)

I agree with your comments, but Jerry was first trying to make his
proposition vague enough so he could talk about biological
evolution, or the Bible, or whatever he felt like talking about, and
no one could say "That's not relevant to the proposition" because he
had purposely removed reference to the science. Then when I insisted
he needed to return reference to the science to the wording of the
proposition, he added in *biological* evolution, because he knew all
along that THAT is what he intended to discuss, because he knows he
cannot attack the fact that the earth has been around a lot longer
than 10,000 years on the basis of the geological science, so he
wanted to confuse people with all kinds on red herring rhetoric
about biological evolution. But here's the point, if biological
evolution is right in the proposition then if I say that's not
relevant to the debate, Jerry can come right back with, but you
signed on to this proposition that says that biological evolution is
relevant to the subject. Jerry had every intention of changing the
subject to biological evolution. He knows it, and now I know it. And
that's how he showed everyone that he'd been lying to me, trying to
trick me, from the very beginning. It is his deceitfulness on this
matter that raised all kinds of red flags with me, by which I knew I
needed to pin him down to either be straight with me, or bug off. He
chose to bug off rather than be straight with me. That's good,
because if he cannot be straight with me, there's no point in trying
to negotiate debate arrangements with a man who cannot bring himself
to be honest even on this, who was purposely trying to trick me.

The broader point is that young earth creationists like Jerry know
they are not capable of attacking the antiquity of the universe and
the antiquity of the earth on the basis of the relevant science,
which is precisely why they run off at the mouth and the keyboard
with all manner of irrelevant (and irrational prejudice-pandering)
red herring rhetoric about biological evolution RATHER THAN dealing
with the astronomical science and geological science. This, for
example, explains why Jerry deliberately refused to answer my
question to him about SN1987A and evolution.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #13337):
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (in part):
>> I'll write something up when I get a chance late tonight,
>> though of course I'll start again with the proposed
>> propositions as I originally worded them, except
>> now that I have observed consistent young earth creationist
>> misrepresentation of "empirical evidence" as being somehow
>> something other than science, I'm thinking it's better just
>> to make that "scientific evidence."
>
> You know, Todd, I'm not so sure about that. If you were to
> start out a debate and spend the first several minutes of
> your time explaining to everyone what "empirical evidence"
> is, and how it is persistently misrepresented by the
> young-earthers, I think that could be an effective way of
> squelching the opposition's misuse of the term, WHICH YOU
> KNOW they were planning on doing.
>
> Just tell everybody right up front: it is the *evidence*
> that is empirical, not the phenomenon. There are all sorts
> of phenomena that happen every day, where the events
> themselves are not observed but the evidence that those
> events have occurred *are* observed. According to the
> creationists' use of "empirical", they have no evidence
> that sex makes babies!
>
> Same thing with "evolution" -- just warn everybody right
> up front how the term will be applied to everything under
> the Sun by the young-earthers; explain to them that the
> theory of evolution is a proposed explanation of *how*
> species have changed over millions of years, but that
> whether species *have* changed over millions of years is
> not at question. It is an observed fact.
>
> Same with "macroevolution" -- no scientist says that
> horses give birth to cats, and there is nothing in the
> theory of evolution that suggests any such thing.
>
> I think if you were to foresee (from experience) how
> whatever terms you were going to be using were likely to be
> misrepresented, and clear all that up right from the start,
> it would be very effective in either keeping the opposition
> from engaging in such behavior or, as soon as they did,
> sending up a red flag to the audience. I think the more
> you can forewarn your audience about the way the young-
> earthers rely on that strategy, the more you will weaken
> the opposition's argument. You know how heavily they
> depend on such gimmicks. Try to take that away from
> them to start with.
>
> That word "empirical" in your proposition could almost
> work as a trap...
>
> Rick

TOPRe: Todd, Jerry - about Jerry's new proposition?
(Nov 5, 2007)

Jerry could "use" whatever he wanted. The point is that he is not
allowed to change the wording of the propositions so that it CHANGES
THE SUBJECT. This is one of the PURPOSES of the proposition, so that
when a debater goes off-top we know it's off-topic because it is the
propositions that establish the scope of discussion in the first
place. Then, in the debate itself, if Jerry wants to waste his time
talking about how to grow and nurture tomato plants he can go right
ahead and do so, but everyone else knows that what he's talking
about is "off-topic."

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13320):
> Todd, if it is science why can't I use it? Don't you
> remember one of the books you advertised to show that
> evolution is science, called "The Age of the Earth"? I
> ordered that book because of your recommendation on a
> video that was saying that evolution is science. You
> can't have it both ways! Either evolution is science and
> I can use it, or I can't use it because it isn't science.
> Either the book "The Age of the Earth" deals with
> evolution, or you should never have advertised it on that
> video as showing that evolution is science. One of the
> books that I bought, in preparation for this debate, was
> a text book called "Physical Geology" which says:
> "Historical geology is concerned with the study of life
> and changes in life-forms throughout geologic time as
> well as the physical evolution of Earth. Paleontologist,
> specialists in the study of fossils, have patiently and
> meticulously over the years identified thousands of
> species and fossils and determined which plant and animal
> species lived during which subdivisions of geologic time"
> (Physical Geology 9th edition by Plummer, McGeary and
> Carlson, p. 186). Are you saying that Geology does not
> deal with biological evolution. Yes, it deals with
> fossils, but the fossils supposedly show the biological
> evolutionary pattern. You cannot argue for biological
> evolution without geology because you have to have the
> fossil record in order to argue for it because biological
> evolution doesn't happen today. Does the book "The Age of
> the Earth" deal with evolution? If not, then why did you
> advertise it and recommend it to people on your video to
> prove that evolution is science? Does Richard Dawkins'
> book "The Blind Watchmaker" which upholds Darwinism not
> deal with geology (the fossil record)? In the book
> "Evolutionary Analysis" Scott Freeman and Jon Herron
> wrote: "3. Lord Kelvin, the foremost physicists of the
> 19th century published an important series of papers in
> the eartly 1860's calculating the age of the Earth at a
> maximum of 15-20 million years...This view of Life.
> Darwin ended the introduction to the first edition of ON
> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES with a statement that still
> represents the concensus of evolutionary biologists
> (Darwin 1859, p. 60: 'Natural selection has been the man
> but not exclusive means of modification'" (pp. 94,95).
> You cannot get away from biological evolution when
> discussing the age of the earth, no matter how hard you
> try, and this is why you don't want to discuss it with
> me. These are just a few of the books that I purchased in
> preparation for this debate. None of these books were
> written by creationists, but by evolutionists. They all
> deal with the age of the earth, the fossil record
> (geology -- which deals with the age of the earth) and
> they all deal with biological evolution. Just admit it,
> you thought that I was too dumb to properly prepare and
> you thought you would amaze people with your so-called
> knowledge without my being able to set the record
> straight. That is why you won't debate and you know it.
> Just admit it, be the first atheist to admit that he is
> wrong.
> jdm
> You have until 7:00 p.m. tonight to make up your mind.

TOPRe: Debate status!
(Nov 5, 2007)

After being misled like this, I have less than zero motivation to
cut Jerry any slack. Since now at this time I seriously doubt he
ever had any intention of debating the proposition topics in the
first place, I think we can forget about him in that respect.
However, I don't see any reason why we can't get in touch with Larry
Yarber directly to see if he would like to replace Jerry McDonald as
debater, since Jerry doesn't want to debate the subjects. I'll write
something up when I get a chance late tonight, though of course I'll
start again with the proposed propositions as I originally worded
them, except now that I have observed consistent young earth
creationist misrepresentation of "empirical evidence" as being
somehow something other than science, I'm thinking it's better just
to make that "scientific evidence."

(Regarding comments about the CFTF list, I've been so busy the last
several days I have to admit I haven't read anything from there at
all so I have no idea what is being referred to.)

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
> Jerry McDonald has again left the list, indicating he is not
> going to be coming back and engaging in any further efforts
> to meet his committment to discuss "young-earth,
> creation-science" claim that "nothing is more than a few
> thousand years old" in the context of the real world
> evidence that may falsify such a claim:
>
>> Nov 5, 2007 12:32 pm
>> jerrydmcdonald
>> Left group via email
>
> Personally, I think Larry Yarber and I could have come to a
> better resolution of the problem. Alas, Jerry would not
> allow the effort to be made.
>
> So, it looks like the McDonald/Greene Debate is off!
>
> Still no "David"!
>
> I also think Jerry's interest in leaving and cancelling the
> debate is to try and evade litigation that may stem from the
> antics he's been up to along with others as evidenced by his
> recent postings to the CFTF list.
>
> You think?
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty

TOPRe: I guess the debate is over.
(Nov 5, 2007)

There you go lying again, Jerry. The fact of the matter is that it
is YOU who NEVER had any intention of debating on the debate topics
that I stated to you FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Every time you falsely
pretend otherwise, you're lying about the matter. It's YOU who has
been coming up with one excuse after another. Every time you falsely
pretend otherwise, you're lying.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13328):
> Well, I guess one excuse is as good as another when you don't
> want to debate.
>
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry D. McDonald
>
> P.S. You don't even have until 7:00 p.m. now since you have
> concocted this lie. It is over, there will be no debate.
>
>
>> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> Yes, the debate is over, precisely because the debate
>> never really existed in the first place. You misled me,
>> Jerry, and you know you were misleading me the whole
>> time. You knew what the topics of debate were, and you
>> were just trying to jerk me around and deceive about
>> things so that you could change the subject without me
>> knowing about it, but your charade could only last so
>> long until we started to get into the nitty-gritty
>> details.
>>
>> In regard to my video, IT IS A KNOWING ERROR ON MY PART,
>> and what's so funny about this is the fact that it is a
>> KNOWING ERROR BY ME (which I shall explain in a moment),
>> and here you are banking your own false rhetoric on my
>> knowingly having an error in my video. I'm LAUGHING AT
>> YOU FOR THIS.
>>
>> If you listen to my STATEMENTS (audio) in my video, I
>> NEVER refer to the geology books IN THE AUDIO. I had
>> made an image (and this takes some time to do so) of
>> some of the books that I have on my Books Page at my
>> website (before I made that video). When I made the
>> picture I never even had that particular video (that
>> subject) in mind. When I made that particular video,
>> instead of making a new picture of just the relevant
>> books (as I should have), I WAS LAZY, JERRY, AND DIDN'T
>> DO IT. I had already spent a lot of time making the
>> pictures of the magazine covers, and at the time I just
>> didn't feel like making another picture. I figured I'd
>> just use the picture of the books I'd already made for
>> something else, thinking to myself, "These are mostly
>> about biology and paleontology - which I'm specifically
>> talking about - so these geology books on here won't
>> matter."
>>
>> And then here you come along and BANK on my having had
>> certain books irrelevant to the subject in the
>> picture!!! (Indeed, I had made the picture for a
>> PREVIOUS video on another subject - it's a response to
>> an ICR radio program, that I'm still working on, I even
>> have a pre-draft version up on my website, but since
>> it's pre-draft version there's no link to it from
>> anything on my website. But you can even see a pre-draft
>> version here, that has that specific picture in it, and
>> thus see the original context that I made that
>> particular books picture for in the first place:
>
> http://creationism.outersystem.us/video/delusionalcreationism.wmv
>
> This is roll-on-the-floor laughing kind of stuff, Jerry!
>> Your secret agenda blew up in your face! You never had
>> any intention of discussing the debate topics I offered
>> you to begin with, and your deceitfulness about this,
>> trying to jerk me around on the topics, is coming back
>> and biting you in the butt right now.
>>
>> I hope it's biting nice and hard.
>>
>> Again, should you wish to actually have a debate on the
>> subjects that I told you I'd debate you on from the very
>> beginning, let me know.
>>
>> In regard to *The Age of the Earth* book itself, since
>> Jerry apparently actually owns the book, then he knows
>> that it is not about biological evolution and that
>> biological evolution is not used with respect to the
>> geological science showing that the earth has been
>> around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years, so
>> when he falsely pretends otherwise, yes, he is lying
>> about it. When he pretends that I said I would debate
>> him about biological evolution, yes, he is lying to
>> everyone. When he tells people that I agree to change
>> the subject and debate him about biological evolution,
>> yes, he is lying about that as well. There is no way
>> that Jerry can get out of this disaster of his own
>> creation, without lying about everything. And this is
>> all because he was deceiving me all along, and never had
>> any intention of debating on the debate topics that I
>> GAVE HIM TO BEGIN WITH.
>>
>> Jerry, as long as you continue to lie about me, I will
>> continue to point out the FACT that you're lying about
>> me. You don't get to lie about me, and then expect me to
>> shut up and not point out to people what you're doing.
>>
>> Oh, and there's that "In Christ Jesus" again. So I guess
>> this is what they call "Lying for Jesus."
>>
>> - Todd Greene

TOPRe: I guess it is all over.
(Nov 5, 2007)

Jerry, there you go lying again. I didn't run for cover. YOU DID.

I stand here, even after all of your blatant deceitfulness, ready to
debate you on the topics of the debate, that have been the topics of
the debate FROM THE BEGINNING (regardless of what you wanted to
change them to). YOU are the one who ran away from this debate - or,
rather, you actually never agreed to debate these topics in the
first place, but were lying to me to fool me into thinking that you
had agreed to debate these topics - so, actually, it was you running
for cover the whole time, and I just didn't realize it until a
couple of days ago.

Thank you for showing everyone just how deceitful young earth
creationists really can be. Another example for the public record.

