No More "Dr." Gastrich Until 2005
Jason Gastrich
No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
Dr." and related things.
It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
you on the cross.
God bless,
Jason
--
The Awesome, Saving Gospel of God
http://gospel.jcsm.org
Are you saved? Read the gospel and make sure!
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
>Hi everyone,
>
>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
>the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
able to obtain a copy?
>Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
>that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
>interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
>Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
>ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
>Dr." and related things.
>
>It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
>from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
>you on the cross.
Well done that man.
You may be interested to know that the correct style for an honorary
Th.D is "Th.D. (h.c.)". Personally I don't think anyone would quibble
if you signed yourself "Jason Gastrich Th.D (hc)".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Jason Gastrich
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
> reply to alt.atheism
>
>
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
>> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D.
>> degree in 2005.
>
> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
> able to obtain a copy?
When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I suppose I
could scan it or scan a transcript.
>> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible
>> college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is
>> in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>>
>> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many
>> people ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while
>> calling me "fake Dr." and related things.
>>
>> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far
>> be it from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's
>> sacrifice for you on the cross.
>
> Well done that man.
>
> You may be interested to know that the correct style for an honorary
> Th.D is "Th.D. (h.c.)". Personally I don't think anyone would quibble
> if you signed yourself "Jason Gastrich Th.D (hc)".
Hmm. Don't underestimate quibblers. ; )
JG
Bobby D. Bryant
> You may be interested to know that the correct style for an honorary
> Th.D is "Th.D. (h.c.)". Personally I don't think anyone would quibble if
> you signed yourself "Jason Gastrich Th.D (hc)".
Right. What irritates people is the dishonesty of posturing as an
authority on something when you aren't. Inflating or misrepresenting
degrees earned is a common way of doing that, but not the only one.
What I find funny is how important academic credentials for an evolution
denier seem to be to the creationist community, when they turn around and
ignore the *thousands* of people with perfectly good credentials who are
telling them that evolution is for real.
(Yeah, it's actually about who has the evidence rather than who has the
sheepskins, but I find that bit of cognitive dissonance amusing, or
sometimes more than a bit annoying.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Michael Bragg
news:Wr%Xb.4041$Le2...@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree
> in 2005. Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a
> Bible college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel
> it is in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many
> people ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while
> calling me "fake Dr." and related things.
>
> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be
> it from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's
> sacrifice for you on the cross.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
Congratulations for doing the honorable thing, no matter how belated the
move may be. But let's be very clear on this: what you have done is not
humbling yourself. It is discontinuing the practice of misrepresenting
your credentials. If I were to tell people that I am a NASA engineer
because I flew a model rocket, or a Congressional Medal of Honor winner
because I received my marksmanship ribbon, then I came clean, I wouldn't
be humbling myself. I'd be admitting that I lied. You are being given
the opportunity to do the same, and it takes a big man to do so. Are you
willing to step up to the plate and take one for your team?
And lest you feel some need to evangelize me, I've considered what your
brand of religious instruction has to say about salvation. I reject it
on multiple grounds, not least of which is that any hypothetical creator
being who, being supposedly omnipotent, could only reconcile humanity to
itself through the torture of its progeny cannot be trusted either. A
contract with that sort of butcher isn't worth the carbon dioxide
expelled in praying it. Your behavior (while sufficient on its own to
kill your particular witness) was merely the icing on the cake.
Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism, and
what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than his
neighbor's or his pizza boy's?
--
Michael Bragg
Remove the physicist to e-mail me.
Jason Gastrich
I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically told
me that I could use the title Dr.
> And lest you feel some need to evangelize me, I've considered what
> your brand of religious instruction has to say about salvation. I
> reject it on multiple grounds, not least of which is that any
> hypothetical creator being who, being supposedly omnipotent, could
> only reconcile humanity to itself through the torture of its progeny
> cannot be trusted either. A contract with that sort of butcher isn't
> worth the carbon dioxide expelled in praying it. Your behavior
> (while sufficient on its own to kill your particular witness) was
> merely the icing on the cake.
Once again, we see an unbeliever who doesn't understand the concept of
repentance and forgiveness. It's not surprising, but don't pretend like it
doesn't exist. While my perfectly rightful action may have been the "icing
on your cake," you will be held accountable for your own actions; despite
the actions of any others. You may articulate the gospel message any way
you wish, but God's Son came to Earth and loved the unlovable and died a
terrible death to forgive you from your sins.
> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
> questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
tenable theory of creation.
> and what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than
> his neighbor's or his pizza boy's?
I'd have to meet Lenny's neighbor and pizza boy before I could answer this
question. Maybe we could all get together for a pizza party.
Jason
--
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
Get over 3,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible!
http://sab.jcsm.org
Michael Bragg
@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Therion Ware wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
>> reply to alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
>>> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D.
>>> degree in 2005.
>>
>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
>> able to obtain a copy?
>
> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I suppose I
> could scan it or scan a transcript.
>
[snippage occurs]
He's requesting a copy of your dissertation -- you know, that thing that
you have to write to earn a legitimate Ph.D.?
The mere fact that you didn't understand his request casts some doubt as
to the legitimacy of your claim. Out of curiosity, on what subject *is*
your dissertation? In which field?
(Also, as I'm mostly an autodidact, and thus not a Ph.D. or a grad
student myself, I may have misused the term "dissertation" where
"thesis" would be more appropriate. Could any appropriately-credentialed
individuals correct me if I have erred? TIA.)
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
>Therion Ware wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
>> reply to alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
>>> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D.
>>> degree in 2005.
>>
>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
>> able to obtain a copy?
>
>When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I suppose I
>could scan it or scan a transcript.
A copy of your dissertation, of course. And a tape of the viva would
be interesting too!
>>> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible
>>> college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is
>>> in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>>>
>>> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>>> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many
>>> people ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while
>>> calling me "fake Dr." and related things.
>>>
>>> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far
>>> be it from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's
>>> sacrifice for you on the cross.
>>
>> Well done that man.
>>
>> You may be interested to know that the correct style for an honorary
>> Th.D is "Th.D. (h.c.)". Personally I don't think anyone would quibble
>> if you signed yourself "Jason Gastrich Th.D (hc)".
>
>Hmm. Don't underestimate quibblers. ; )
Oh, I rarely do!
Jason Gastrich
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
> reply to alt.atheism
>
>
>
>> Therion Ware wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing
>>> the reply to alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and
>>>> avoid using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my
>>>> Ph.D. degree in 2005.
>>>
>>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I
>>> be able to obtain a copy?
>>
>> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I
>> suppose I could scan it or scan a transcript.
>
> A copy of your dissertation, of course. And a tape of the viva would
> be interesting too!
It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in May of
2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to go. I might
make it, though.
I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation. I've been
given permission to submit the Old Testament portion of the newest edition
of my book for my dissertation. It is over 400 pages long and meets my
university's standards. However, if I have the time and desire, I may write
my dissertation on fasting. I have done two 40 day fasts and feel I can
contribute something new and interesting to the knowledge base (we can't
exactly call it the "field" of fasting) of this discipline.
Sincerely,
Jason
Michael Bragg
And the nature of Shepherd's accreditation is a moribund equine which I
will not flog any further here. Nonetheless, you chose to represent
yourself as someone who earned his degree without qualifying that it was
conferred honorarily -- Therion Ware mentioned the proper way of
representing yourself in that case, and I would be surprised if such
knowledge were a matter of arcana at mainstream universities which confer
honorary degrees as a matter of course. The fact that the college from
which you received this honorary degree was unaware of its proper status
in no way exonerates you from the responsibility of your action in
misrepresenting the quality of your credentials.
>> And lest you feel some need to evangelize me, I've considered what
>> your brand of religious instruction has to say about salvation. I
>> reject it on multiple grounds, not least of which is that any
>> hypothetical creator being who, being supposedly omnipotent, could
>> only reconcile humanity to itself through the torture of its progeny
>> cannot be trusted either. A contract with that sort of butcher isn't
>> worth the carbon dioxide expelled in praying it. Your behavior
>> (while sufficient on its own to kill your particular witness) was
>> merely the icing on the cake.
>
> Once again, we see an unbeliever who doesn't understand the concept of
> repentance and forgiveness. It's not surprising, but don't pretend
> like it doesn't exist. While my perfectly rightful action may have
> been the "icing on your cake," you will be held accountable for your
> own actions; despite the actions of any others. You may articulate
> the gospel message any way you wish, but God's Son came to Earth and
> loved the unlovable and died a terrible death to forgive you from your
> sins.