Also, thank you for showing me how I can prevent such deceit from
occurring next time a young earth creationist says he'll debate me.
I will certainly stick to my guns about requiring that the wording
of the propositions themselves MUST be explicitly about the topics
of debate. I will never again allow a young earth creationist to
remove relevant wording and expect me to trust him just because he
tells me OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSITION WORDING ITSELF that he will or
won't do such and such. Lesson learned.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13325):
> I guess there will be no debate. In other words, another
> atheist runs for cover. That makes two this year. Well,
> there won't be any more because I have come to realize that
> you can't take the word of an atheist for any reason. This is
> the second time in the last 12 months that I have bought
> books and materials in prepartion for a debate with an
> atheist only to have the atheist back out. Since I can't
> take their word as truth, I don't intend to debate them any
> further publically. I will, however, continue to deal with
> them on my list and website, but I will spend no more time
> and money preparing for public debates that will never come
> to fruition.
>
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry D. McDonald
>
> P.S. I am going to unsubscribe from Robert Baty's list again,
> but Todd has until 7:00 p.m. today to change his mind. If he
> does he can reach me at jerry@...

TOPRe: I guess the debate is over.
(Nov 5, 2007)

Yes, the debate is over, precisely because the debate never really
existed in the first place. You misled me, Jerry, and you know you
were misleading me the whole time. You knew what the topics of
debate were, and you were just trying to jerk me around and deceive
me about things so that you could change the subject without me
knowing about it, but your charade could only last so long until we
started to get into the nitty-gritty details.

In regard to my video, IT IS A KNOWING ERROR ON MY PART, and what's
so funny about this is the fact that it is a KNOWING ERROR BY ME
(which I shall explain in a moment), and here you are banking your
own false rhetoric on my knowingly having an error in my video. I'm
LAUGHING AT YOU FOR THIS.

If you listen to my STATEMENTS (audio) in my video, I NEVER refer to
the geology books IN THE AUDIO. I had made an image (and this takes
some time to do so) of some of the books that I have on my Books
Page at my website (before I made that video). When I made the
picture I never even had that particular video (that subject) in
mind. When I made that particular video, instead of making a new
picture of just the relevant books (as I should have), I WAS LAZY,
JERRY, AND DIDN'T DO IT. I had already spent a lot of time making
the pictures of the magazine covers, and at the time I just didn't
feel like making another picture. I figured I'd just use the picture
of the books I'd already made for something else, thinking to
myself, "These are mostly about biology and paleontology - which I'm
specifically talking about - so these geology books on here won't
matter."

And then here you come along and BANK on my having had certain books
irrelevant to the subject in the picture!!! (Indeed, I had made the
picture for a PREVIOUS video on another subject - it's a response to
an ICR radio program, that I'm still working on, I even have a
pre-draft version up on my website, but since it's pre-draft version
there's no link to it from anything on my website. But you can even
see a pre-draft version here, that has that specific picture in it,
and thus see the original context that I made that particular books
picture for in the first place:

http://creationism.outersystem.us/video/delusionalcreationism.wmv

This is roll-on-the-floor laughing kind of stuff, Jerry! Your secret
agenda blew up in your face! You never had any intention of
discussing the debate topics I offered you to begin with, and your
deceitfulness about this, trying to jerk me around on the topics, is
coming back and biting you in the butt right now.

I hope it's biting nice and hard.

Again, should you wish to actually have a debate on the subjects
that I told you I'd debate you on from the very beginning, let me
know.

In regard to *The Age of the Earth* book itself, since Jerry
apparently actually owns the book, then he knows that it is not
about biological evolution and that biological evolution is not used
with respect to the geological science showing that the earth has
been around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years, so when he
falsely pretends otherwise, yes, he is lying about it. When he
pretends that I said I would debate him about biological evolution,
yes, he is lying to everyone. When he tells people that I agreed to
change the subject and debate him about biological evolution, yes,
he is lying about that as well. There is no way that Jerry can get
out of this disaster of his own creation, without lying about
everything. And this is all because he was deceiving me all along,
and never had any intention of debating me on the debate topics that
I GAVE HIM TO BEGIN WITH.

Jerry, as long as you continue to lie about me, I will continue to
point out the FACT that you're lying about me. You don't get to lie
about me, and then expect me to shut up and not point out to people
what you're doing.

Oh, and there's that "In Christ Jesus" again. So I guess this is
what they call "Lying for Jesus."

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13321):
> I guess the debate is over. Todd will not allow me to discuss
> my proposition by discussing evolution and as I just pointed
> out, the subject cannot be discussed without a discussion on
> evolution. Todd is the one, however, who is dishonest. He
> knows that evolution is a part of the discussion on the age
> of the earth, but he also knows that he cannot defend it.
>
> Todd, answer one question please: "On your Youtube video, you
> advertised a book called "The Age of the Earth" as being
> proof of evolution, does this book discuss evolution?"
>
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry McDonald
>
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> Jerry, thank you for finally being honest about this about and
>> openly admitting that you never had any intention of debating
>> the subjects of debate, which proves that you were playing
>> games and trying to jerk me around all along.
>>
>> In regard to whether or not biological evolution is science, that
>> certainly is a topic that as a young earth creationist you could
>> debate, BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE SUBJECT I OFFERED YOU TO DEBATE,
>> and you know this, so every single comment you make now trying
>> to change the subject and misrepresent this is proof of your
>> deceitfulness.
>>
>> Thank you for the demonstration. Should you wish to actually
>> have a debate on the subjects that I told you I'd debate you
>> on from the very beginning, let me know.
>>
>> - Todd Greene
>>
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> Todd has until 7:00 p.m. to change his mind about my new
>>> proposition. However, he indicated in a recent post that
>>> he would accept it and admitted that the reason is because
>>> I plan on bringing in biological evolution and he doesn't
>>> want to get into that subject. I wonder why after his
>>> having posted his video on Youtube that evolution is
>>> science and gave a listing of books that showed that such
>>> was true, one which was entitled "The Age of the Earth"
>>> (which I purchased specifically for my debate with him),
>>> that he would object to my bringing up evolution. After
>>> all he says that that book "The Age of the Earth" shows
>>> that evolution is science and that book supposedly deals
>>> with the age of the earth (my proposition). I also showed
>>> from Chaisson's and McMillian's book "Astronomy Today" that
>>> even biological evolution is a proper discussion with the
>>> topic of Astrononmy. He first claimed that I had lied and
>>> had jerked him around by making it sound as if I was going
>>> to bring religion into the debate. Now he shows his true
>>> colors; he doesn't want to debate because he knows that I
>>> am planning on refuting evolution. Had I not quoted from
>>> Astronony Today to him, he would never have decided to
>>> change his mind. He first tried to argue that they had even
>>> mentioned biological evolution, but when I pointed it out in
>>> such a way that even he couldn't deny it he decided to
>>> change my proposition knowing that I would never allow that.
>>> Even after I changed my proposition and put "scientific" in
>>> it (which was what he was demanding) he said that he would
>>> still not debate me because I was going to discuss evolution.
>>> Well, Todd, why not take your video off of Youtube, because
>>> you are making yourself a hypocrite by saying on that video
>>> that "evolution is science" and advertising the book "The Age
>>> of the Earth," and refusing me permission to discuss evolution
>>> in my proposition which discusses the age of the earth?
>>>
>>> In Christ Jesus
>>> Jerry McDonald
>>>
>>> P.S. quit telling everyone that I am lying.

TOPRe: I guess the debate is over
(Nov 5, 2007)

Jerry, thank you for finally being honest about this about and
openly admitting that you never had any intention of debating the
subjects of debate, which proves that you were playing games and
trying to jerk me around all along.

In regard to whether or not biological evolution is science, that
certainly is a topic that as a young earth creationist you could
debate, BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE SUBJECT I OFFERED YOU TO DEBATE, and
you know this, so every single comment you make now trying to change
the subject and misrepresent this is proof of your deceitfulness.

Thank you for the demonstration. Should you wish to actually have a
debate on the subjects that I told you I'd debate you on from the
very beginning, let me know.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13316):
> Todd has until 7:00 p.m. to change his mind about my new
> proposition. However, he indicated in a recent post that
> he would accept it and admitted that the reason is
> because I plan on bringing in biological evolution and he
> doesn't want to get into that subject. I wonder why after
> his having posted his video on Youtube that evolution is
> science and gave a listing of books that showed that such
> was true, one which was entitled "The Age of the Earth"
> (which I purchased specifically for my debate with him),
> that he would object to my bringing up evolution. After
> all he says that that book "The Age of the Earth" shows
> that evolution is science and that book supposedly deals
> with the age of the earth (my proposition). I also showed
> from Chaisson's and McMillian's book "Astronomy Today"
> that even biological evolution is a proper discussion
> with the topic of Astrononmy. He first claimed that I had
> lied and had jerked him around by making it sound as if I
> was going to bring religion into the debate. Now he shows
> his true colors; he doesn't want to debate because he
> knows that I am planning on refuting evolution. Had I not
> quoted from Astronony Today to him, he would never have
> decided to change his mind. He first tried to argue that
> they had even mentioned biological evolution, but when I
> pointed it out in such a way that even he couldn't deny
> it he decided to change my proposition knowing that I
> would never allow that. Even after I changed my
> proposition and put "scientific" in it (which was what he
> was demanding) he said that he would still not debate me
> because I was going to discuss evolution. Well, Todd, why
> not take your video off of Youtube, because you are
> making yourself a hypocrite by saying on that video that
> "evolution is science" and advertising the book "The Age
> of the Earth," and refusing me permission to discuss
> evolution in my proposition which discusses the age of
> the earth?
>
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry McDonald
>
> P.S. quit telling everyone that I am lying.

TOPRe: Todd, Jerry - about Jerry's new proposition?
(Nov 5, 2007)

No, Jerry, there you go lying about this again. Your games about
this debate are FINISHED. I offered to debate you about the age of
the universe (with respect to the young earth creationist claim that
the universe did not exist more than 6,000 or 10,000 years) and
about the age of the earth (with respect to the young earth
creationist claim that the earth did not exist more than 6,000 or
10,000 years). You led me to believe early on that you would debate
these subjects. Now we have found out that you were lying to me all
along.

So, I guess you're right, if you refuse to debate these subjects,
then the debate is off. I NEVER SAID I WOULD DEBATE YOU ON ANY OTHER
SUBJECT, AND I NEVER AGREED TO DEBATE YOU ON ANY OTHER SUBJECT.
Every time you pretend otherwise, Jerry, all you're doing is proving
to everyone what a deceitful man you really are.

Note to Robert: It is becoming quite clear that Jerry never intended
to debate these subjects in the first place. I suggest we look for
someone else who will. Jerry is telling us he's not going to debate
the subject.

Incidentally, "cosmic evolution" (i.e., cosmology and astrophysics)
is science, and biological evolution is science, but these are two
different subjects. I have zero problem with Jerry bringing
up "cosmic evolution" in the formal oral debate under the rubric of
the debate proposition about the universe if he wants to do that (he
seriously thinks it's relevant, even though we all know it's
actually irrelevant to the proposition, and since he'll be wasting
his time on that, it gives me much more time to discuss additional
aspects of astronomical science that blow young earth creationism
away). But I'm NOT going to allow Jerry to change the subject to
biological evolution, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the
age of the universe, but that Jerry wants to use DELIBERATELY to
change the subject.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13312):
> Something inside me told me that this would not work as
> well. You can't get away from evolution while upholding
> old age. You don't believe in God and there is no way
> that you can. Either accept this proposition or the deal
> is off. You are running from it because of the
> evolutionary implications and you know it. Don't ever lie
> again and say that I am trying to do this on anything
> other the science. Question: "Is cosmic and biological
> evolution science"? Answer Please
> jdm
>
>
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
>>> Give what a rest, I am just answering his posts. All he
>>> has to do is to scroll down and find the one that says
>>> "new proposition" and respond to it. Why don't you butt
>>> of my business?
>>> jdm
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Baty wrote:
>>>> Todd,
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking maybe you are going in order of posts and
>>>> haven't yet gotten to Jerry's new proposition which now
>>>> reads:
>>>>
>>>>> "Resolved, Scientific evidence (which
>>>>> includes geology, palentology, biology),
>>>>> and a refutation of evolution, shows
>>>>> that the earth is no more than 10,000
>>>>> years old."
>>>>
>>>> Jerry,
>>>>
>>>> Why not give it a rest and wait for Todd to actually deal
>>>> with your new proposition?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Robert Baty
>>>
>>> There is still a problem with this, the reason being that
>>> Jerry is still trying to change the subject. This debate
>>> is not about biological evolution. It never was, and it
>>> never will be. This debate is about whether or not the
>>> universe and/or the earth have been around longer than
>>> young earth creationists claim, in regard to the relevant
>>> science. Jerry knows this. This is what I told him FROM
>>> THE BEGINNING. That is the subject matter for the debate
>>> AS I PROPOSED IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND HAVE DISCUSSED
>>> EVER SINCE. The proposed subject has NEVER been anything
>>> else. Jerry, I already told you, I'm not going to be
>>> jerked around by someone trying to play word games to
>>> change the subject.
>>>
>>> You knew what the subject was to begin with, and now
>>> you're trying to change the subject. This is not going to
>>> work. I will NOT - I repeat - I will NOT allow this
>>> debate to be siphoned off into irrelevant red herring
>>> about biological evolution. That is EXACTLY why the
>>> initial propositions were stated the way I stated them to
>>> begin with. Jerry, if it is your intention to change this
>>> debate into a debate about biological evolution, there
>>> will be no debate. Is this clear to you? Try again. You
>>> may alter the wording, but you can't change the subject.
>>> I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you
>>> this.
>>>
>>> - Todd Greene