>
I understand full well your concept of repentance and forgiveness. I
spent 11 years in the Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches, attended
Grace University in Omaha, NE (although I did not graduate from that
school, I took doctrinal classes on soteriology, hamartiology, and
eschatology), and still have my NASB Study Bible -- although I seem to
have lost my Strong's and my Zondervan's NT in the last move.
My point remains. Your god, whom you claim is omnipotent, and able to
shape reality to his will, could foment no better plan for the
propitiation of sin than to torture an innocent? That's sick. Remember,
this is the same god who advocated genocide (Deuteronomy 25:17-19), and
even got his hands bloody himself, with the (mythical) slaughter of the
firstborn of Egypt, the annhiliation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and his
crowning achievement, the scouring of the entire planet in Noah's (wildly
unbelievable and non-existent) Flood. You can claim that this creator,
whom we are supposed to believe is love incarnate (1 John 4:7-8), has
changed his ways with the New Testament's touchy-feely Jesus persona, but
it seems hard to reconcile that with the guy who punched Ananais' and
Sapphira's tickets for short-changing him on an offering.
Even if your god existed (untestable), and even if the Bible were an
accurate account of his works (demonstrably false), then I still would
avoid any acquaintance with that god because he's just as brutal and
vicious as many of his followers have been.
>> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's
>> big questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth
>> Creationism,
>
> Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me
> as a tenable theory of creation.
>
Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 are difficult for me to understand.
Neither are they a scientific theory of special creation. What tests can
you perform to validate the predictions made by the "theory" presented in
those two chapters of the Bible? Better yet, what predictions does this
"theory" make in the first place?
I contend that the first and second chapters of Genesis are not in any
way a scientific theory, nor do they make any predictions, nor are most
of their claims testable, though the description of the creation of life
is most certainly falsifiable (and has been through the analysis of the
functional redundancy of proteins, the twin nested hierarchy, and
endogenous retroviruses, just to name a few examples). When you have a
theory which specifically makes testable, falsifiable predictions
(following Sir Karl Popper's criteria), then you'll have a working
scientific Theory of Creationism. Until then, you have the four-
thousand-year-old fables of a group of nomadic desert shepherds and
traders.
>> and what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than
>> his neighbor's or his pizza boy's?
>
> I'd have to meet Lenny's neighbor and pizza boy before I could answer
> this question. Maybe we could all get together for a pizza party.
>
> Jason
If you're ever in Omaha, I'm in the phonebook, and I'll gladly treat you
to a slice at Zio's.
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
>Michael Bragg wrote:
Yes, well, as you will be aware, people say a lot of things.
>> And lest you feel some need to evangelize me, I've considered what
>> your brand of religious instruction has to say about salvation. I
>> reject it on multiple grounds, not least of which is that any
>> hypothetical creator being who, being supposedly omnipotent, could
>> only reconcile humanity to itself through the torture of its progeny
>> cannot be trusted either. A contract with that sort of butcher isn't
>> worth the carbon dioxide expelled in praying it. Your behavior
>> (while sufficient on its own to kill your particular witness) was
>> merely the icing on the cake.
>
>Once again, we see an unbeliever who doesn't understand the concept of
>repentance and forgiveness.
I think the issue as raided by Michael was that forgiveness was being
requested with precious little evidence of repentance in as much as
you did not acknowledge that you had done any wrong - indeed you
present your dropping of the title "Dr." as a sop to those who oppose
you, and not as an acknowledgement of your error, and as they say
"most grievous fault".
>It's not surprising, but don't pretend like it
>doesn't exist. While my perfectly rightful action may have been the "icing
>on your cake," you will be held accountable for your own actions; despite
>the actions of any others. You may articulate the gospel message any way
>you wish, but God's Son came to Earth and loved the unlovable and died a
>terrible death to forgive you from your sins.
Which as maybe. But it does not address the issue at hand.
>> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
>> questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
>
>Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
>tenable theory of creation.
>
>> and what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than
>> his neighbor's or his pizza boy's?
>
>I'd have to meet Lenny's neighbor and pizza boy before I could answer this
>question. Maybe we could all get together for a pizza party.
With the best will in the world that's a dodge of the highest order.
We all know what you must say in response to the question but the
question remains as to why you're consistently reluctant to say it.
Which is odd, because if nothing else, I've not thought of you as one
who lacks the courage of your convictions. Why are you unwilling to
annunciate them in response to this question?
Michael Bragg
news:jp7130t51nonk0pug...@4ax.com:
[snippage occurs]
>>I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically
>>told me that I could use the title Dr.
>
> Yes, well, as you will be aware, people say a lot of things.
>
[more snippage of my original words]
Therion,
You've summed up my position quite nicely, in far less roundabout a
fashion than I was attempting to do so. I doff my metaphorical hat to
you, sir.
Christopher A. Lee
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
>the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
>Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
>that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
>interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
The admission of your dishonesty. But no apology.
>Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
>ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
>Dr." and related things.
There's nothing to consider, so stop lying.
When are you going to realise that it is merelyyour irrelevant
religious belief?
>It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
>from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
>you on the cross.
You are arrogant, in-you-face, nasty, stupid, and incapable of
thinking outside the boc. Was this clear enough even for you?
>God bless,
Fuck you and your pretend friend.
>Jason
Jason Gastrich
Do you know anything about the President of Shepherd Bible College? His
name is Dr. Dennis Tio. Please tell us about him. He is a magnificent man
with a giant list of accomplishments. His integrity in Christ and in the
world community is part of the reason why I'm thankful for an honorary
degree from his school.
> Nonetheless, you chose to represent
> yourself as someone who earned his degree without qualifying that it
> was conferred honorarily --
This is false. Search http://groups.google.com. I said repeatedly that it
was an honorary degree.
> Therion Ware mentioned the proper way of
> representing yourself in that case, and I would be surprised if such
> knowledge were a matter of arcana at mainstream universities which
> confer honorary degrees as a matter of course.
Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently running a
slam site devoted to me. Excuse me if I have a hard time embracing his
opinions.
> The fact that the
> college from which you received this honorary degree was unaware of
> its proper status in no way exonerates you from the responsibility of
> your action in misrepresenting the quality of your credentials.
Haha. Their proper status, eh? Well, apparently you don't know their
proper status because they are qualified and legally allowed to confer
graduate degrees. I'm also sure you don't know Dr. Dennis Tio.
The perfect Creator of life holds the right to judge His creation when they
choose sin; even with their lives.
> Even if your god existed (untestable), and even if the Bible were an
> accurate account of his works (demonstrably false), then I still would
> avoid any acquaintance with that god because he's just as brutal and
> vicious as many of his followers have been.
With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people that
are ready to trust Christ for salvation. The Word and the Spirit must
convince you. So, with all due respect, until you decide to repent, we have
nothing more to discuss.
Sincerely,
Jason
Michael Bragg
[snippage occurs]
>
> Do you know anything about the President of Shepherd Bible College?
> His name is Dr. Dennis Tio. Please tell us about him. He is a
> magnificent man with a giant list of accomplishments. His integrity
> in Christ and in the world community is part of the reason why I'm
> thankful for an honorary degree from his school.
>
As well he may be. Nonetheless, that changes not one whit the fact that
whichever individual at Shepherd Bible College told you that you could
call yourself "Doctor" was not correct. Plenty of really nice people are
really wrong every day. It wasn't their incorrectness which made you
dishonest; it was the seemingly interminable length of time in which you
were told ad nauseam that you were misrepresenting yourself.
[snip]
>
> This is false. Search http://groups.google.com. I said repeatedly
> that it was an honorary degree.
>
It's not a matter of posts in which you disclaim the nature of the
degree. In how many posts to talk.origins did you use the name "Dr.
Jason Gastrich" without mentioning that your Th.D. was only honorary? In
each and every one of those you misrepresented yourself, because people
tend to lend more credence to an individual with credentials (note that
they share the same root? It's not a coincidence). That your
credentials were not something you earned through a course of study means
that people who saw that "Dr." prepended to your name attached a false
level of import to your arguments. These statements are not news to you,
sir. Others have said them before me, and I'm sure that others will have
to say them to you afterwards.
[snip]
>
> Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently
> running a slam site devoted to me. Excuse me if I have a hard time
> embracing his opinions.