TOPRe: Todd, Jerry - about Jerry's new proposition?
(Nov 5, 2007)

Jerry, you're a very deceitful man. I never said anything of the
sort. Stop lying about me, and stop trying to change the subject.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13313):
> Todd, you need to remove your Youtube video because you
> are now admitting that evolution isn't science.
> jdm
>
>
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
>>> Give what a rest, I am just answering his posts. All he
>>> has to do is to scroll down and find the one that says
>>> "new proposition" and respond to it. Why don't you butt
>>> of my business?
>>> jdm
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Baty wrote:
>>>> Todd,
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking maybe you are going in order of posts and
>>>> haven't yet gotten to Jerry's new proposition which now
>>>> reads:
>>>>
>>>>> "Resolved, Scientific evidence (which
>>>>> includes geology, palentology, biology),
>>>>> and a refutation of evolution, shows
>>>>> that the earth is no more than 10,000
>>>>> years old."
>>>>
>>>> Jerry,
>>>>
>>>> Why not give it a rest and wait for Todd to actually deal
>>>> with your new proposition?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Robert Baty
>>
>> There is still a problem with this, the reason being that
>> Jerry is still trying to change the subject. This debate
>> is not about biological evolution. It never was, and it
>> never will be. This debate is about whether or not the
>> universe and/or the earth have been around longer than
>> young earth creationists claim, in regard to the relevant
>> science. Jerry knows this. This is what I told him FROM
>> THE BEGINNING. That is the subject matter for the debate
>> AS I PROPOSED IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND HAVE DISCUSSED
>> EVER SINCE. The proposed subject has NEVER been anything
>> else. Jerry, I already told you, I'm not going to be
>> jerked around by someone trying to play word games to
>> change the subject.
>>
>> You knew what the subject was to begin with, and now
>> you're trying to change the subject. This is not going to
>> work. I will NOT - I repeat - I will NOT allow this
>> debate to be siphoned off into irrelevant red herring
>> about biological evolution. That is EXACTLY why the
>> initial propositions were stated the way I stated them to
>> begin with. Jerry, if it is your intention to change this
>> debate into a debate about biological evolution, there
>> will be no debate. Is this clear to you? Try again. You
>> may alter the wording, but you can't change the subject.
>> I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you
>> this.
>>
>> - Todd Greene

TOPRe: Todd, Jerry - about Jerry's new proposition?
(Nov 5, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13308):
> --- Robert Baty wrote:
>> Todd,
>>
>> I'm thinking maybe you are going in order of posts and
>> haven't yet gotten to Jerry's new proposition which now
>> reads:
>>
>>> "Resolved, Scientific evidence (which
>>> includes geology, palentology, biology),
>>> and a refutation of evolution, shows
>>> that the earth is no more than 10,000
>>> years old."
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Why not give it a rest and wait for Todd to actually
>> deal with your new proposition?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Robert Baty
>
> Give what a rest, I am just answering his posts. All he
> has to do is to scroll down and find the one that says
> "new proposition" and respond to it. Why don't you butt
> of my business?
> jdm

There is still a problem with this, the reason being that Jerry is
still trying to change the subject. This debate is not about
biological evolution. It never was, and it never will be. This
debate is about whether or not the universe and/or the earth have
been around longer than young earth creationists claim, in regard to
the relevant science. Jerry knows this. This is what I told him FROM
THE BEGINNING. That is the subject matter for the debate AS I
PROPOSED IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND HAVE DISCUSSED EVER SINCE. The
proposed subject has NEVER been anything else. Jerry, I already told
you, I'm not going to be jerked around by someone trying to play
word games to change the subject.

You knew what the subject was to begin with, and now you're trying
to change the subject. This is not going to work. I will NOT - I
repeat - I will NOT allow this debate to be siphoned off into
irrelevant red herring about biological evolution. That is EXACTLY
why the initial propositions were stated the way I stated them to
begin with. Jerry, if it is your intention to change this debate
into a debate about biological evolution, there will be no debate.
Is this clear to you? Try again. You may alter the wording, but you
can't change the subject. I don't know how many times I'm going to
have to tell you this.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint
(Nov 5, 2007)

This is the illogical mind of a young earth creationist talking.
Ooooo, "if you're an atheist, and biological evolution is wrong,
then astronomy and geology are all wrong too." No wonder he can't
understand what Copi and Warren have told him. Logic has never been
the forte of the young earth creationist mind. Indeed, it's the
deeper problem.

Anyway, I'm noticing that should this debate occur, Jerry is
apparently going to rely heavily on young earth creationist red
herring about the Big Bang, which I'm RELISHING. People who are
familiar with my discussion about the errors and fallacies of young
earth creationist already know EXACTLY how I'll deal with the young
earth creationist rhetoric about the big bang. They'll know about my
story of two men driving to the beginning of a road, and one guy
claiming the road's only a couple of miles long while the other guy
tells him that's wrong because he know's it's substantially longer
than that, even though he has no idea how long the road is.

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13303):
> --- Gene Wright wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote:
>>> Nor
>>> would completely disproving biological evolution change
>>> anything about the age of the Universe or the Earth. That
>>> isn't even logical to start with.
>>>
>>> Rick Hartzog
>>> Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
>>
>>
>> Gene: Agreed. Imagine that the biological evolution of life
>> on earth is disproved because Aliens colonized the earth and
>> stocked it with animals 100,000 years ago when they moved
>> here from Star Z.
>>
>> There goes evolution.
>>
>> Age still remains.
>>
>> (And, no I don't believe that, but it points out that even
>> IF biological evolution is false, that does not negate the
>> arguments for the age of things).
>
> [McDonald:]
> Ha,ha,ha! Now can we get back to reality here. I don't think
> Todd is going to be foolish enough to argue that aliens might
> have colonized this planet with anything from planet Z. If
> evolution is false, it certainly does negate the arguments
> for the age of things as far as Todd is concerned because he
> is an atheist and does not believe in God. He isn't like Rick
> and Robert. To him there is either evolution or creation. If
> evolution is false then creation has to be true. That's the
> atheistic position.
>
>
>> I also imagine the response of scientists to a proof that
>> evolution is false going along these lines: "Hey, you're
>> right...evolution is false. You know, we really don't have
>> a good explanation for how life got here on the 4.5 billion
>> year old earth. But, wait till you see the latest evidence
>> for the big bang..."
>>
>> Gene
>
> [McDonald:]
> Scientists might say many things, but the fact is that the
> big bang is part of the evolutionary theory.

No, it's part of cosmology. It has nothing to do with biological
evolution, and biological evolution has nothing to do with it.

> If there is evidence for the "big bang" then there is evidence
> for evolution.

Nope. Biological evolution and the big bang are different and
independent areas of science. One is a field of biology, the other
is a field of astrophysics.

Again, we're observing the sheer zaniness of the young earth
creationist mindset, where any and all aspects of science that young
earth creationists don't like because these contradict their
religious dogma are just part of a worldwide evolutionist
conspiracy.

Of course, Jerry knows that this crazy rhetoric is wrong, which is
precisely why he has DELIBERATELY IGNORED the dictionary quote about
the different meanings of the word "evolution" that I provided to
him, and has DELIBERATELY IGNORED my direct question to him about
SN1987A. Remember this is a man who told us (and I've provided the
quote) that people have the responsibility to deal with relevant
questions asked them about their claims, even while he himself
refuses to do so.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Strictly from a scientific viewpoint
(Nov 5, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Gene Wright wrote (post #13270):
> Question: Did Jerry specifically say in a message to this
> list that he would debate the age of things strictly from
> a scientific viewpoint?
>
> If so, can someone post a link and a quote?
>
> If not, then what is all the fuss about?
>
> Now, assume for the moment that there is such a link and
> quote.
>
> Jerry, you can of course feel free to bow out of the
> discussion/debate. However, why did you ever say you would
> debate the age of things from strictly a scientific
> viewpoint?
>
> Also, "strictly a scientific" viewpoint would certainly,
> ISTM, mean that you would not be debating the age of things
> using statements from any religious text.
>
> Debate it from the Bible if you wish, but then that is no
> longer "strictly from a scientific viewpoint".
>
> ?

Gene, this is archived at my website.

Debate, Young Earth Creationism (Belle, Missouri)
http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/debateinfo.html

In this post

Re: Debate (Aug 24, 2007)
by Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11784

I wrote to Jerry,

| Here are my standard proposition that I offer for your
| consideration:
|
| Proposition #1:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth has
| been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #2:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| has been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #3:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
| less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
| old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S Greene
|
| Proposition #4:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
| years old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S. Greene

In this post

Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 28, 2007)
by Jerry McDonald
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11908

Jerry responded with

| Why not debate the following propositions?
|
| Resolved the universe has been in existence longer than
| 100,000 (one hundred thousand years).
|
| Todd Greene Affirms.
| Jerry McDonald Denies.
|
| Resolved the earth has been here less than a few thousand
| years.
|
| Jerry McDonald Affirms.
| Todd Greene Denies.
|
| We will have two nights for each proposition.

I *immediately* questioned Jerry about his removal of any reference
to the science, in this post

Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 29, 2007)
by Todd Greene
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11929

| I'd like to understand why you want to remove the phrase
| "The empirical evidence shows that" from the wording of
| the propositions. Will you explain this, please?

In this post

Re: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 29, 2007)
by Jerry McDonald
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11936

Jerry replied as follows:

| If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your
| proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to
| rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues
| of knowledge rather than just empirical knowledge. i will
| deal with some of those things that we can have through
| empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as
| well. However, if you want to go with just empirical
| evidence, then be my guest.

In this post

Re: A fundamental fallacy of YEC epistemology (Aug 30, 2007)
by Jerry McDonald
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12010

Jerry wrote:

| When you and
| I do debate, I won't even bring the Bible into the
| discussion unless you bring it up. We are going to be
| dealing with this subject strictly from a scientific
| standpoint.

As is plainly evident, my intention the entire time from the very
beginning has been and is to debate the relevant science. Jerry
removed reference to the science from the wording of his
proposition, and when I questioned him about it he assured me that
he agree with me that in this debate we were going to be dealing
with the subjects "strictly from a scientific standpoint." BECAUSE
OF HIS ASSURANCE TO ME, I did not pursue my disagreement with him
about removing the reference to science from the wording of the
proposition. Yet now (just a couple of days ago) the man is telling
me that the didn't really mean what he said. He tells me that he
intends to debate me NOT strictly from a scientific standpoint. When
he told me that I realized that several weeks ago he had deceived me
and has just been jerking me around the whole time. THEREFORE, Jerry
has demonstrated to me that I cannot trust what he told me, so now
I'm INSISTING that there MUST be wording indicating that the debate
is to be about the relevant science RETURNED to the proposition in
some manner, the specific wording left up to Jerry (but of course I
must agree that the reference is explicit, and not just another word
game). Jerry has refused to do this.

It is Jerry who has gone back on his word, and has refused to have
the proposition state that the debate is about the science, and that
is exactly what this disagreement is all about.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Who's running from what? -> "strictly from a scientific
standpoint"
(Nov 5, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13273):
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Rick Hartzog wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
>>> (Moderator's Note: Jerry McDonald has left the list:
>>>
>>>> Nov 3, 2007 5:17 pm
>>>> jerry d mcdonald
>>>> Left group via email
>>
>> Looks like Jerry booted us all off of his list, too.
>>
>> Rick
>
> That's right, I did. If Todd isn't going to debate me I
> don't see the point in staying on this list as a member
> when I can come on as a non member, and I don't want any
> of you bringing this diatribe to my list. That is not what
> my list is all about. If you want on my list and want to
> to discuss other issues, fine. Just say so and you can come
> back, however, I will not allow you to bring up this debate
> after Todd has backed away from it and make it sound as if
> I am the one who backed out. The only reason I was on this
> list was for negotiations with Todd, but since he is
> unwilling to allow me to leave my proposition the way he had
> previously agreed, then I don't see the point in staying
> on. What would be the point?
> jdm

Jerry, stop lying about me. I haven't backed away from anything. YOU
are the one who backed away from your promise to me that this debate
was going to be "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Lying about
this matter is not going to get you anywhere or achieve anything
except show everyone how you jump to lying about things when you
don't like them.

You told me you were going to debate the subject strictly from a
scientific standpoint AND THAT IS WHAT I AGREED TO. The moment you
backed away from your agreement and told me you didn't really mean
what you told me, you revealed to me that you were trying to trick
me and jerk me around, and that you had no intention of living up to
your word. THEREFORE, YOU MUST NOW PUT IN WRITING RIGHT IN THE
PROPOSITION what YOU told me to begin with, which is that you would
discuss this strictly from a scientific standpoint. You may change
the wording to whatever looks good/fits/flows well, but however you
word it, it MUST in some way state explicitly that the debate is
about the science (strictly from a scientific standpoint). THAT is
what I signed on to, you know it, and I know that you know it. I
agreed that you could compose the wording of your proposition. I did
NOT agree that you could CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You can stop the lying.

And in regard to your over-the-top flaky behavior... well, enough
said.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Getting over the debate impasse - "strictly from a scientific
standpoint"
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13245):
> As I said, Larry won't agree to anything that I won't. Now
> I want this debate to go forward because I have too much
> money and time invested in it, but I won't allow any
> changes to my proposition.

Jerry, you must agree to add to the wording of your proposition, in
some way shape or form, however you wish to word it, that this has
to do with the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." I
don't care so much how you word it, but however you word it, it MUST
state EXPLICITLY that the discussion is about the relevant science
(i.e., strictly from a scientific standpoint).

> We agreed to let my proposition state: Resolved, the
> evidence shows tht the earth has been in existence for
> no more than 10,000 years. We had already agreed on that,
> now he wants to change it.

Now you are lying, by deliberately omitting what I stated at the
time. I IMMEDIATELY expressed my concern about your removal of the
reference to the science. It is deceitful to deliberately omit this.
Then, to assuage my concern, you assured me that you would discuss
the subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Now today you
start playing word games with me and telling me you didn't really
mean that you would discuss the subject strictly from a scientific
standpoint. The MOMENT you told me that, I knew all bets were off,
because you had misled me.

> I have said
> or done nothing to make him change it except to let him
> know that I am preparing for it.

Here you're merely engaging in more deceit to cover up the fact that
you told me that you didn't really mean "strictly from a scientific
standpoint" after all, and that you were going to discuss other
mysterious subjects.

> I don't think
> he liked the quotations from "Astronomy Today" and is
> trying to get around my using it and other books like it.

Here you go lying again. Not only have I already responded to what
you quoted and the way you misrepresented the matter, but you know
as well as I do that I would love having you waste your time talking
about irrelevant subjects.

Indeed, this is why debate propositions are fundamental, because
they dictate the SCOPE of the debate. I TOLD YOU what the scope of
the debate was to be AT THE VERY BEGINNING of my comments to you.
THAT HAS NEVER CHANGED. When you removed the reference to the
discussion being about the relevant science from the geology-related
proposition, the only reason I went along with it is because you
specifically assured me that you would discuss it "strictly from a
scientific standpoint," yet here you are now telling me you didn't
really mean what you wrote. So you deceived me by telling me
something you didn't mean in the first place. You got exactly the
response you should have expected to get, when I learned today that
you had deceived me when you wrote "strictly from a scientific
standpoint," since apparently you had no intention of abiding by
what you told me.

> I have books
> on Geology, evolution, microbiology and university physics.
> I intend to attack this from all directions.

The question is, do you intend to discuss the propositions strictly
from a scientific standpoint? That is the only question here. Either
you do, or you don't. If you do, we're on. If you don't, the debate
is off. It's that simple.

> This is why
> Todd is changing his mind. He is the one who has changed
> his mind, not me.
> jdm

This is a flat-out lie, Jerry, and you know it.

Are you going to debate the subject strictly from a scientific
standpoint AS YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE GOING TO DO? That is the way this
has been FROM THE BEGINNING, because that is WHAT I TOLD YOU TO
BEGIN WITH. I have NEVER changed on this. It is only YOU who has
changed it. YOU are the one who removed the reference to the science
from the wording of the proposition. *I* am the one who immediately
called you on it. YOU are the one who then got me to go along with
it by promising me that you would debate the subject "strictly from
a scientific standpoint." Yet here we are today with you telling me
that you don't really mean what you wrote, that you will bring up
whatever you like rather than discussing the subject strictly from a
scientific standpoint. Jerry, I'm not putting up with your word
games about this. You have to be straight with about this. It's like
a contract. If you lie in the contract, the contract is null and
void. It is precisely because you are now playing word games with me
about your previous agreement that I am no longer willing to let
slide THE CHANGE THAT YOU MADE early on, because your word games in
discussion now caused it to come out that when you assured me
several weeks ago that you agreed to the debate "strictly from a
scientific standpoint," you didn't really mean it. Therefore, I
INSIST that this reference to deal with the science be PUT BACK into
the proposition in some way so that it AGAIN states explicitly that
the subject is in reference to the relevant science. Because it is
the propositions that dictate the scope of the debate, it is the
propositions that are published and that people read to know what
the debate is about, and it is the propositions that in dictating
the scope of the debate guide our preparations.

Jerry, it is YOU who has shown me that I cannot trust your word.
Therefore, I insist that the explicit wording, in some way, be
RETURNED to the proposition so that it states that the subject is
about what is relevant in terms of science.

By the way, I noticed your silly remark previously about atheist
cowards. But if you run away from agreeing to discuss the
subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (which, after all,
is what you told me you'd do), we would then be observing who it is
who really is afraid of the science.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Getting over the debate impasse; a moderator's exercise!
(Corrected!)
(Nov 3, 2007)

Hi Robert,

Just to make this explicitly clear for you, should there be
productive developments in the future on this, I have NOT closed off
consideration of debate with Jerry. All I have stated is that the
debate MUST be about the subject I proposed and that Jerry agreed to
to begin with. The debate is to be about the young earth creationist
claims that the universe, on the one hand, and the earth, on the
other hand, have not been in existence more than several thousand
years, and the debate is to be ABOUT THE RELEVANT SCIENCE. That has
always been the SUBJECT of the propositions I wrote, which I wrote
and have discussed long before Jerry came along. If he is willing to
debate the subject, as I had thought he had already agreed to do,
then I am certainly still interesting in moving forward with
arrangement. But if Jerry cannot be straight with us and agree to
what he had already agreed to in previous posts, and not try to be
changing the subject behind our backs by playing word games, then
there's really nothing further to discuss.

If Jerry cannot abide by his previous statement agreeing to discuss
this subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint," there's really
nothing further to discuss in terms of this proposed oral debate in
Belle, Missouri. I was looking forward to it, but too bad, I guess.

- Todd Greene

TOPJerry McDonald said "strictly from a scientific standpoint"
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13253):
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
>> --- Jerry McDonald wrote:
>>> I don't intend to rejoin the list until
>>> Todd comes back and lets me write my own
>>> proposition. What have I done or said
>>> that demands that I should change my
>>> proposition. I WILL NOT CHANGE IT! When
>>> he agrees to let my proposition alone I
>>> will return to the list and will remove
>>> the three of you from the ban list on
>>> challenge, but not until. He can't just
>>> change the proposition after agreeing to
>>> allow me to write my own.
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> You again are demonstrating a lack of good faith
>> regarding how these things should be working.
>>
>> Obviously, you and Todd have reached an impasse.
>>
>> The way I figure it, that sets up a situation where your
>> moderator and I need to work on the problem.
>>
>> See the other thread for that discussion.
>>
>> Jerry, bring your moderator to this list and let us work
>> on the problem.
>>
>> Please!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Robert Baty
>
> Good faith? You want to talk about Good Faith? Everything
> was going fine until Todd decided to unilateraly change
> my proposition without my approval and you stepped in to
> help. Neither have given me any reason to discuss things
> with you in Good Faith. This "impasse" as you call it is
> here because Todd decided to change my proposition. He
> has absolutely no right to do that. If he lets me defend
> my proposition as I have written it, I will debate him,
> but not until. My proposition must be left alone. Until
> then there will be no good faith upon my part.
> jdm

No, Jerry, as I just learned today FROM YOU, you have apparently
been acting in bad faith from the very beginning. YOU KNOW, AND I
KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, that the subject was always to be "strictly from
a scientific standpoint." Indeed, when you removed reference to the
science from the second proposition, I IMMEDIATELY questioned you
about that, and AT THAT TIME YOU ASSURED ME that I should not worry
about it, because, you said, you were going to discuss the
subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint." Yet today I find
out that you were apparently lying to me all along, that you never
intended to debate the subject strictly from a scientific
standpoint. That is deceitfulness, plain and simple.

Jerry, you know, and I know that you know, that I'm flexible about
the specific wording, and that that is not the issue, and when you
pretend that it is all you're doing is engaging in further deceit
now to try to cover up the game you've been playing up until now.
This debate will be strictly from a scientific standpoint. YOU KNEW
that RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, because that is exactly what *I* told
you RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. You're not going to jerk me around on
this, and then just go and lie to people because I refuse to allow
you to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You may certainly write the wording of
your proposition as you like it, BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE
THE SUBJECT. I have told you the subject I will debate, I told you
that RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. I told you what the subject would be
that I would debate you on, and I HAVE NEVER CHANGED IT FROM THE
BEGINNING.

I told you straight out, Jerry, you're not playing games on this
one. You either debate the subject or you don't. It's that simple.
It is completely unnecessary, and a huge time-waster, to pretend
you're going to do something that you have no intention of doing in
the first place. Deception is not going to achieve anything at all.
I told you what subject I would debate, it is about what the
relevant science shows regarding whether or not the universe and the
earth have been around longer than young earth creationists claim,
thus falsifying young earth creationism scientifically. If you
refuse to debate the subject strictly from a scientific standpoint,
AS YOU ALREADY AGREED TO DO, then that is your problem, not mine.
You cannot lie about this. The real question, will you agree to do
WHAT YOU ALREADY TOLD US YOU WOULD DO? If you have changed your
mind, or you were not being straight with me to begin with, then
just say so. Either you will engage me in debate of this subject
strictly from a scientific standpoint, JUST AS YOU WROTE, or there
won't be any debate. That's all there is to it.

I find it extremely amusing how YOU told me that would debate
this "strictly from a scientific standpoint," yet here you are
seemingly in a terrible tizzy simply because I expect you to live up
to your own words and your own agreement. I want this debate
arrangements to move forward, but they're not going to move anywhere
if you're going to try to jerk me around so you can change the
subject.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint
(Nov 3, 2007)

Jerry, you can play games all you want, and I know you will, and I
know you're going to use all manner of deceitful rhetoric and red
herring about the matter, because that's what you young earth
creationists do.

Here are the facts:

You challenged me to debate a subject that I had zero interest in
(and it had nothing to do with young earth creationism). I told you
this.

I then told you that I would engage you in a formal oral debate with
you (and this offer STILL STANDS) about WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS about
whether or not the universe and the earth. *I* did that. And I
stated that AT THE VERY BEGINNING. I immediately gave you initially
stated propositions for you consideration, and it was clear to you
both by my discussion in the post and by the intial wording of the
proposition that the debate is to be ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

Then in the course of discussion YOU REMOVED THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE
TO SCIENCE. I IMMEDIATELY ASKED YOU ABOUT IT, AND YOU ASSURED ME
THAT YOU WOULD DEBATE THE SUBJECT "STRICTLY FROM A SCIENTIFIC
STANDPOINT," and that is the ONLY reason that I moved forward on
debate negotiations with you. Now we are seeing that YOU MISLED ME,
because now when I fully expect this debate to be strictly from a
scientific standpoint, AS I HAVE EXPECTED AND EXPLICITLY STATED ALL
ALONG FROM THE BEGINNING, and you start waffling on the matter, even
waffling about WHAT YOU WROTE, playing games and now telling me that
you didn't really mean what you wrote when you agree with me that
this debate would be strictly from a scientific standpoint.

Jerry, the fact of the matter is that *I* am the one who has not
changed my position in the slightest. I have been totally consistent
about the subject of the debate from the very beginning. It is YOU
who has apparently been playing word games all this time, attempting
to deceive even about this most fundamental aspect of the subject of
the debate.

The fact is that it is YOU, Jerry, who ran for the hills when you
were asked to deal with the subject strictly from a scientific
standpoint. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WROTE that you would deal with the
subject "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (agreeing with what
I had explained to you), and now when I actually try to depend on
what you told me, you're "backwatering," backpeddling, waffling,
playing word games with me, and refusing to be straight with me,
etc., etc.

The offer to debate, and our arrangements that we've made so far,
STAND, as far as I'm concerned. But if YOU cannot abide by what YOU
wrote previously in agreement with me, that the debate is strictly
from a scientific standpoint, then there will be no debate. The only
debate I ever signed onto was a debate strictly from a scientific
standpoint.

AND I KNOW YOU THIS JERRY, SO YOU CAN STOP LYING ABOUT IT NOW.

If you are able to stick by what you ALREADY TOLD ME, that the
debate will be strictly from a scientific standpoint, then I'm still
in. If you cannot stick by what you wrote, then there won't be any
debate between you and me, and this is because YOU COULDN'T STICK BY
YOUR OWN WORDS.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint
(Nov 3, 2007)

And we can prove this all over again.

Jerry, will you state here and now that this debate would be
strictly from a scientific standpoint. Indeed, will you state it so
clearly that you will PUT THE WORDS RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION.

Indeed, here we go, I'll do it for you, here is the proposition as
you had worded it WITH YOUR OWN words put into it:

| Resolved, strictly from a scientific
| standpoint, the earth has been here
| less than a few thousand years.

There you go, Jerry, will you sign off on that proposition USING
YOUR OWN WORDS?

No?

I didn't think so.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

[Editor's note: Jerry refused to agree to this wording of the
proposition. This is precisely because he knew he couldn't do it,
and he knew that he intended to change the subject to discuss
biological evolution.]

TOPMcDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13229):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> That's okay, Jerry, I'll go ahead and draw the picture
>> for you.
>>
>> I have been absolutely honest with you from the
>> beginning that I would debate you on the science, and
>> that it would be about astronomy (what does the
>> scientific evidence show about whether the universe has
>> been in existence for longer than 100,000 years or not)
>> and geology (what does the scientific evidence show
>> about whether the universe has been in existence for
>> longer than 100,000 years or not).
>>
>> I have never changed that one bit.
>>
>> But I see that you are unable to keep this debate scoped
>> to dealing only with the science (even though previously
>> you assured me otherwise).
>>
>> Therefore, I am calling this whole debate thing off,
>> unless your debate proposition states right in the
>> wording in some way (come up with your own wording, if
>> you don't like mine) that is is ABOUT THE SCIENCE. I am
>> going to be an absolutely stickler about this one, as
>> I should have been a couple of months ago when you
>> totally removed the reference (i.e., you didn't change
>> it, you removed it altogether). I consider this my
>> fault. I've had enough experience with how much you
>> young earth creationists love to play word games, I
>> certainly should know better than to waste time going
>> down this road of misapprehension.
>>
>> Jerry, I told you, I'm not playing any games with you
>> about this most basic aspect of a debate. I was clear
>> with you from the beginning. Guess I should have been
>> even clearer.
>
> Okay, I get it, another atheist runs for the hills. Good
> job. You make it two this year.
> jdm

Yes, precisely because the young earth creationist told the atheist
that the debate of the subject would be "strictly from a scientific
standpoint," but then the atheist found out that the young earth
creationist was lying to him.

Good job, Mr. Creationist.

This is The Young Earth Creationist Way.

- Todd

TOPMcDonald/Greene Debate - strictly from a scientific standpoint
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13227):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13203):
>>> As I remember Todd railed on me because I didn't want the
>>> word "empirical" in my proposition and he did want it in
>>> his. I can produce the email in which this took place if
>>> he demands, but now he wants to place scientific. I fully
>>> intend to use scientific evidence, but I don't even want
>>> it limited to scientific evidence. I intend to use all
>>> evidence that is available. I don't mind having "to include
>>> scientific evidence" in the proposition, but my proposition
>>> will not be limited to only scientific evidence.
>>
>> Jerry, in this post
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12010
>>
>> you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly
>> from a scientific standpoint."
>>
>> I replied in this post
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12025
>>
>>| Jerry, you stated, "We are going to be dealing with
>>| this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint."
>>| BUT WHEN I STATED RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION AS I STATED
>>| THAT I WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT STRICTLY FROM
>>| A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, you seemed to have a problem
>>| with that. Also, I know for a fact from all kinds of
>>| statements made by you on this general subject that
>>| you dismiss science out of hand based solely on
>>| religious belief, so, yes, this contradiction is of
>>| interest to me precisely because it doesn't make any
>>| sense.
>>
>> Jerry, I can assure you very much that this debate, if
>> it is going to happen, WILL BE LIMITED TO THE SCIENTIFIC
>> EVIDENCE. If it is not limited to the science, there
>> won't be any debate with me in it. I want this to be
>> absolutely clear to you.
>>
>> I'm an easy-going guy. But I'm not that easy.
>>
>> - Todd Greene
>
> My statement was meant to be understood that I would not be
> using the Bible. However, I will be allowed to use whatever
> evidence I deem necessary to use. That is my choice. The
> only reason I will even mention the Bible is if you bring
> it up. However, I will not be limited to using what you
> call science. I am going to use any and all evidence to
> defend my proposition. That is the reason that I won't have
> "empirical" or "scientific" evidence in my proposition. If
> you want it in your's go right ahead. I intend to show that
> you are arguing from the standpoint of "evolution," and I
> intend to show that evolution is not science. I will not be
> dealing with biological evolution when discussing your
> proposition, but I will discuss cosmic evolution. However,
> when I get to my proposition I might decide to get into
> biological evolution. Since neither cosmic, evolution, or
> biological (macro) evolution are in the field of science, I
> will deal with them in the field in which they properly
> belong. If that isn't acceptable to you, that's too bad.
> jdm

Jerry, I don't care what you *meant*. I care what you *wrote*, and
you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly
from a scientific standpoint."

If you want to debate me on this subject (about the universe and
earth having been around longer than 100,000 years), then it WILL
be "strictly from a scientific standpoint" JUST AS YOU WROTE.

I'm not asking you about what you want to bring up in regard to
science, but whatever it is it must be strictly from a scientific
standpoint. If you want to spin your wheels wasting time on all
kinds of irrelevant stuff, go right ahead, but this debate,
discussing whether or not the universe has been around for more than
100,000 years and whether or not the earth has been aroun for more
than 100,000 years, will be strictly from a scientific standpoint.

If you refuse to have the debate be strictly from a scientific
standpoint, then debate negotiations between us are over. I was
clear from the beginning about this. I'm not going to be jerked
around about this. This is the most very basis aspect of the debate,
the subject of the debate itself.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate status?
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13224):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> Jerry, right here and now I'm going to get into some
>> long drawn out discussion with you about your young
>> earth creationist distorted philosophy of science (that
>> doesn't even exist in the world of professional
>> science).
>>
>> We're dealing with the basics of getting this debate set
>> up, and here we're dealing with THE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE
>> ITSELF.
>>
>> Because of this, I am going to be crystal clear with
>> you. This debate is about the science. Period. That is
>> what I stated at the beginning. It's what I've stated
>> all along. And it's what I'm telling you now.
>>
>> AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, JERRY.
>>
>> I absolutely will not play your word games about this.
>> If you do not agree that the scope of this debate is
>> about the relevant science, then I will not be
>> participating in it.
>>
>> Jerry, I need to able to trust that we can make these
>> arrangements, and that you are not in this very basic
>> matter still playing word games trying to deceive me
>> about anything. If I cannot trust you on this most basic
>> matter, the topic of the debate itself, I will not be in
>> any such debate.
>>
>> Indeed, now that I have seen what you are doing right
>> now, I am going to INSIST on the following. This is no
>> longer just a "concern" of mine about your removal of
>> the reference to science. Now I DO ABSOLUTELY INSIST
>> that your proposition have reference to science in it,
>> indicating to everyone that the scope of the debate is
>> ABOUT THE SCIENCE. I have no problems discussing how it
>> should be specifically worded, but the wording MUST
>> scope it to dealing with science. If you refuse to scope
>> the debate to the science, I refuse to participate in
>> it.
>>
>> Apparently when I had my misgivings previously when you
>> removed the reference entirely, I should have stuck to
>> my guns and been a stickler about it. I should have gone
>> with my gut instinct. Live and learn. Anyway, I'm taking
>> care of my mistake right now.
>>
>> - Todd Greene
>
> If all you want to do is to make scientific arguments for
> your proposition, that is fine with me (though I feel that
> you are backwatering on me), but I will use all available
> evidence at my disposal to defend my proposition. As I told
> Farrell Till, so I tell you: You will not make any demand
> as to my proposition or how I defend it. You can do whatever
> you please with your's, but I will do as I please when I
> get into the affirmative. Got It? Is that clear enough for
> your, or do I need to draw you a picture?
> jdm

That's okay, Jerry, I'll go ahead and draw the picture for you.

I have been absolutely honest with you from the beginning that I
would debate you on the science, and that it would be about
astronomy (what does the scientific evidence show about whether the
universe has been in existence for longer than 100,000 years or not)
and geology (what does the scientific evidence show about whether
the universe has been in existence for longer than 100,000 years or
not).

I have never changed that one bit.

But I see that you are unable to keep this debate scoped to dealing
only with the science (even though previously you assured me
otherwise).

Therefore, I am calling this whole debate thing off, unless your
debate proposition states right in the wording in some way (come up
with your own wording, if you don't like mine) that is is ABOUT THE
SCIENCE. I am going to be an absolutely stickler about this one, as
I should have been a couple of months ago when you totally removed
the reference (i.e., you didn't change it, you removed it
altogether). I consider this my fault. I've had enough experience
with how much you young earth creationists love to play word games,
I certainly should know better than to waste time going down this
road of misapprehension.

Jerry, I told you, I'm not playing any games with you about this
most basic aspect of a debate. I was clear with you from the
beginning. Guess I should have been even clearer.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate status?
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13203):
> As I remember Todd railed on me because I didn't want the
> word "empirical" in my proposition and he did want it in
> his. I can produce the email in which this took place if
> he demands, but now he wants to place scientific. I fully
> intend to use scientific evidence, but I don't even want
> it limited to scientific evidence. I intend to use all
> evidence that is available. I don't mind having "to
> include scientific evidence" in the proposition, but my
> proposition will not be limited to only scientific
> evidence.

Jerry, in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12010

you wrote, "We are going to be dealing with this subject strictly
from a scientific standpoint."

I replied in this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/12025

| Jerry, you stated, "We are going to be dealing with
| this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint."
| BUT WHEN I STATED RIGHT IN THE PROPOSITION AS I STATED
| THAT I WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT STRICTLY FROM
| A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, you seemed to have a problem
| with that. Also, I know for a fact from all kinds of
| statements made by you on this general subject that
| you dismiss science out of hand based solely on
| religious belief, so, yes, this contradiction is of
| interest to me precisely because it doesn't make any
| sense.

Jerry, I can assure you very much that this debate, if it is going
to happen, WILL BE LIMITED TO THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. If it is not
limited to the science, there won't be any debate with me in it. I
want this to be absolutely clear to you.

I'm an easy-going guy. But I'm not that easy.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate status?
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13216):
> Geology is a science, astronomy is a science, etc., and
> you can make arguments in these areas, but you can't make
> empirical arguments in these areas because you weren't
> there to be able to see, hear, touch, smell or taste
> those events. All you can do now, is to look at the
> results and make some scientific arguments in favor, as I
> said, however, they won't hold up.
> jdm

See, Jerry?, you're wrong, but you use this opportunity to play
these word games. Your very behavior here EXPLAINS precisely why I
changed "empirical" to "scientific," because I'm not in this debate
to waste my time playing word game with people. Apparently you are,
but I'm not going to. I need you to be absolutely clear about this.
I'm certainly NOT going to play games with you about the scope of
the debate. I absolutely insist that this debate be scoped to
discussion of the science, and I must have your absolutely
unchanging assurance that this is so. There are no word games
allowed on this matter.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate status?
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13214):
> Todd, empirical evidence is only those things that you
> can see, hear, smell, touch, taste happening. I
> understand that scientific evidence has to be tested in
> this way, but the problem is you can't test evolution
> empirically. You can make some scientific arguments for
> it (though they don't hold up) but you can't make any
> empirical arguments for it. The reason for this is
> because it is not something that is repeatable.
> jdm

Jerry, right here and now I'm NOT going to get into some long drawn
out discussion with you about your young earth creationist distorted
philosophy of science (that doesn't even exist in the world of
professional science).

We're dealing with the basics of getting this debate set up, and
here we're dealing with THE SCOPE OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.

Because of this, I am going to be crystal clear with you. This
debate is about the science. Period. That is what I stated at the
beginning. It's what I've stated all along. And it's what I'm
telling you now.

AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS, JERRY.

I absolutely will not play your word games about this. If you do not
agree that the scope of this debate is about the relevant science,
then I will not be participating in it.

Jerry, I need to able to trust that we can make these arrangements,
and that you are not in this very basic matter still playing word
games trying to deceive me about anything. If I cannot trust you on
this most basic matter, the topic of the debate itself, I will not
be in any such debate.

Indeed, now that I have seen what you are doing right now, I am
going to INSIST on the following. This is no longer just a "concern"
of mine about your removal of the reference to science. Now I DO
ABSOLUTELY INSIST that your proposition have reference to science in
it, indicating to everyone that the scope of the debate is ABOUT THE
SCIENCE. I have no problems discussing how it should be specifically
worded, but the wording MUST scope it to dealing with science. If
you refuse to scope the debate to the science, I refuse to
participate in it.

Apparently when I had my misgivings previously when you removed the
reference entirely, I should have stuck to my guns and been a
stickler about it. I should have gone with my gut instinct. Live and
learn. Anyway, I'm taking care of my mistake right now.

- Todd Greene

P.S.: As I've previously indicated, not only can you talk about
evolution all you want in your part of the debate, I HOPE YOU DO,
because you'll be wasting your time completely talking about nothing
of any relevance to the debate, and it will thus give me more time
to spend educating the audience about various details in astronomy,
or geology, that contradict young earth creationism.

TOPRe: McDonald/Greene Debate status?
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13199):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote:
>>> Todd,
>>>
>>> As I recall, you indicated that you would be posting a
>>> status report today regarding the debate.
>>>
>>> You recently wrote to Jerry, in part:
>>>
>>>> Read the debate propositions again Jerry.
>>>
>>> I may have missed them, but I don't recall seeing what
>>> the agreed upon propositions for the debate are.
>>>
>>> Are the specific propositions available for publication
>>> yet?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Robert Baty
>>
>> Actually, probably tomorrow. I'm hoping that Saturday is
>> still part of the weekend. ;-)
>>
>> I've compiled some stuff and HTMLized most of it already,
>> but not completely yet, so I'll finish that up and get it
>> up on my website either late tonight or sometime tomorrow.
>>
>> At that time (i.e., tonight or tomorrow) - assuming it is
>> agreeable to Jerry as well - I will give a final signoff
>> on the specific wording of my affirmative proposition for
>> the debate, for public consumption as "this is it." In
>> regard to Jerry's affirmative proposition, I have already
>> stated my qualms about him removing any reference to
>> scientific evidence from the proposition (and have
>> compiled Jerry's specific response to my comments
>> promising that his discussion will be strictly about the
>> relevant science, just in case I need to bring up his
>> promise to me in the debate itself). We will have to ask
>> Jerry about his "official signoff" on that proposition as
>> currently worded.
>>
>> - Todd
>
> No, Todd, there was no disagreement about "scientific
> evidence," but "empirical evidence." Empirical evidence
> is what I did not want in my proposition. I wanted it
> left open to any kind of evidence, not just what I can
> see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. I will certainly use
> scientific arguments in defense of my proposition, but I
> will not restrict it to what I personally can see, hear,
> smell, touch, and or taste.
> jdm

There you go. This is EXACTLY the silly deceitful word game tricks
I'm talking about. Jerry, let me be very clear with you right here
and now. These word game tricks are not going to fly with me.