>
This is not a matter of opinion, sir. This is a matter of societal
convention. I could theoretically call myself "Rev. Michael Bragg, MAS"
because I have a master's degree in Agnostic Studies awarded by the
International University of Nescience. I don't, because to do so would
be to lead people to believe that I have more formalized education than I
actually possess.
Additionally, I find it more than slightly amusing that you see no false
dichotomy in castigating those of us who believe that your
misrepresentation of yourself and of nonbelievers' opinions and behavior
gives us reason to discount your religious proselytization, and
subsequently turning around and saying that Therion Ware's purported
misrepresentation of you is reason for you to be slow in "embracing his
opinions."
[snip]
>
> Haha. Their proper status, eh? Well, apparently you don't know their
> proper status because they are qualified and legally allowed to confer
> graduate degrees. I'm also sure you don't know Dr. Dennis Tio.
>
You misunderstand me, sir. Although you certainly had good reason, as I
should have been more specific in my writing and eschewed the pronoun
"its." The "it" to which I referred was the degree, not the college.
You are correct in your assumption that I do not know Dennis Tio;
however, I don't know the president of Harvard (couldn't even tell you
his or her name) -- or even the University of Nebraska at Omaha, and I
assure you that the president of Harvard -- or even the University of
Nebraska at Omaha -- would be able to illuminate you in the proper manner
of address for the conferee of an honorary degree.
[snip]
>
> The perfect Creator of life holds the right to judge His creation when
> they choose sin; even with their lives.
>
And here I must point up that of the firstborn children of Egypt, many of
them had no opportunity to choose sin. Likewise the children of Sodom
and Gomorrah. Ditto the Amalekites' infants, and the kids of the
antediluvian world. I suppose that they were being judged for the
Original Sin, or some other self-justifying reason (to paraphrase P.J.
O'Rourke, "justifying the self being one of the chief forms of exercise
among fundamentalist Christians").
[snip]
>
> With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people
> that are ready to trust Christ for salvation. The Word and the Spirit
> must convince you. So, with all due respect, until you decide to
> repent, we have nothing more to discuss.
And here we have the Gastrich Kiss-Off: take one part self-righteous
condescencion, one part self-inflicted ignorance, and one part inability
to read for comprehension, bake them all at 350 for 20 minutes, and --
voila! -- a smarmy announcement of dismissal. Serves one (1) newsgroup
(three (3) if the original author cross-posted).
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
>
Not that I'm expecting a response, but I notice that you didn't even
announce that you were snipping several questions I asked about the
testability of the predictive nature of the first two chapters of
Genesis. I await your response without bated breath, as it's doubtful
that you will even read this post. Still, I wanted you to be aware that
you still haven't answered some questions (which, to be fair, are not
even really mine, but the provenance of countless intrepid individuals
before me).
Despite your unwillingness to talk to the willfully unrepentant
(especially the willfully unrepentant who is deeply versed in the jargon,
theology, and mindset of fundamentalist Christianity), I remain open for
any frank dialog. My offer of pizza still stands, sir, should you find
yourself in the Omaha, Nebraska area.
In fact, it's a general message to all the howlers: my number's in the
book, and if there's not a regular howlerfest here in Omaha, I'll gladly
spring for pizza and the first round of beverages at Zio's.
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:04:37 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Michael
Bragg (Michael Bragg <righ...@bohr.cox.net>) said, directing the
reply to free.christians
[snip]
>Therion,
>
>You've summed up my position quite nicely, in far less roundabout a
>fashion than I was attempting to do so. I doff my metaphorical hat to
>you, sir.
That's very kind of you to say so, and in passing may I refer you to
www.aboutjasongastrich.org, which while very much a work in progress,
may be worth watching in due course.
Therion Ware
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:11:35 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Jason
Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
reply to free.christians
[snip]
>Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently running a
>slam site devoted to me.
Actually I'm making it possible for my sister-in-law to do so. It's
probably a vice, but I have rather a weakness for sophisticated French
women of a certain age, particularly when they are rich, habitually
wear Channel, and live an inverse of the issues I face on a day-to-day
basis.
>Excuse me if I have a hard time embracing his
>opinions.
Oh for shame!
Jason, if Anne-Marie were running a "slam site," I assure you there
is a very great deal more she could do. Does the date 06/08/1999 ring
any bells, for instance? If she really wanted to "slam" you she'd do a
compare and contrast with what happened then and your opinions
expressed in message id FM1eb.12844$Ak3....@twister.socal.rr.com
As you know perfectly well www.aboutjasongastrich.org deals only with
your public face, what you've posted to usenet and so forth. And as
observed elsewhere it is very much a work in progress.
If you wish to reply to any point made on the site you can have as
much a space as you want.
Which I think is rather more than you'd be inclined to do were the
boot on the other foot.
[snip]
Cheezits
[etc.]
> With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people
> that are ready to trust Christ for salvation.
Then why do you post to alt.atheism?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Cheezits
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
> <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
>>using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree
>>in 2005. Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a
>>Bible college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel
>>it is in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> The admission of your dishonesty. But no apology.
Not to nitpick, but he didn't say he was dishonest. He said it's in
someone's best interest.
Seppo Pietikainen
> Michael Bragg wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Congratulations for doing the honorable thing, no matter how belated
>>the move may be. But let's be very clear on this: what you have done
>>is not humbling yourself. It is discontinuing the practice of
>>misrepresenting your credentials. If I were to tell people that I am
>>a NASA engineer because I flew a model rocket, or a Congressional
>>Medal of Honor winner because I received my marksmanship ribbon, then
>>I came clean, I wouldn't be humbling myself. I'd be admitting that I
>>lied. You are being given the opportunity to do the same, and it
>>takes a big man to do so. Are you willing to step up to the plate
>>and take one for your team?
>
>
> I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically told
> me that I could use the title Dr.
>
>
Did a google on "Dennis Tio" and on site:
<http://www.tfsshepherduniversity.com/About%20Us.htm>
One can find this jewel (about midway down the page):
> All degrees of SBC are of an ecclesiastical nature and, whether granted or conferred, are in the restricted area of religion with special purpose of preparing persons to work in the area of religion, (whether
> service activities, educational, or ministerial) are not designed to be used in general academic circles.
>
I just wonder how much rubber Mr. Dennis Tio has in his "Dr."?
Looking further it appears like our dear "Dr. Dennis Tio" got his "doctorate" from
"The Spirit of Truth Institute Richmond VA" and is presently completing his Ph.D
in clinical counseling. No wonder you got your "Dr." so easily from *yet* another
rubber doctor...
<snip>
>>And lest you feel some need to evangelize me, I've considered what
>>your brand of religious instruction has to say about salvation. I
>>reject it on multiple grounds, not least of which is that any
>>hypothetical creator being who, being supposedly omnipotent, could
>>only reconcile humanity to itself through the torture of its progeny
>>cannot be trusted either. A contract with that sort of butcher isn't
>>worth the carbon dioxide expelled in praying it. Your behavior
>>(while sufficient on its own to kill your particular witness) was
>>merely the icing on the cake.
>
>
> Once again, we see an unbeliever who doesn't understand the concept of
> repentance and forgiveness. It's not surprising, but don't pretend like it
> doesn't exist. While my perfectly rightful action may have been the "icing
> on your cake," you will be held accountable for your own actions; despite
> the actions of any others. You may articulate the gospel message any way
> you wish, but God's Son came to Earth and loved the unlovable and died a
> terrible death to forgive you from your sins.
>
>
>>Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
>>questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
>
>
> Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
> tenable theory of creation.
>
You seem to be quite easily satisfied, you *were* quite satisified for
you "Dr" from another rubber doctor, weren't you?
>
>>and what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than
>>his neighbor's or his pizza boy's?
>
>
> I'd have to meet Lenny's neighbor and pizza boy before I could answer this
> question. Maybe we could all get together for a pizza party.
>
> Jason
Why would you need to meet *anyone* to state why *your* interpretation
of the bible is more valid than that of *anyone* else, including my neighbor's
dog?
Seppo P.
Elmer Bataitis
(snip)
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things. (snip)
Numerous people are also too caught up in your failure to quote
correctly the Bible. That really makes it tough for anyone to listen to
you.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
Eric Gill
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree
> in 2005. Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a
> Bible college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel
> it is in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ.
No, numerous believers and unbelievers alike have been outraged at your
pompous, arrogant dishonesty. Face it, Not-Going-to-Be-A-Doctor Jason, you
suck at evangelizing. The first option of leaving the usenet would be much
better if you were actually worried about people's souls.