We're talking about science, plain and simple, AND YOU KNOW THAT. Do
not attempt to lie to me about this with crap like this and waste my
time.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald-Greene Debate negotiations
(Nov 3, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #13196):
> Todd, are you changing your proposition? The original said
> "empirical evidence," not "scientific evidence."
> jdm

Sorry, I meant to mention this in my previous post on this, giving
you the link to the page. I did change that, because it is
scientific evidence I'm referring to with "empirical evidence" and
I've noticed that a lot of people get confused about thinking that
empirical evidence does not refer to scientific evidence. If we were
having a written discussion (as we do here) I wouldn't care, but in
a time-limited oral debate I must make sure to use my time as
effectively as possible, wasting as little time as possible on
people getting confused about what is being discussed.

- Todd Greene

TOPHere is the new web page:
(Nov 3, 2007)

Debate, Young Earth Creationism (Belle, Missouri)
http://creationism.outersystem.us/debateinfo.html

I've compiled numerous posts related to discussion about debate
arrangements and some miscellaneous comments about the debate, but
at the top I've put a "Summary Information (Current Status)" section
where I've tried to summarize the basics. But that section does not
include what we've talked about in regard to things like travel, PC
projectors, and little details like that. The summary section has
the headings: Debate Propositions, Date, Schedule, Moderators, and
Location.

I have written down the wording of the debate propositions as
follows, as what I think we have both agreed on in debate
negotiations to this point in time.

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

Debate Propositions:

Resolved, the scientific evidence shows that
the Universe has been in existence for more
than one hundred thousand (100,000) years.

Affirm: Todd Greene
Deny: Jerry McDonald

Resolved, the earth has been here
less than a few thousand years.

Affirm: Jerry McDonald
Deny: Todd Greene

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

Jerry, here in this post I will reiterate two issues I have with
your affirmative proposition:

(1) Unlike my affirmative proposition, there is no reference made to
the fact that we will be discussing what is relevant *in regard to
the scientific evidence*. You have stated explicitly that you agree
that that is what we will be debating, so why not have it right in
the wording of the proposition, since you assure me that that is the
case. (However, regardless of whether you add such wording, rest
assured that I will rely on your explicit statement to me that this
debate is about what is relevant in regard to science.)

(2) "Less than a few thousand years" seems rather equivocal to me.
What does that mean, exactly?

And that's the end of this post.

- Todd Greene

TOPTextbook reviewer points out the truth about creationism
(Nov 2, 2007)

Excerpt from:
http://www.textbookleague.org/65bama.htm

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

Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism
by William J. Bennetta
(The Textbook Letter, November-December 1995)

[Excerpt]

Creationism is a fundamentalist political movement. The creationists
seek to impose onto the population at large, by political means, a
religion that revolves around the creation myths of the ancient
Israelites, as retold in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
The creationists' ultimate goal is to abolish natural science and to
replace it with a system of pseudoscience devoted to affirming the
narratives in the Bible's first section, the Book of Genesis.

In working toward that goal, the creationists try to corrupt the
public's understanding of scientific knowledge and of science
itself. Their most conspicuous efforts are aimed at eroding the
teaching of science in public schools. They promote curricula that
misrepresent science, they demand that teachers present scientific
findings and biblical myths as equivalent alternatives, they try to
prevent the teaching of any science that contravenes biblical lore,
and they try to force the schools to disseminate Bible stories that
have been cloaked in "scientific" disguises.

In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a
simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie
prodigiously, and they lie because they must. The idea that the
Bible could serve to explain nature collapsed in the 1800s, under an
overwhelming mass of scientific information that discredited any
naive, literal reading of Genesis, but the creationists have to deny
that this ever happened. They also must deny all that science has
learned since then about the history of Earth and Earth's organisms
-- and the only way to do this is to tell lies. They tell lies about
nature, lies about science and lies about their own doctrines and
aims, and they change the lies, from time to time, to fit prevailing
circumstances.

TOPScientific Evidence <-- sometimes not really the point
(Sep 15, 2007)

Hi Jack,

While I think I know where you're coming from, the problem we have
dealing with young earth creationists is a problem of lop-sidedness.
When people are engaged in rational discussion it's because there's
some fundamental agreement about the "rules of engagement." With
young earth creationists, for the most part, this does not exist.
Oh, yes, they SAY it exists, but it doesn't. As we have seen in
these most recent discussions, these guys SAY one thing but DO
another all the time. They'll even lie straight out, such as Daniel
Denham criticizing Andy Boshers for not answering question (even
after Andy has just finished answering numerous questions), and
he'll throw more questions at Andy - even while Daniel himself has
deliberately ignored every specific question Andy has asked him.

This is one of those standard YEC games: Ignore all specific
questions about your claims that your opponent has asked you. Ask
your opponent all sorts of questions, especially questions that are
completely irrelevant to the topic but that pander to the prejudice
of group members. If your opponent answers 11 of them (even the
irrelevant ones) but misses a 12th one, take him to task for
refusing to answer questions and go on an on about his lack of
integrity and honesty. Keep ignoring all specific questions about
your claims that your opponent has asked you. If your opponent then
explicitly complains that you aren't answering his questions, point
out that he hasn't dealt with THE BIG QUESTION [whatever that's
supposed to be], just keep distracting attention away from the fact
that you've been ignoring all his questions. Ask some more questions
of your opponent. Make some comments about a different (though
possibly related) topic, and ask questions about those. Have your
buddies jump in an challenge the opponent for not answering
questions. Make sure they also ignore the fact that you have failed
to answer every specific question you've been asked.

See what I mean, Jack? That's just one example. There's not a level
playing field. Young earth creationism is not about science. You and
I know this. It's all about a religious dogma that people believe AT
ALL COSTS. Even at the cost of the truth. And THAT is why it really
does come down to character assassinations, when you're dealing with
people who have no qualms about making up things and literally lying
about matters at the drop of a hat, because their ultimate purpose
is to do whatever it takes to prop up their dogma no matter what.
People with this kind of attitude are not amenable to the evidence,
precisely because the evidence is irrelevant to them. The dogma is
relevant, nothing else. Sure, "evidence" is all good and dandy if
it's good for faking people out, but I'm sure you've noticed that
every time you blow up one of their pieces of "evidence" with real
science, then it's an immediate retreat to something else, such as,
say, the apparent age argument ("Well, yeah, the evidence may look
that way, but that's just because God made it look that way when He
created the Earth 6,000 years ago."). So much for evidence.

Another YEC game. Challenge the critic to a debate. The critic
says, "Uh, excuse me, I'm debating you RIGHT NOW."

"No, no," says the young earth creationist, "I'm talking about an
oral debate for four nights at my church."

Right, now you have to come up with (or someone has to come up with
it) transportation costs, additional prep time for good public
presentation, LESS ready access to information, time-limited, etc.,
etc. - merely because the young earth creationist is DOING NOTHING
MORE than playing a rhetorical tactic.

"SEE, LOOK AT THAT, THIS GUY WON'T EVEN DEBATE ME!"

Of course, the critic really just got done blowing your last five
pseudoscience nonsense claims out of the water with some genuine
science information and a little bit of real logic.

Jack, there's not a whole lot of integrity with these guys. With a
lot of them, it's a real big problem. Young earth creationism
thrives only because of these attitude problems. They'll use one
lousy rhetorical trick after another, even make statements implying
that if you challenge their nonsense you're "opposing the church" or
you're opposing God Himself. And when you call them on their errors,
they'll completely ignore you and just keep right on promoting their
errors as if what you've pointed out, a logic flaw or credible
information showing that a claim they've made is very wrong, they'll
go on as if never even existed.

You can't "further the discussion" with people who couldn't care
less about "furthering the discussion." Certainly there are a lot of
young earth creationists who are where they are at because of what
they know up to this time in their lives, but they're willing to
genuinely engage in discussion (i.e., genuinely consider the
evidence, and modify their beliefs as appropriate to the relevant
evidence), and furthering the discussion is a possibility. But
furthering discussion with men such as whom we're dealing with in
most recent discussion here, is something that isn't even on the
radar. THEY are nothing more than "object lessons" because that is
what they have made themselves into. To people who really are
willing to consider the evidence, men such as these ARE PART OF THE
EVIDENCE. The fact that their characters are quite flawed in how
they do not deal with evidence and how they use deceitful tactics in
regard to evidential information and in regard to people IS PART OF
THE EVIDENCE.

WITH THESE KIND OF MEN you can't "further the discussion" because
that's not possible. In such a context, discussion is used only for
the purpose of eliciting further examples/demonstrations by them of
their fallacious thinking and/or deceitful ways, examples and
demonstrations that can be shown to others, about the true nature of
young earth creationism.

I hope this explains the context a little better.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jack Gibson wrote (post #12571):
> Fellow Listers :
>
> For the most part the discussions on this list on the age
> of the earth have been a big disappointment to me. As a
> scientist , I had hoped to see some of the scientific
> evidence presented and discussed . I don't believe the
> YECs have any scientific evidence to present , but the
> back and forth character assinations , IMO , do nothing to
> further this discussion .
>
> PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
>
> Ulysses

TOPRe: McDonald-Greene Debate negotiations!
(Sep 10, 2007)

Here's an example of a pc projector:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JJK4LC

Three things to note about these are:

1. Brightness
2. Contrast
3. Resolution

With this particular example, notice that the brightness is 2500
lumens (very good), the contrast is 2200:1 (very good), and the
resolution is XGA (or 1024 x 768, which is good).

Anyway, that let's you know what a pc projector is. Obviously, with
a projector you have to have a screen (best), or at least a blank
white wall (not so good, but will work).

PowerPoint is the name of the Microsoft PowerPoint program that is
very popular, especially in the business world, with people making
presentations.

By the way, it is possible that I may have access to and be able to
borrow a pc projector by May 2008, but I can't count on it, so if
the Belle church already has one available that would work out well.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald-Greene Debate negotiations!
(Sep 8, 2007)

Draft format for debate in Belle, Missouri
(as interpreted by me from an email by Jerry McDonald)
proposed for discussion:

------------------------------------------------
Four nights.

Approximately two hours per night.

First night:
30 minutes, affirmative
5 minute break
30 minutes, negative
15 minute break
30 minutes, affirmative
5 minute break
30 minutes, negative

Second night:
30 minutes, affirmative
5 minute break
30 minutes, negative
15 minute break
20 minutes, final affirmative
5 minute break
20 minutes, final negative
10 minute break
20-30 minutes Q&A (audience)

Repeated the second set of two nights, with positions reversed.

Each speaker has his own moderator, chart man, and time keeper.

Possibility of "Crossfire" Q&A (between speakers) and how it would
be conducted still to be discussed and determined.
------------------------------------------------

Additionally, Jerry, my answer to your question is that, yes, very
much I need access to a PC projector that can be hooked to a laptop
(I definitely prefer a 1024 dpi resolution if available). If it is
available I would also like to have an overhead projector, for use
in drawing and showing diagrams "on the fly" during presentation
(i.e., they are not prepared ahead of time as part of prepared PC
screens), but are brought up on the fly as wanted to visually show
relevant things thought of during the discussion itself.

Incidentally, just so you know, I don't use PowerPoint, never having
become familiar with using it, because I've been an HTML web page
coder for many years and so that is just far more of a "native" way
for me to do things.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald-Greene Debate negotiations!
(Sep 4, 2007)

Hi Jerry,

I have some questions in regard to pondering time considerations for
the debate.

How much time are you thinking is good for a single evening? Two
hours? Less? More? Do you think we should make a specific Q&A
session where we are asked questions submitted by the audience?
Should we have any short "crossfire" segments (which are
interspersed between the larger affirmation/negative presentations)
where we specifically ask each other questions?

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: McDonald's fifth affirmative!
(Sep 1, 2007)

Hi Jerry,

Rest assured that even in the contentiousness of controversy, some
of us are well aware that life exists outside of cyberspace, that
"things happen," and that, after all, what we do here is
"extracurricular activity." We only get cantankerous when people
engage in deliberate evasions. Unintentional evasions are
acceptable. ;-)

I hope things go well with you.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12058):
> I was taken to the hospital again shortly after I sent my
> email. This time I was admitted and will be here probably
> through the weekend. So I am sorry to be such a
> disappointment to you Robert, but that's life.

TOPRe: Jerry, let's do this thing! The debate is on, as far as I'm
concerned.
(Aug 31, 2007)

Jerry, in regard to my practical considerations for debate, please
read the following post by me, when you get a chance to do so:

Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
(July 1, 2007)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

If there are any issues with that, I definitely need to know about
them.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: A fundamental fallacy of YEC epistemology
(Aug 31, 2007)

Actually, Jerry, I suspect that if I contradicted myself like this,
you'd be climbing all over me for doing so - of course, I'd deserve
it. So, no, I already know that I do not have the same courtesy of
contradicting myself whenever I feel like it.