With a hearty helping of "STFU" out in the real world thrown in.
Of course, that would have dire consequences on your career, though,
wouldn't it?
Seppo Pietikainen
For further info on "Dr" Dennis Tio's "alma mom", have a look at:
<http://schoolreview.tripod.com/soti.htm>.
If that ain't reputable, I don't see what is! The page even advertises:
"Fast PhD Degrees
Credit for work & life experience. Receive your degree in a week.
life-experience-degrees.com" among other adventures in higher learning :-).
Well, well. It looks like this page gives us all the following little
snippet:
"ACCREDITATION STATUS:
The American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions*"
and the little (*) points us to the following little info further down on the page:
"*The A.A.A.T.I. has chosen not to seek endorsement from either the EAES or CHEA."
There's another interesting url that I found (sorry about the word wrap):
<http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13799>
> Federal judge temporarily bars Texas seminary from issuing theological degrees
>
> By The Associated Press
>
> 04.28.01
>
> Printer-friendly page
>
> AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge on April 25 granted a preliminary injunction halting a Central Texas seminary locked in a legal battle with the state from issuing theological degrees.
>
> U.S. District Judge James Nowlin delivered the decision at the request of the state, which was sued last month by the Institute for Teaching God's Word in Rockdale.
>
> The lawsuit came in response to fines given to the school by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The school was fined $15,000 for handing out theological degrees without state approval and a $3,000 fine for using the term "seminary."
>
> School representatives said it is accredited by a national organization, the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, but has not received state approval because it does not offer math, science or English as a part of the curriculum.
>
> A spokesman for Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, which represents the school, called the injunction outrageous.
>
> "The government first fined the seminary and now bans them from issuing theological degrees without receiving government approval for its curriculum and professors? If religious training for all theological degrees has to first be approved by the government, then religious freedom is dead," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the institute.
>
> A spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office said they were pleased with the injunction.
>
> "It supports our case in that we held all along that the statute is religion neutral," spokesman Tom Kelley said. "We're saying that like any other accredited seminary, you get certification and become accredited so the degrees awarded are legitimate."
>
> State law prohibits unaccredited schools from calling themselves seminaries or granting degrees including the words "bachelor," "master" or "doctor." The Legislature passed the law in 1975 as a way to close diploma mills.
>
> The Coordinating Board says it must regulate unaccredited schools to protect consumers from fraud and ensure the legitimacy of degrees.
>
> In a similar case, a state district court judge recently ruled against another Texas seminary, the Tyndale Theological Seminary, after the Coordinating Board issued a $170,000 fine against it for issuing 34 theological degrees without a certificate of authority from the state. The seminary is appealing the ruling.
Jason, dou you *really* think that "Dr" Dennis Tio is a real *doctor*,
do you *really* think that he is qualified to provide *even* Hc.
doctorates?
Are you planning to get your doctorate degree in an *honest* way, or
in some A.A.A.T.I diploma mill?
Seppo P.
PS.
Y'all might want to do a google on
"the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions"
:-)
Dick C
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet.
Damn
--
Dick #1349
Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me.
To her housekeeper, who had begun to pray aloud.
~~ Joan Crawford, actress, d. May 10, 1977
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Thomas H. Faller
Jason Gastrich said:
<snip>
>> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
>> questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
>Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
>tenable theory of creation.
<snip>
While the subject is up, I'd like to say a word or two about the
world of the Genesis creation. There was a garden growing in soil.
There was dust to fashion a man. There was soil to farm
after the Fall. There was clay for bricks. There was sand for
deserts to wander in. This all has to come from somewhere. Yes, it
could all have been created in place, but before we accept this
simple yet uncomfortable answer, where does dirt come from now?
What is dirt?
Dirt is usually a mixture of sand, of various grain sizes, other
minerals, mostly silicates, containing silicon and oxygen like
sand, but other elements like iron, magnesium, and aluminum, among
others. It also contains organic material, that is, material that
was once alive and which furnishes nutrients to growing plants.
Dirt contains varying amounts of these, and can vary from thorough
mixes of ingredients to nearly "pure" states, like clays or beach
sands or humus.
Where do the minerals that make dirt come from? They originally
come from the weathering of igneous rock, like granites or basalts.
These rocks are composed of mixes of minerals, but in the simplest
terms, they are made of quartz, feldspars, some darker minerals
and micas and trace minerals and elements. When they weather, the
quartz is least affected, and lasts longest. That is why sand is
so prevalent in most dirt. The feldspars are silicates, of varying
composition, and they break down to other minerals, and many end up
as clays. The rest of the minerals transform into other forms.
So weathering produces most of the ingredients for soil (except for
the organics and any carbonates) and by looking at the minerals
in soil, you can tell something about how these minerals were
weathered and what conditions they've encountered since. This is
all pretty basic chemistry and physics.
Weathering, and transportation by wind or water affect the shape and
size of the mineral grain. Mechanical wear, by throwing particles
together, not only makes particles smaller, it affects the amount of
rounding. Newly formed minerals may still show crystal faces and
regular features. After enough weathering, they will lose their
angularity and become more round and uniform in shape. Depending
on the type of transportation, they may also become sorted out by
size. The degree of sorting, both in size and in roundness can be
seen and compared with a simple magnifying glass. We can also look
at the sorting of various environments today and categorize sediments
and soils into environments by their sorting and grain sizes and
shape. Beach sand, for instance, is different from river sand or
desert sand.
Weathering also affects the mineral composition of soils. Some
minerals do not come directly from igneous rock, they are second,
third, and even fourth-generation products of weathering. Weathering
into different minerals affects the shape and crystal form of the
mineral. Micas, for instance, and small, flat, sharp-edged sheets
of mineral, that make sparkly grains, but they weather into clays
that have flat crystals, but are flexible and very tiny, giving
clay cohesiveness and form - properties that can be used as brick,
and when clays lithify, as shale. Clays give texture to soil and
help it hold water for growing plants.
Finally, there are elements of soils that do not come directly from
rocks, but from chemical or biological activity. Beach sands in
many places are composed of the ground up shells of living creatures
instead of quartz. The shells can also end up as limestone, and
weathred limestone, far from its origin, adds calcium (lime) to
many soils. Some soils are mostly biologically generated material,
like humus or peat, where few rock-derived minerals are added to
the mix. Swamps are areas with very little energy for moving mineral
grains around, but have lots of biologic activity, so the biological
material overwhelms the sediment.
Geologists can look at environments today and see how the proportion
of minerals differ, how the sorting and rounding differ, how the
types of minerals imply different amounts and timespans of weathering
and come up with an origin for different soils.
But in Genesis, soils were already there as given. Was there already
decayed plant and animal material in the soil of the Garden and
the soil Adam farmed? Were the grains of dust that were used to make
Adam rounded and sorted? Did the Israelites make bricks for the
Egyptians from clay that had weathered from granite or was the clay
placed in the ground ready-to-use? Were the sands of the desert
in Egypt that Moses walked on rounded and sorted? Did they look like
beach sand before the Flood, or desert sand? Was the dirt that the
Israelites plowed a few feet deep? Tens of feet deep? Hundreds?
How much dirt was there anywhere? In a newly created world, why
should God make more than a few feet of topsoil to farm?
Literalists say that the Flood redistributed the soils of the
world and the remains of the pre-Flood animals. Yet there are soils
now and sands and beaches that are hundreds of feet thick, and peat
bogs and swamps well too thick to have formed in a few thousand
years. If there is so much soil now, where did it come from? If
it came from the ocean floor, we could tell from the grains of
soil (weathering and sorting) and the minerals present that it did.
There is way too much dirt on the surface of the earth for our
needs, and much of it is deposited where we'll never use it, or has
hardened into rock. There is too much dirt now if there was only
enough dirt created for men and plants originally. And if the Flood
created more particles of minerals by abrading the mountains and
sea floors, it could not weather the grains and transform the
minerals and gather the clays and sort grains by roughness in the
period of a year.
So if God created the desert, did he create each grain to match
a profile of what a desert sand looks like? We don't know, because
no one in the Bible knew that there was an origin to soils, or knew
about weathering or knew that minerals came from igneous rocks.
We don't have any way to know whether the soil of the Garden was
soil at all, or just perfectly designed Garden Chow. The Flood
may have washed all the evidence away. But the Bible doesn't state
that Noah walked out of the Ark and asked "Where did all the dirt
come from?", so it's likely that his new world looked mostly like
his old one did.
And this world has soils and dirt and sands, and each grain of that
dirt has an individual history, a history of great age and slow
weathering and transportation. So if soil was created, it was created
as if it were old; as if vast quantities of rock and soil had
existed for aeons, and had undergone innumerable cycles of
lithification and weathering, mixing in rocks from many different
origins together in some cases. It is a record that stands even
without fossils, even without a geological column, even without
evolution. When the Bible's writers described the start of the
earth, they did so in terms that they knew, and because they took
soil for granted, as they took the animals around them, they
did not see the processes behind the dirt, or the contradiction
in their description.
If dirt was created with an appearance of age, we are left with the
same contradiction that we find when trying to reconcile the age
of starlight, of the microwave background to the universe, of the
fossil record and the geologic column. The Israelites did not know
the true nature of these facets of the world, and could not know
of any problem, but there is a problem for anyone who sees the
world today and tries to square it literally with Genesis. So if
Jason thinks that Genesis is a perfect theory for the creation of
animals and plants, how well does it stand as a theory for the
creation of dirt? And to get a head start, look up "soil profiles".
Tom Faller
Boikat
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:Wr%Xb.4041$Le2...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
Actually, it's in *your* best interest, since you presume to represent
"rightiusness" in the name of God.
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
You were being dishonest in you use of the title of "Dr.", and at the same
time were presuming to preach the "Truth" of God and Jesus.
>
> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
>
The "burden" removed is your guilt of dishonesty.
Cheezits
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many
>> people ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while
>> calling me "fake Dr." and related things. (snip)
>
> Numerous people are also too caught up in your failure to quote
> correctly the Bible. That really makes it tough for anyone to listen
> to you.
Not to mention his pushing young earth creationism in talk.origins, where
the only people who would be sympathetic to it are already believers.
Anyone else would think he and his friends were a bunch of loonies that
can't tell myth from reality.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Mekkala
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
<snip>
> With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people
> that are ready to trust Christ for salvation. The Word and the Spirit
> must convince you. So, with all due respect, until you decide to
> repent, we have nothing more to discuss.
With all due respect, Jason (and I have to wonder whether anyone has
noticed that the expression says nothing of precisely how much respect
the speaker considers "due"), I'll have to take this with a grain of
salt, since if you were honestly concerned with searching out those who
are ready to repent, you would not be posting at alt.atheism. I am
forced to assume, then, that you have ended the discussion with Michael
for fear of what he might say that you will be unable to answer.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
Richard Forrest
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
>
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
>
> Jason
Just a minor point, Jason but I'm sure that you can clear it up.
I went to the Shepherd Bible College Web site, and notice that your
name is on the Accreditation page
(http://www.tfsshepherduniversity.com/Accreditation.htm).
Perhaps I misunderstand this, but does this mean that you awarded your
degree to yourself?
I also find the disclaimer rather interesting:
Disclaimer Policy: All degrees awarded by Shepherd Bible College are
solely for religious vocations. Transferability of credits earned at
Shepherd University and transferred to another institution is at the
discretion of the receiving institution.
Are there any other instituions which accept credits earned at
Shepherd University?
Perhaps I'm nit-picking.
RF
Hiero5ant
Jim07D4
>Hi everyone,
>
>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
>the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
>Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
>that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
>interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
>Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
>ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
>Dr." and related things.
>
>It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
>from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
>you on the cross.
>
>God bless,
>Jason
At least you never called yourself Governor.
Jim07D4
John Popelish
(snip)
> And this world has soils and dirt and sands, and each grain of that
> dirt has an individual history, a history of great age and slow
> weathering and transportation. So if soil was created, it was created
> as if it were old; as if vast quantities of rock and soil had
> existed for aeons, and had undergone innumerable cycles of
> lithification and weathering, mixing in rocks from many different
> origins together in some cases. It is a record that stands even
> without fossils, even without a geological column, even without
> evolution. When the Bible's writers described the start of the
> earth, they did so in terms that they knew, and because they took
> soil for granted, as they took the animals around them, they
> did not see the processes behind the dirt, or the contradiction
> in their description.
>
> If dirt was created with an appearance of age, we are left with the
> same contradiction that we find when trying to reconcile the age
> of starlight, of the microwave background to the universe, of the
> fossil record and the geologic column. The Israelites did not know
> the true nature of these facets of the world, and could not know
> of any problem, but there is a problem for anyone who sees the
> world today and tries to square it literally with Genesis. So if
> Jason thinks that Genesis is a perfect theory for the creation of
> animals and plants, how well does it stand as a theory for the
> creation of dirt? And to get a head start, look up "soil profiles".
>
> Tom Faller
This line of questioning was the only effective rebuttal in the Duane
Gish debate I witnessed. Gish basically ignored the whole question by
stating flatly that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that trees in the
garden of Eden had no rings, and then changed the subject. But this
has since become one of my favorite questions for young Earth
creationists. They are generally surprised to discover that dirt is a
result of a process, and that the history of that process is evident
in all dirt. No one has been able to tell me what newly created dirt
would look like, or how I would recognize some if I found it. So the
consensus has been that their god must be a trickster.
--
John Popelish
stew dean
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:32:11 +0000, Therion Ware wrote:
>
> > You may be interested to know that the correct style for an honorary
> > Th.D is "Th.D. (h.c.)". Personally I don't think anyone would quibble if
> > you signed yourself "Jason Gastrich Th.D (hc)".
>
> authority on something when you aren't. Inflating or misrepresenting
> degrees earned is a common way of doing that, but not the only one.
>
> What I find funny is how important academic credentials for an evolution
> denier seem to be to the creationist community, when they turn around and
> ignore the *thousands* of people with perfectly good credentials who are
> telling them that evolution is for real.
Appeals to authority - never good. Many of the readers here have
academic qualifications but do not use them as any leverage for their
argument.
I personaly don't put my degree after my name (think I've done it once
for ironic value).
Occasionaly I've seen it used in defence when someone claims 'you
don't know nothing' but that is in the realm of personal attack as
well we know.
Stew Dean
>
> (Yeah, it's actually about who has the evidence rather than who has the
> sheepskins, but I find that bit of cognitive dissonance amusing, or
> sometimes more than a bit annoying.)
Von Smith
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
I am neither moved nor impressed by your "humility" nor by your
concern for my best interests.
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
Most intelligent adults come to realize that other people have
different points of view, and don't appreciate being preached at by
someone who thinks they know better, especially when it becomes clear
that that someone is both ignorant and dishonest. Why is this so hard
for you to grasp?
>
> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
You have probably done just that with your dishonest, self-absorbed
posturing. You are the Donald Rumsfeld of ambassadors for Christ.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Yang
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
>the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
>Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
>that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
>interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
I got ordained by the Universal Life Chucrh. when will you start
calling me "reverend"?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -537 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
Yang
<righ...@bohr.cox.net> wrote:
>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in news:yt0Yb.4053$Le2.1504
>@twister.socal.rr.com:
>
>> Therion Ware wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
>>> reply to alt.atheism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
>>>> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D.
>>>> degree in 2005.
>>>
>>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
>>> able to obtain a copy?
>>
>> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I suppose I
>> could scan it or scan a transcript.
>>
>[snippage occurs]
>
>He's requesting a copy of your dissertation -- you know, that thing that
>you have to write to earn a legitimate Ph.D.?
>
>The mere fact that you didn't understand his request casts some doubt as
>to the legitimacy of your claim. Out of curiosity, on what subject *is*
>your dissertation? In which field?
>
>(Also, as I'm mostly an autodidact, and thus not a Ph.D. or a grad
>student myself, I may have misused the term "dissertation" where
>"thesis" would be more appropriate. Could any appropriately-credentialed
>individuals correct me if I have erred? TIA.)
Dissertation is what gets you your phD, typically you have to
complete thesis to get your masters and thus advance to candidacy if
you so choose. "Dr" Jason Gastrich's dissertation will be on some
Bible thingamajig or another. I'm still not impressed with his degree.
According to the university website he will be taking his online
correspondence classes from, you need all of *35* hours of
instructions to advance to candidacy. Shit, that's not even the first
4 weeks of first year instructions of any decent grad school.
Now I think theology is a perfectly valid field for graduate studies,
but this just comes across as shoddy product to me.