Here is what I suspect: You want me to THINK that you're only going
to discuss the scientific aspects, but in fact you have "something
else up your sleeve" that you want to spring on me, as some sort of
debate tactic. (Which I would suppose I'm probably ready for in any
case, since I'm used to young earth creationist rhetoric, but you
never know what particular details may be brought up since there
are, of course, so many.)

But do keep this in mind: These discussion group posts are a matter
of public record.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12032):
> You go right ahead and do what you want. Just allow me
> the same courtesy.
>
> jdm
>
>
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
>> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>
>>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12010):
>>>> Todd, I only found out last night that you were a former
>>>> member of the church of Christ. Is that right?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right.
>>>
>>>> When you and I do debate, I won't even bring the Bible
>>>> into the discussion unless you bring it up. We are going
>>>> to be dealing with this subject strictly from a
>>>> scientific standpoint.
>>>
>>> Okay, now you've got me really confused. I write debate
>>> propositions in which I purposely use wording for the
>>> purpose of "dealing with this subject strictly from a
>>> scientific standpoint," but you REMOVED that specific
>>> wording from the propositions. I questioned you
>>> concerning why you did that, and you responded with the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11936):
>>>| If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your
>>>| proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to
>>>| rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues
>>>| of knowledge rather than just ejpirical knowledge. I will
>>>| deal with some of those things that we can have through
>>>| empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as
>>>| well. However, if you want to go with just empirical
>>>| evidence, then be my guest.
>>>
>>> So it seems to me that you are now contradicting yourself.
>>> Would you please explain this apparent contradiction?
>>
>> Todd, don't worry about it, all right? I will make my case
>> without using the Bible.
>
> Jerry, you stated, "We are going to be dealing with this subject
> strictly from a scientific standpoint." BUT WHEN I STATED RIGHT
> IN THE PROPOSITION AS I STATED THAT I WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE
> SUBJECT STRICTLY FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, you seemed to
> have a problem with that. Also, I know for a fact from all kinds
> of statements made by you on this general subject that you
> dismiss science out of hand based solely on religious belief,
> so, yes, this contradiction is of interest to me precisely because
> it doesn't make any sense.
>
> If you are concerned about "giving something away," you should
> understand that I will - purposely - give everything away to you.
> Indeed, the arguments, even much of the form of the arguments,
> that I will use in debate are already a matter of public record,
> in various discussion groups, including this "Maury_and_Baty"
> discussion group. Here are some other links for you:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism
> (lots of discussion by me in earlier years, but not so much
> lately; this is a very active group now, over 300 members, and
> many active participants)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned
> (lots of good discussion with YECs in this one)
>
> Also archived discussions at my website:
>
> Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
> http://creationism.outersystem.us/
>
> I can even tell you, almost for certain, that I'll start right
> off with the beautiful SN1987A because it's a great astronomical
> example in its own right and because it's such a great lead-in
> to a number of issues relevant to young earth creationism
> (relevant to destroying a number of common young earth
> creationist arguments too).
>
> May 2008 is several months from now, and I'm certainly not going
> to be holding anything back in that time. ;-)
>
> - Todd Greene

TOPRe: A fundamental fallacy of YEC epistemology
(Aug 31, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote:
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12010):
>>> Todd, I only found out last night that you were a former
>>> member of the church of Christ. Is that right?
>>
>> Yes, that's right.
>>
>>> When you and I do debate, I won't even bring the Bible
>>> into the discussion unless you bring it up. We are going
>>> to be dealing with this subject strictly from a
>>> scientific standpoint.
>>
>> Okay, now you've got me really confused. I write debate
>> propositions in which I purposely use wording for the
>> purpose of "dealing with this subject strictly from a
>> scientific standpoint," but you REMOVED that specific
>> wording from the propositions. I questioned you
>> concerning why you did that, and you responded with the
>> following:
>>
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11936):
>>| If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your
>>| proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to
>>| rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues
>>| of knowledge rather than just ejpirical knowledge. I will
>>| deal with some of those things that we can have through
>>| empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as
>>| well. However, if you want to go with just empirical
>>| evidence, then be my guest.
>>
>> So it seems to me that you are now contradicting yourself.
>> Would you please explain this apparent contradiction?
>
> Todd, don't worry about it, all right? I will make my case
> without using the Bible.

Jerry, you stated, "We are going to be dealing with this subject
strictly from a scientific standpoint." BUT WHEN I STATED RIGHT IN
THE PROPOSITION AS I STATED THAT I WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT
STRICTLY FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, you seemed to have a problem
with that. Also, I know for a fact from all kinds of statements made
by you on this general subject that you dismiss science out of hand
based solely on religious belief, so, yes, this contradiction is of
interest to me precisely because it doesn't make any sense.

If you are concerned about "giving something away," you should
understand that I will - purposely - give everything away to you.
Indeed, the arguments, even much of the form of the arguments, that
I will use in debate are already a matter of public record, in
various discussion groups, including this "Maury_and_Baty"
discussion group. Here are some other links for you:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism
(lots of discussion by me in earlier years, but not so much lately;
this is a very active group now, over 300 members, and many active
participants)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned
(lots of good discussion with YECs in this one)

Also archived discussions at my website:

Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://creationism.outersystem.us/

I can even tell you, almost for certain, that I'll start right off
with the beautiful SN1987A because it's a great astronomical example
in its own right and because it's such a great lead-in to a number
of issues relevant to young earth creationism (relevant to
destroying a number of common young earth creationist arguments
too).

May 2008 is several months from now, and I'm certainly not going to
be holding anything back in that time. ;-)

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: A fundamental fallacy of YEC epistemology
(Aug 30, 2007)

Hi Jerry,

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #12010):
> Todd, I only found out last night that you were a former
> member of the church of Christ. Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

> When you and I do debate, I won't even bring the Bible
> into the discussion unless you bring it up. We are going
> to be dealing with this subject strictly from a
> scientific standpoint.

Okay, now you've got me really confused. I write debate propositions
in which I purposely use wording for the purpose of "dealing with
this subject strictly from a scientific standpoint," but you REMOVED
that specific wording from the propositions. I questioned you
concerning why you did that, and you responded with the following:

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11936):
| If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your
| proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to
| rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues
| of knowledge rather than just ejpirical knowledge. I will
| deal with some of those things that we can have through
| empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as
| well. However, if you want to go with just empirical
| evidence, then be my guest.

So it seems to me that you are now contradicting yourself. Would you
please explain this apparent contradiction?

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Is Jerry amenable to the evidence?
(Aug 30, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11987):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> In post #11975 Jerry McDonald wrote, "The young earth
>> interpretation of the Bible is right. You cannot get any
>> other interpretation out of it. I would have to reject
>> the so-called real world evidence to the contrary of
>> Biblical evidence."
>>
>> Jerry, this looks to me like you are making an argument
>> like this, 'If the Bible teaches that the Universe and
>> the Earth did not exist more than 6,000 to 10,000 years
>> ago, then that's what I will believe regardless of what
>> the scientific evidence shows.'
>
> Todd, You have it right. I have seen far too often how
> [science] has shown something to be so, only to have it
> turn right around and deny its authenticity. Case and
> point in his book "A Brief History of Time" Steven
> Hawking wrote about the new inflationary model of the
> universe brought forth by Paul Steinhardt and Andreas
> Albrecht of the University of Pennsylvania and were given
> joint credit with Linde on what was called the "new
> inflationary model" as opposed to Guth's old inflationary
> model. This is what Hawking said about it: "The new
> inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the
> universe is the way it is. However, I and several other
> people showed that, at least in its original form, it
> predicted much greater variations in the temperature of
> the microwave background radiation than are observed.
> Later work has also cast doubt on whether there could be
> a phase transition in the very early universe of the kind
> required. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, THE NEW INFLATIONARY
> MODEL IS NOW DEAD AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY, ALTHOUGH A LOT
> OF PEOPLE DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE HEARD OF ITS DEMISE AND ARE
> STILL WRITING PAPERS AS IF IT WERE VIABLE (all caps for
> emphasis jdm)" (p. 136 - p. 132 for those who have the
> original book. I quoted from the new expanded edition).
> So when I say that the Bible takes precedence over any
> alleged "real world evidence" I mean that with all my
> heart. Real world evidence changes almost on a daily
> basis and the Bible does not change. It is the same
> yesterday, today and forever. I will stick with stability
> if you don't mind.
>
> In Christ,
> Jerry D. McDonald


There are thousands of Christian denominations *precisely because*
there is no such thing as religious dogma "stability." Indeed, Jerry
McDonald himself is a member of a larger religious denomination that
is fractured into smaller denominations because of the fact that no
such "stability" exists!

Second, notice also how Jerry is telling us that we cannot learn
anything about the real world by examination and analysis of the
real world itself (science), therefore he doesn't believe anything
we've learned about the real world through scientific study of the
real world. In other words, as far as Jerry is concerned, we have to
believe the "stability" of religious doctrine regardless of any
empirical evidence, so maybe the Sun really does orbit the Earth.
After all, according to Jerry, the Bible takes precedence over any
alleged "real world evidence." That's exactly what the geocentrists
told us too!

Third, with these comments Jerry also acknowledges what we've
pointed out all along: Young earth creationism is not scientific.
With numerous examples in various discussion over the months and
years we've pointed out how young earth creationism is unscientific
because it advocates numerous ideas that are *factually* wrong.
However, in this particular context the point, a philosophically
more fundamental point, is that young earth creationism is
unscientific *in principle* because of its very nature of NOT being
amenable to the scientific evidence. Young earth creationists
believe what they believe REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE.

Yes, we already knew this.

BUT LET THIS BE CLEAR: I TELL YOU JERRY, "THANK YOU," sincerely, for
being open, straightforward, and honest about these matters. Your
openness and honesty about these issues is a breath of fresh air
after the deceitful, deliberately obfuscating run-and-hide tactics
of the Contentious For Tendentious Fallacies buddyhood.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 29, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11936):
> --- Todd Greene wrote:
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11908):
>>> Why not debate the following propositions?
>>>
>>> Resolved the universe has been in existence longer than
>>> 100,000 (one hundred thousand years).
>>>
>>> Todd Greene Affirms.
>>> Jerry McDonald Denies.
>>>
>>> Resolved the earth has been here less than a few thousand
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Jerry McDonald Affirms.
>>> Todd Greene Denies.
>>>
>>> We will have two nights for each proposition.
>>> jdm
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> I think we're getting close.
>>
>> I'd like to understand why you want to remove the phrase "The
>> empirical evidence shows that" from the wording of the
>> propositions. Will you explain this, please?
>>
>> Also, please note that "a few thousand" can be interpreted
>> equivocally. I've always thought of a "a few" as being like
>> three or four, and "several" as being like six, seven, or
>> eight, or so. I never think of 10,000 or 12,000 or 25,000
>> as being "a few thousand," yet I know that some young earth
>> creationists use numbers like that, so it seems to me that
>> that should be stated less equivocally.
>>
>> Additionally, in regard to practical considerations, please
>> read this post I wrote several weeks ago:
>>
>> Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
>> (July 1, 2007)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
>>
>> - Todd Greene
>
> If you want the words "empirical evidence" in your
> proposition that is fine with me, but I do not intend to
> rely on empirical evidence. I intend to use other avenues
> of knowledge rather than just ejpirical knowledge. I will
> deal with some of those things that we can have through
> empirical evidence, but I want to rely on other things as
> well. However, if you want to go with just empirical
> evidence, then be my guest.
> jdm

Hi Jerry,

Thank you for addressing my question about the "empirical evidence"
wording. It's what I suspected, but I thank you for stating this
plainly. I do indeed want the words "empirical evidence" in my
proposition. (Indeed, there is no other evidence, unless you're
making a circular argument. But if you want to use a circular
argument on your end of the debate, I will enjoy that thoroughly.)

Please note that you did not address the problem of the equivocal
wording of "a few thousand."

But, as I previously stated, I do think we're getting close.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 29, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11908):
> Why not debate the following propositions?
>
> Resolved the universe has been in existence longer than
> 100,000 (one hundred thousand years).
>
> Todd Greene Affirms.
> Jerry McDonald Denies.
>
> Resolved the earth has been here less than a few thousand
> years.
>
> Jerry McDonald Affirms.
> Todd Greene Denies.
>
> We will have two nights for each proposition.
> jdm

Hi Jerry,

I think we're getting close.

I'd like to understand why you want to remove the phrase "The
empirical evidence shows that" from the wording of the propositions.
Will you explain this, please?

Also, please note that "a few thousand" can be interpreted
equivocally. I've always thought of a "a few" as being like three or
four, and "several" as being like six, seven, or eight, or so. I
never think of 10,000 or 12,000 or 25,000 as being "a few thousand,"
yet I know that some young earth creationists use numbers like that,
so it seems to me that that should be stated less equivocally.

Additionally, in regard to practical considerations, please read
this post I wrote several weeks ago:

Comments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
(July 1, 2007)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 28, 2007)

You are correct. Jerry wants to debate "Creation vs. Evolution"
because he wants to run all over the map like a Gish gallop and
never get at the heart of the issue. The heart of the problem with
young earth creationism is that it is a scientifically false idea
about reality, because it is a scientific fact that that Universe
and the Earth have been in existence far longer than just 6,000 or
10,000 years.