Yang
<newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>> Nonetheless, you chose to represent
>> yourself as someone who earned his degree without qualifying that it
>> was conferred honorarily --
>
>This is false. Search http://groups.google.com. I said repeatedly that it
>was an honorary degree.
So you didn't do any real work to receive a non-accredited degree that
doesn't even qualify you as a "Dr". Boy you must be so proud of
yourself.
>> Therion Ware mentioned the proper way of
>> representing yourself in that case, and I would be surprised if such
>> knowledge were a matter of arcana at mainstream universities which
>> confer honorary degrees as a matter of course.
>
>Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently running a
>slam site devoted to me. Excuse me if I have a hard time embracing his
>opinions.
Wah Wah wah, fucking cry baby. You run a cybersquating webite called
micahaelnewdow.com slamming him. Why should anyone cut you anyslack?
>Haha. Their proper status, eh? Well, apparently you don't know their
>proper status because they are qualified and legally allowed to confer
>graduate degrees. I'm also sure you don't know Dr. Dennis Tio.
Thta's funny, they, like you, aren't real Dr's.
>With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people that
>are ready to trust Christ for salvation. The Word and the Spirit must
>convince you. So, with all due respect, until you decide to repent, we have
>nothing more to discuss.
You're the one coming here and making a fool of yourself. Come and
leave as you wish. No one here is obligated to aid your martry
fantasies.
Mark VandeWettering
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
I think it's entirely appropriate for you to use the title of any degree
you possess, be it honorary or not. The quality of your arguments (or
lack thereof) will be neither enhanced nor detracted by any title you
might assume.
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
Your words aren't especially "Bible-based". In fact, your words are
typically just rather simple minded apologetics.
> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
Mark
> God bless,
> Jason
Mark VandeWettering
>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I be
>> able to obtain a copy?
>
> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I suppose I
> could scan it or scan a transcript.
The vast majority of doctorates require a thesis and defense. In the
world of creationist diploma mills however, they seem to only require
return postage.
> JG
Douglas Berry
stranger called by some "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> came
forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
>I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically told
>me that I could use the title Dr.
I woulod point out that Shepher Bible College isn't accredited by
anyone I can discover. It's a diploma mill. Your degree is useless.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Daniel Harper
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:11:35 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Jason
> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
> reply to free.christians
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently running a
>>slam site devoted to me.
>
> Actually I'm making it possible for my sister-in-law to do so. It's
> probably a vice, but I have rather a weakness for sophisticated French
> women of a certain age, particularly when they are rich, habitually wear
> Channel, and live an inverse of the issues I face on a day-to-day basis.
>
>>Excuse me if I have a hard time embracing his opinions.
>
> Oh for shame!
>
> Jason, if Anne-Marie were running a "slam site," I assure you there is a
> very great deal more she could do. Does the date 06/08/1999 ring any
> bells, for instance? If she really wanted to "slam" you she'd do a compare
> and contrast with what happened then and your opinions expressed in
> message id FM1eb.12844$Ak3....@twister.socal.rr.com
>
This message-id doesn't show up on Google Search. What happened on June 8,
1999?
> As you know perfectly well www.aboutjasongastrich.org deals only with your
> public face, what you've posted to usenet and so forth. And as observed
> elsewhere it is very much a work in progress.
>
> If you wish to reply to any point made on the site you can have as much a
> space as you want.
>
> Which I think is rather more than you'd be inclined to do were the boot on
> the other foot.
>
>
> [snip]
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
AC
Jason Gastrich <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
That's a start.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
Authorized by who?
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ.
That's the problem with lying for Jesus.
> It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
Perhaps in the future you should consider that actions speak much louder
than words.
>
> It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
No one's asking you to leave. We're just asking you to display some of the
moral standards your religion calls for.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Thomas H. Faller
Newly created dirt would be pretty easy to spot. We see it where
recent mechanical abrasion has removed enough particles from bedrock
and ground them down to soil size. It's angular, badly sorted by
size and by mineralogy, contains mostly the same minerals as the
parent rock, has bigger fragments mixed in, and few organics.
Where you have steady transport processes, it can get sorted, usually
by size related to distance from the source. Maybe the pre-Flood
world had soil like you'd find on Hawaii or Pompei; you'd have heard
a lot more from the Israelites trying to spend 40 years walking on the
stuff, and where did all the other post-Flood sediment come from,
and why didn't Noah notice a change?
Tom Faller
Frank F. Smith
<s.piet...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Did a google on "Dennis Tio" and on site:
>>
>> <http://www.tfsshepherduniversity.com/About%20Us.htm>
>>
>> One can find this jewel (about midway down the page):
>>
>>
>>>All degrees of SBC are of an ecclesiastical nature and, whether granted or conferred, are in the restricted area of religion with special purpose of preparing persons to work in the area of religion, (whether
>>>service activities, educational, or ministerial) are not designed to be used in general academic circles.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I just wonder how much rubber Mr. Dennis Tio has in his "Dr."?
>>
>> Looking further it appears like our dear "Dr. Dennis Tio" got his "doctorate" from
>> "The Spirit of Truth Institute Richmond VA" and is presently completing his Ph.D
>> in clinical counseling. No wonder you got your "Dr." so easily from *yet* another
>> rubber doctor...
>>
<snip>
>
>For further info on "Dr" Dennis Tio's "alma mom", have a look at:
><http://schoolreview.tripod.com/soti.htm>.
>
>If that ain't reputable, I don't see what is! The page even advertises:
>
>"Fast PhD Degrees
>Credit for work & life experience. Receive your degree in a week.
>life-experience-degrees.com" among other adventures in higher learning :-).
>
>Well, well. It looks like this page gives us all the following little
>snippet:
>"ACCREDITATION STATUS:
>The American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions*"
>
>and the little (*) points us to the following little info further down on the page:
>
>"*The A.A.A.T.I. has chosen not to seek endorsement from either the EAES or CHEA."
>
<snip>
I was amused by "The Spirit of Truth Institute"'s listing in Richmond
VA liquor stores (http://www.liquor-stores.us/VA/Richmond.asp).
I suppose it's possible they need a liquor license to sell sacramental
wine ...
>
>Seppo P.
>
>PS.
>Y'all might want to do a google on
>"the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions"
>
>:-)
>
>
--
Frank F. Smith
email: first and middle initials & surname at htva dot net
AC
nomination of this most excellent post.
Yang
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
s in higher learning :-).
>I was amused by "The Spirit of Truth Institute"'s listing in Richmond
>VA liquor stores (http://www.liquor-stores.us/VA/Richmond.asp).
>I suppose it's possible they need a liquor license to sell sacramental
>wine ...
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -542 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Michael Bragg
news:pan.2004.02.16....@terralink.net:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:57:57 +0000, Therion Ware wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:11:35 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Jason
>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
>> reply to free.christians
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Therion gave an opinion as you have done. Therion is currently
>>>running a slam site devoted to me.
>>
>> Actually I'm making it possible for my sister-in-law to do so. It's
>> probably a vice, but I have rather a weakness for sophisticated
>> French women of a certain age, particularly when they are rich,
>> habitually wear Channel, and live an inverse of the issues I face on
>> a day-to-day basis.
>>
>>>Excuse me if I have a hard time embracing his opinions.
>>
>> Oh for shame!
>>
>> Jason, if Anne-Marie were running a "slam site," I assure you there
>> is a very great deal more she could do. Does the date 06/08/1999 ring
>> any bells, for instance? If she really wanted to "slam" you she'd do
>> a compare and contrast with what happened then and your opinions
>> expressed in message id FM1eb.12844$Ak3....@twister.socal.rr.com
>>
>
> This message-id doesn't show up on Google Search. What happened on
> June 8, 1999?
>
[snip]
I believe that was the message where Gastrich said that it was better to
tithe to God than to pay your Visa bill. I may be wrong, however.
Frequently am.
--
Michael Bragg
Remove the physicist to e-mail me.
Andy Groves
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid
> >> using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree
> >> Bible college that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel
> >> it is in the best interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
> >>
> >> people ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while
> >> calling me "fake Dr." and related things.
> >>
> >> be it from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's
> >> sacrifice for you on the cross.
> >>
> >> Jason
> >
> > Congratulations for doing the honorable thing, no matter how belated
> > the move may be. But let's be very clear on this: what you have done
> > is not humbling yourself. It is discontinuing the practice of
> > misrepresenting your credentials. If I were to tell people that I am
> > a NASA engineer because I flew a model rocket, or a Congressional
> > Medal of Honor winner because I received my marksmanship ribbon, then
> > I came clean, I wouldn't be humbling myself. I'd be admitting that I
> > lied. You are being given the opportunity to do the same, and it
> > takes a big man to do so. Are you willing to step up to the plate
> > and take one for your team?