Previously, Jerry indicated that he should write his own proposition
that he would affirm, which I stated I do NOT have any problem with,
but it must be an unequivocal statement and it must be relevant. I
told Jerry this, pointing out that the propositions I wrote were for
his "consideration" to get the ball rolling. He intimated that he
had some problem with what I wrote, and I asked him to explain what
the problem may be, but as yet I have seen nothing from him
providing any such explanation. Then the next thing I see from him
in regard to any debate is this post in which he fully retreats from
the whole subject, trying to change the subject to "Creation vs.
Evolution." I will NOT debate the subject of evolution with any
young earth creationist, because they are incapable of comprehending
the subject, because they have no framework for comprehending it,
because their minds are mired in pre-19th century religious doctrine
that was scientifically falsified by geological studies over 200
years ago. (Of course, since I made the post on this, it has become
clear to me that Jerry - and David P. Brow - are advocates of the
apparent age argument, which means that both of them actually AGREE
WITH ME that the geological and astronomical evidence is exactly
what we expect to see for an Earth and a Universe that have been
around far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. They just say
that the empirical evidence is that of an ancient Universe and
ancient Earth, because GOD MADE IT LOOK THAT WAY. In other words,
God put fake fossils in the rocks of fake geologic strata, and God
put fake illusions in the sky of star explosions that never
happened.)

However, since I'm aware of the fact that due to their cluelessness
about basic science very many young earth creationists don't even
know the difference between GEOLOGY and ASTRONOMY, and evolution, so
it may even be the case that due to this YEC confusion about science
when Jerry referred to "Creation vs. Evolution" he *meant* to refer
to what I had already discussed. We shall have to see what he's
really aiming if he will be more specific when he responds on this
matter. The ball is in Jerry's court to clarify everything about
this.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #11898):
> Todd,
>
> In relevant part, it seems to me that you are simply asking
> Jerry McDonald if he will agree to discuss the specific
> propositions that you have outstanding and shown below:
>
>| Proposition #1:
>|
>| The empirical evidence shows
>| that the Earth has been in
>| existence longer than one
>| hundred thousand (100,000)
>| years.
>|
>| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
>| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
>|
>| Proposition #2:
>|
>| The empirical evidence shows
>| that the Universe has been in
>| existence longer than one
>| hundred thousand (100,000)
>| years.
>|
>| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
>| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
>|
>| Proposition #3:
>|
>| The empirical evidence shows
>| that the Earth is less than one
>| hundred thousand (100,000)
>| years old.
>|
>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
>| Deny: Todd S Greene
>|
>| Proposition #4:
>|
>| The empirical evidence shows
>| that the Universe is less than
>| one hundred thousand (100,000)
>| years old.
>|
>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
>| Deny: Todd S. Greene
>
>
> I think that's what Jerry McDonald or his surrogate
> should take up in any such formal, in writing (or oral,
> in person), for the record discussion.
>
> However, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it is
> my opinion that there should be some specific, agreed
> upon purpose and consequence for addressing that issue.
>
> I would hope that the great debate between myself and
> Jerry McDonald would resolve the "purpose and
> consequence" aspect of the matter, consistent with
> Jerry's real position.
>
> That is, is Jerry going to take the position that:
>
>> If something really is more than
>> a few thousand years old, it is
>> just a matter of an interpretation
>> being wrong,
>
>> If something really is more than
>> a few thousand years old, it is
>> the Bible that is wrong,
>
>> or
>
>> Is Jerry McDonald going to resign
>> to Dr. Fox's corner, having no
>> real argument to present and
>> denying that his real world claim
>> based on the text is subject to
>> testing based on the real world
>> evidence.
>
> I seem to be laboring to get Jerry up to speed on this
> and clearly making up his mind and sticking with a
> specific position.
>
> Hopefully, we'll get that resolved in the next round and
> he'll be ready to proceed with negotiating the formal
> debate based on your propositions or something mutually
> agreeable and relevant to the fundamental issue. Or,
> he'll accept the Dr. Fox position and simply join us in
> rejecting "young-earth, creation-science" along with the
> implications that go along with such a course.
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11884):
>>> Todd, would you be up for a four night debate on Creation
>>> vs. Evolution here at the Belle church of Christ? As I
>>> said we are within driving distance of several colleges
>>> and the university of Missouri.
>>>
>>> In Christ,
>>> Jerry McDonald
>>
>> Jerry, I require your direct (not indirect or evasive)
>> response to this post
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11792
>>
>> and this post
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11819
>>
>> Don't attempt to change the subject. Your rhetorical
>> maneuvering is transparent to us.
>>
>> Todd Greene

TOPDebate on young earth creationism at Belle Church of Christ?
(Aug 28, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11884):
> Todd, would you be up for a four night debate on Creation
> vs. Evolution here at the Belle church of Christ? As I
> said we are within driving distance of several colleges
> and the university of Missouri.
>
> In Christ,
> Jerry McDonald

Jerry, I require your direct (not indirect or evasive) response to
this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11784

and this post

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11819

Don't attempt to change the subject. Your rhetorical maneuvering is
transparent to us.

- Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate
(Aug 25, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11792):
> Todd, weren't you the one who said that you loved the
> creationists because of the "objective morality" view
> and that it makes you laugh and laugh? This is what I
> was going on.

You're right, Jerry. I did. It's the ironic nature of young earth
creationist hypocrisy that I find so amusing. Here is what I wrote:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/11712

| The general principle
| about this is (1) you need to get your facts straight, and
| (2) if you are not capable of getting your facts straight
| then you should simply shut up and try to restrain
| yourself from promoting falsehoods. The general lesson
| about this is that, due to some sort of fundamental
| failure that is inherent to your particular ideology you
| not only will deliberately ignore (1) and (2), even while
| your ideology requires you to falsely tell people all the
| time that you adhere to (1) and (2). This sort of blatant
| hypocrisy is thus apparently a fundamental component of
| your ideology. (This same problem of being
| "honesty-challenged" was brought out in the 2005
| Creationism Trial in Pennsylvania, and was strongly
| criticized by Judge John E. Jones in his published
| decision.) This is one of the reasons why when Christians
| like you try to get in discussions with me about
| "objective morality" I just laugh and laugh and laugh.

So which part of that did you not understand?

By the very fact of their being young earth creationists, young
earth creationists demonstrate that there is something fundamentally
flawed with whatever moral standard they purport to have. Why would
I waste any time on a time-consuming discussion of such a subject
with people who have less than zero credibility on it, whose moral
judgement is already known to possess critical flaws? Lying for
Jesus is not moral. The fact that "Jesus" is used in that statement
is completely irrelevant. The deceitful nature of The Young Earth
Creationist Way is not moral. It's a cliche, but this is most
appropriate in this context: "Actions speak louder than words."

> Robert and I are already having an unofficial debate on
> the challenge list on the age of the earth. If Robert
> wants to defer to you, that is fine with me.

Currently I don't know where that discussion group is located.
Additionally, I was under the distinct impression that I was not
only not welcome to participate in discussion of creationism in that
group, but that I would either not be allowed to join if I tried to
do so, or that I would be quickly banned were I to join. I already
know for a fact that getting involved in any discussion group run by
you is a bad idea because you oppose open discussion and will just
up and ban people who disagree with you and point out your errors.
(You've already done this to me. You yourself are one reason I
started the "creationism" discussion group in the first place.) So I
just don't see the point of it. This "Maury_and_Baty" discussion
group is an open discussion group. My own "creationism" discussion
group is an open discussion group. There are other open discussion
groups. You are welcome and indeed invited to discuss the issues in
any such open discussion groups. So I see no need to get involved in
any group run by you, and see reason to refrain from doing so.

> My proposition, however, will be written by me, not you.

And I did not say otherwise. I clearly wrote "Here are my standard
proposition that I offer for your consideration." Perhaps you missed
that part. You should feel free to discuss the wording of the
propositions, especially regarding what you would be affirming.
(However, I note here that you did not happen to state what problem
there might be, if any, with the wording of the propositions that I
wrote. I'm very curious to see you explain what problem, if any, you
think there might be.)

I'm not like the deceitful David P. Brown, Daniel Denham, Keith
Sisman, and others, who deliberately misrepresent my position, write
a proposition that deliberately misrepresents my position, and then
lie to people that I will not debate them simply because I will not
affirm a proposition that THEY wrote that does not represent my
position (and they lie like this, knowing that I have already
written my own proposition that does represent my position that I
have told them I will debate). This is how deceitful these men are.

Jerry, since you apparently recognize the fact that other people
should not be writing misrepresentative propositions and expecting
you to sign on to them as representing your position, I shall look
forward to you pointing out the lying ways of David P. Brown and
others in his "buddyhood" who have emulated those lying ways on
this.

Unless, of course, you're just another hypocrite like them.

- Todd Greene


> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote (post #11792):
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772):
>>> Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
>>> on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
>>> jdm
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> First of all, young earth creationists don't have any
>> credible ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young
>> earth creationists.
>>
>> Just so you know.
>>
>> Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a
>> subject I've studied or am interested in studying. I do
>> know that "humanist ethics" condemns both slavery and the
>> slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, while
>> "biblical ethics" endorses both of those, so I'm not all
>> that concerned about such serious cognitive dissonance
>> problems on my end.
>>
>> What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is
>> empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and
>> have studied, and have discussed at length with young earth
>> creationists, and that I will debate you on, both in writing
>> or in a public speaking engagement, and about which I have
>> challenged other young earth creationists.
>>
>> Here are my standard propositions that I offer for your
>> consideration:
>>
>>| Proposition #1:
>>| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth has
>>| been in existence longer than one hundred
>>| thousand (100,000) years.
>>|
>>| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
>>| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
>>|
>>| Proposition #2:
>>| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
>>| has been in existence longer than one hundred
>>| thousand (100,000) years.
>>|
>>| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
>>| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
>>|
>>| Proposition #3:
>>| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
>>| less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
>>| old.
>>|
>>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
>>| Deny: Todd S Greene
>>|
>>| Proposition #4:
>>| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
>>| is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
>>| years old.
>>|
>>| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
>>| Deny: Todd S. Greene
>>
>> Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in
>> writing or in a public speaking engagement? If you're
>> serious, instead of just engaging in the typical
>> rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by such guys
>> as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith
>> Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also
>> take a look at practical issues that I've already
>> mentioned in this post:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938
>>
>> - Todd Greene

TOPRe: Debate
(Aug 24, 2007)

--- In Maury_and_Baty, Jerry McDonald wrote (post #11772):
> Todd, are you going to debate me in a four night debate
> on Biblical ethics vs. Humanistic ethics or not?
> jdm

Hi Jerry,

First of all, young earth creationists don't have any credible
ethics, by the sheer fact that they are young earth creationists.

Just so you know.

Second, I have no interest in the subject, it's not a subject I've
studied or am interested in studying. I do know that "humanist
ethics" condemns both slavery and the slaughter of innocent men,
women, and children, while "biblical ethics" endorses both of those,
so I'm not all that concerned about such serious cognitive
dissonance problems on my end.

What I do know for a fact is that young earth creationism is
empirically false. This is a subject I'm interested in and have
studied, and have discussed at length with young earth creationists,
and that I will debate you on, both in writing or in a public
speaking engagement, and about which I have challenged other young
earth creationists.

Here are my standard propositions that I offer for your
consideration:

| Proposition #1:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth has
| been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #2:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| has been in existence longer than one hundred
| thousand (100,000) years.
|
| Affirm: Todd S. Greene
| Deny: Jerry McDonald?
|
| Proposition #3:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Earth is
| less than one hundred thousand (100,000) years
| old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S Greene
|
| Proposition #4:
| The empirical evidence shows that the Universe
| is less than one hundred thousand (100,000)
| years old.
|
| Affirm: Jerry McDonald?
| Deny: Todd S. Greene

Jerry, are you going to debate me on this subject, in writing or in
a public speaking engagement? If you're serious, instead of just
engaging in the typical rhetorical bluffing bluster as practiced by
such guys as Daniel Denham, David P. Brown, Skip Francis, Keith
Sisman, Don DeLong, and the like, then you should also take a look
at practical issues that I've already mentioned in this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/10938

- Todd Greene

TOPComments on theism/atheism, young earth creationism debate
(Jul 1, 2007)

As I've indicated previously in other miscellaneous comments, my
time now is rather constrained by some software projects I'm working
on. So keep this in mind.

In regard to a public oral discussion/debate on either
theism/atheism and/or on young earth creationism (I would like it to
be both on two separate nights), of course I would prefer it to take
place in my geographical area (southern Michigan, such as the
Lansing area; or northern Indiana, such as Fort Wayne area), but I'm
stating this only as my preference, and not as a condition.

In regard to any debate, I don't own a laptop computer but I know I
can borrow one. However, I do require a projector and a screen to be
accessible for my use for the debate, that is compatible with a
Windows computer. That is a condition, not a preference.

As I've stated in regard to funds, I simply don't have the money to
spend on transportation outside of my area, so if it's outside my
area my transportation would have to be subsidized. In regard to
lodging and food, I can cover eating expenses. If it's more than one
night, I would also require that the additional lodging expense be
subsidized. If someone wants to put me up at their home, I certainly
don't have any problem with that. (But not Daniel Denham, please!
But if he wants to join me for coffee and breakfast somewhere,
that's perfectly fine.)

In regard to propositions that *I* will affirm, I do of course
insist that I have a hand in writing them. I'm certainly not going
to be participating in any debate where I'm saddled with "affirming"
something this is an incorrect straw man representation of my
position.

In regard to timeframe planning, currently I can't see my doing this
any time before October at the very earliest. (I'm certainly not
going to tie up any of my time in the summer.)

Note that I have made some of these comments similarly at times in
the past, which are a matter of public record.

- Todd Greene