>
> me that I could use the title Dr.
I'm curious, Jason. At what point in your PhD studies did your college
say you were allowed to use the title "Dr."? When you handed over the
first tuition check? When you were given the go ahead to write your
thesis? At your final committee meeting? Do you even have a thesis
committee? It's certainly an unconventional practice for a college to
allow students to use the title "Dr." before they are actually awarded
their PhD. What if they never complete and submit their PhD? How does
your college know that you will awarded your PhD, and will they
retract their permission to use the title if you don't complete it?
Andy
underground
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
So you have been a fraud all this time.
What is the establishment you are doing this alleged PhD in? They might be
interested in knowing about your intellectual fraud.
Yang
He didn't get a PhD. He got an honorary ThD from an unaccredited
college- a Bible degree mill.
Nantko Schanssema
"Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com>:
>Jason Gastrich said:
><snip>
>>> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
>>> questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
>
>>Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
>>tenable theory of creation.
><snip>
>While the subject is up, I'd like to say a word or two about the
>world of the Genesis creation. There was a garden growing in soil.
>There was dust to fashion a man. There was soil to farm
>after the Fall. There was clay for bricks. There was sand for
>deserts to wander in. This all has to come from somewhere. Yes, it
>could all have been created in place, but before we accept this
>simple yet uncomfortable answer, where does dirt come from now?
>What is dirt?
[snip excellent post]
Man as old as dirt!
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
Michael Bragg
news:f96Yb.29502$M8.1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net:
If AC has used his "second" for this month, I'll gladly stand in his
stead. Seconded!
Frank Reichenbacher
> Michael Bragg wrote:
<snipped bullshit>
The bottom line:
You deliberately misrepresented your qualifications so as to more readily
sway the opinions of the gullible.
Frank
Frank Reichenbacher
> Therion Ware wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason> > reply to alt.atheism
> >
> >
> >
> >> Therion Ware wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason> >>> the reply to alt.atheism
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and
> >>>> avoid using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my
> >>>> Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> >>>
> >>> be able to obtain a copy?
> >>
> >> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I
> >> suppose I could scan it or scan a transcript.
> >
> > be interesting too!
>
> It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in May
of
> 2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to go. I
might
> make it, though.
>
> I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation. I've
been
> given permission to submit the Old Testament portion of the newest edition
> of my book for my dissertation. It is over 400 pages long and meets my
> university's standards. However, if I have the time and desire, I may
write
> my dissertation on fasting.
A dissertation should not ever consist of materials published or developed
prior to the student's participation in the graduate school advanced degree
program.
If this is an indication of the rigor or your university's standards, then I
may still decline to address ou as a "doctor" even if you should receive the
diploma.
I have done two 40 day fasts and feel I can
> contribute something new and interesting to the knowledge base (we can't
> exactly call it the "field" of fasting) of this discipline.
I can't wait to hear what the "thesis" would be.
Frank
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
Michael Bragg
[.sig snip]
Thank you for the illumination. As for the "shoddy product" sensation, I
get that feeling about most of Gastrich's work, really. It's half-assed
and sleazed together, and foisted upon the unwilling in the hope that
there will be someone ignorant enough to buy into his brand of
fundamentalism.
I'm even willing to bet that if he has to defend his dissertation, it'll
be against softball questions delivered by a sympathetic and friendly
panel (which, I am given to understand, is not the nature of mainstream
dissertation defenses).
Yang
He wouldn't have to defend anything. All he has to do is to toe the
party line and he'll get his precise PhD. No thinking required.
http://www.lbu.edu/statementoffaith.htm
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -542 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Littleboy
vesu...@speakeasy.net says...
Terence J Rigby
"Michael Bragg" <righ...@bohr.cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns949185210CD95r...@68.12.19.6...
Can anyone third?
Terry Rigby
Michael Bragg
[snip]
>
> He wouldn't have to defend anything. All he has to do is to toe the
> party line and he'll get his precise PhD. No thinking required.
>
>
> http://www.lbu.edu/statementoffaith.htm
>
You've got to be kidding me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under
the impression that giving a defense of one's thesis/dissertation was the
primary method of determining one's fitness for receipt of a degree, as
it demonstrates a candidate's true level of familiarity with his or her
field.
To find out that he won't be defending his work? Typical. Even better,
I just noticed the post where he announced that he'd be either using work
from before his candidacy, or cobbling together some crap on fasting
(specifically what, he didn't say) for his dissertation. I have a
feeling that his level of research for the work will be equivalent to a
junior high school student's, but that the good folks at Louisiana
Baptist University will be blown away by the "kwalitee" of his work,
since it's about three grade levels above their typical student's work.
As Frank Reichenbacher mentioned, I'll probably withhold any honorific,
if this is all the more work he's putting into it. Ugh.
Daniel Harper
Matt Silberstein
<newsg...@jcsm.org>:
>Hi everyone,
>
>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
>the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
A truly humble man would not announce this to the world to let
them know how humble he was.
>Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
>that has been authorized to grant such degrees,
Aren't you one of the people who so "authorized" them?
> I feel it is in the best
>interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
>Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
>considering Jesus Christ.
Not to mention the believers who objected.
> It has been disheartening to see so many people
>ignore my Bible-based words
I have not seem many of your words that were Bible based.
> and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
>Dr." and related things.
No, they reject *you*. It is neither Christian nor humble to
confuse yourself and your words with the creator.
>It is my pleasure to remove this burden of stumbling from you. Far be it
>from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
>you on the cross.
You do that anyway, the Dr. is just icing on the cake.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by an arson who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
Tom McDonald
> Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>>Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
>>reply to alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Therion Ware wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
>>>>Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing
>>>>the reply to alt.atheism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and
>>>>>avoid using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my
>>>>>Ph.D. degree in 2005.
>>>>
>>>>I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I
>>>>be able to obtain a copy?
>>>
>>>When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I
>>>suppose I could scan it or scan a transcript.
>>
>>A copy of your dissertation, of course. And a tape of the viva would
>>be interesting too!
>
>
> It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in May of
> 2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to go. I might
> make it, though.
>
> I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation. I've been
> given permission to submit the Old Testament portion of the newest edition
> of my book for my dissertation. It is over 400 pages long and meets my
> university's standards. However, if I have the time and desire, I may write
> my dissertation on fasting. I have done two 40 day fasts and feel I can
> contribute something new and interesting to the knowledge base (we can't
> exactly call it the "field" of fasting) of this discipline.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
Jason,
On the off chance that you might read this, I offer two comments.
First, I appreciate your pledge to refrain from using "Dr."
until you have an earned doctorate. Personally, I'd have been
satisfied if you styled yourself "Jason Gastrich, ThD (h.c.).
But I support your decision not to appear to have claimed an
honorary degree as perhaps more than it is.
Second, as to your dissertation topic, according to you, your
ThD from Sheperd was given in large part because of your book.
Since the doctoral dissertation is traditionally written on
original research, and is in part to show how your _doctoral_
studies have broadened and deepened your scholarship, ISTM that
you would do well to write it on something else. Something that
you do an exhaustive study on, and that is a new contribution to
the scholarship in your field.
If I were you, I'd think less of a specific graduation date, and
more about what you should be learning in your doctoral program.
In ten years, the time issue will mean little or nothing, while
the value of a well-done dissertation will continue to reap
benefits for you and your associates.
Tom McDonald
lizzard woman
(snip)
| To find out that he won't be defending his work? Typical. Even better,
| I just noticed the post where he announced that he'd be either using work
| from before his candidacy, or cobbling together some crap on fasting
| (specifically what, he didn't say) for his dissertation.
(snip)
Its possible he published the "skeptics annotated bible corrected and
explained" (sic) during his doctoral candidacy. That said, I don't believe
that should qualify as a dissertation.
And how will the defense go (if there is a defense)?
Dissertation Committee (in unison): "Wow you answered all those heathen
questions in the 'skeptics annotated bible'!"
Gastrich: "Why yes I did."
Dissertation Advisor: "Pass!"
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
Jason Gastrich
>> As you know perfectly well www.aboutjasongastrich.org deals only
>> with your public face, what you've posted to usenet and so forth.
>> And as observed elsewhere it is very much a work in progress.
Well, I haven't read much of it, but I would hope that you would post my
clarifying statements about tithing and paying bills instead of only posting
my (possibly) ambiguous ones. I never encouraged someone to stop paying
bills and tithe. I encouraged someone to do both, but make sure they tithed
to God.
>> If you wish to reply to any point made on the site you can have as
>> much a space as you want.
When I have some time and desire, I will likely take you up on this offer.
I've already considered writing some rebuttals to such sites.
Jason
Jason Gastrich
> "Thomas H. Faller" wrote:
> (snip)
>> dirt has an individual history, a history of great age and slow
>> weathering and transportation. So if soil was created, it was created
>> as if it were old; as if vast quantities of rock and soil had
>> existed for aeons, and had undergone innumerable cycles of
>> lithification and weathering, mixing in rocks from many different
>> origins together in some cases. It is a record that stands even
>> without fossils, even without a geological column, even without
>> evolution. When the Bible's writers described the start of the
>> earth, they did so in terms that they knew, and because they took
>> soil for granted, as they took the animals around them, they
>> did not see the processes behind the dirt, or the contradiction
>> in their description.
>>
>> If dirt was created with an appearance of age, we are left with the
>> same contradiction that we find when trying to reconcile the age
>> of starlight, of the microwave background to the universe, of the
>> fossil record and the geologic column. The Israelites did not know
>> the true nature of these facets of the world, and could not know
>> of any problem, but there is a problem for anyone who sees the
>> world today and tries to square it literally with Genesis. So if
>> Jason thinks that Genesis is a perfect theory for the creation of
>> animals and plants, how well does it stand as a theory for the
>> creation of dirt? And to get a head start, look up "soil profiles".
>>
>> Tom Faller
>
> Gish debate I witnessed. Gish basically ignored the whole question by
> stating flatly that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that trees in the
> garden of Eden had no rings, and then changed the subject. But this
> has since become one of my favorite questions for young Earth
> creationists. They are generally surprised to discover that dirt is a
> result of a process, and that the history of that process is evident
> in all dirt. No one has been able to tell me what newly created dirt
> would look like, or how I would recognize some if I found it. So the
> consensus has been that their god must be a trickster.
I've hesitated before answering this question because I haven't considered
all of the consequences of this answer/theory. What if dirt was created as
Adam and Eve were created? As fully developed?
I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
to a previous question.
God bless,
Jason
Jason Gastrich
I agree. This is a very nicely written article.
JG
Jason Gastrich
During the first half of my Ph.D. studies, a DIFFERENT Bible college awarded
me a Th.D. degree for my outstanding ministry and academic achievements.
Take care, Andy.
Jason
rogue
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
JERRY
Well, it's the first of a long line of problems you bring to the table
with your "Ministry" in the usenet groups, Jason. A "real" Ph.D in
Theology from a seminary won't carry any more weight among skeptics
than your "honorary," but it's at least a bit more honest.
There is your faux Ph.D in Thud and then there are your poor debating
skills which are exacerbated by your arrogance in posting.
Case in point: your attempting to use the old "Second Law of
Thermodynamics (2LoT) invalidates evolution" when your statement
demonstrates you don't even know what the 2LoT says or means, or how
it's applied. When you make a blanket statement such as that, with no
understanding of the science behind the statement, you simply lump
yourself in with other preachers-without-sense as YM1, Dave Raymond,
etc.
You approach each debate like you are absolutely sure you are correct
and then even when you are getting your ass handed to you in a debate,
you crow like you are winning. Can you really not tell the
difference?
In our debate, you were absolutely sure you had the answers for Tyre.
First, you adopted McDowell's viewpoint, which is that the mainland
city was the focus for the prophecy. Once I showed you in the text
where you were wrong, you changed your viewpoint and answer to "it was
Alexander," but when challenged on the hard questions, such as "What
was the purpose of the prophecy," and the evidences against Alexander
you ignored the issue, dropped the point like a hot potato and then
accused me of lying even though I backed up each and every point I
made and showed you the sources of the argument (nearly all of which
came from the bible.)
Why was I lying by proving you wrong? Because it meant that you
couldn't be right? If the evidence was on your side, Jason, all you
had to do was to get that evidence to prove your point as I did with
you. (BTW, since a lie by definition must have intent to deceive, I
never lied to you)
Those are the kinds of things that make it difficult for you to preach
to the masses, Jason. If you want the respect from the people you
preach to (and you had better, since talking down to them isn't going
to win you any converts) then you should know what you are talking
about. Otherwise you limit yourself to only talking to people who
aren't any smarter or educated than you, which will significantly
reduce the potential convert pool for your ministry.
For the purpose of discussion, you should assume that a ministry on
the web will reach a larger number of computer literate and often more
scientifically literate group of subjects than you will find by
banging a tambourine on a street corner. Those people will be much
harder to sway by arguments that are obviously incorrect than you will
find on the street corner.
You can spend money on servers and websites, but every mean-spirited
thing you do, such as the "gay urges" post you faked about Farrell
Till and then the subsequent evasion of whether it was you (when the
headers on the message clearly demonstrated that it was) simply loses
any credibility for you.
A simple search on your name in Google pulls up a ton of negative
stuff about you that everyone can read. Another search for your name
in Google under Groups brings up another ton of stuff on you that is
negative. Anyone with a browser can read the negatives about you and
will assume at face value you are a hypocrite at best and a liar at
worst. Your statements that you "didn't lie" about the gay urges post
simply puts you in the same category as most conservatives put Bill
Clinton when he equivocated on the meaning of "is." A lie by omission
is still a lie, Jason.
You must live your life and treat others with a great deal more
respect than you have demonstrated in Usenet to be taken seriously for
what you say you are attempting to do. Otherwise, your obvious
hypocrisies simply lump you in with the other mass marketing quacks
for god (Falwell, Robertson, Swaggert, et al).
You may succeed in bilking little old ladies of their life's savings
by doing what you are doing, but you won't bring the unbelievers to
god.
And I suspect that's not the legacy you were aiming for when you
started your online ministry.
Richard A. Mathers
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and avoid using
> the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> Even though I have received an honorary Th.D. degree from a Bible college
> that has been authorized to grant such degrees, I feel it is in the best
> interest of many if I stopped using it for now.
>
> Numerous unbelievers have been far too caught up in my title than
> considering Jesus Christ. It has been disheartening to see so many people
> ignore my Bible-based words and reject the Creator while calling me "fake
> Dr." and related things.
>
> from me to keep you from Christ and considering God's Son's sacrifice for
> you on the cross.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
>
> The Awesome, Saving Gospel of God
> http://gospel.jcsm.org
> Are you saved? Read the gospel and make sure!
Sorry to hear this. I liked your fake Dr. degree. It was
appropriately symbolic of your "faked" knowledge of
evolution. Your "cyber witnessing" is offensive and OT for
TO. Please stop.
RAM
underground
"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.piet...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:c0qk59$1a4602$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > Michael Bragg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >>Congratulations for doing the honorable thing, no matter how belated
> >>the move may be. But let's be very clear on this: what you have done
> >>is not humbling yourself. It is discontinuing the practice of
> >>misrepresenting your credentials. If I were to tell people that I am
> >>a NASA engineer because I flew a model rocket, or a Congressional
> >>Medal of Honor winner because I received my marksmanship ribbon, then
> >>I came clean, I wouldn't be humbling myself. I'd be admitting that I
> >>lied. You are being given the opportunity to do the same, and it
> >>takes a big man to do so. Are you willing to step up to the plate
> >>and take one for your team?
> >
> >
> > I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically
told
> > me that I could use the title Dr.
> >
> >
>
What constitutes the ability to be able to award academic qualifications in
the US?
Here in the UK you have to have a royal charter, or be affiliated to an
institution that does. Tracing through D Tio he seems to have got his
doctorate from The Spirit of Truth Institute Richmond
http://schoolreview.tripod.com/ who don't even have their own domain name.
What gives The Spirit of Truth Institute Richmond the ability to award a
degree?
It all sounds very dodgy to me.
Victor Eijkhout
> According to the university website he will be taking his online
> correspondence classes from, you need all of *35* hours of
> instructions to advance to candidacy. Shit, that's not even the first
> 4 weeks of first year instructions of any decent grad school.
Surely that's 35 *sememester* hours?
V. "not getting my hopes up"
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname
Frank Reichenbacher
What if everything was created last week? Fully developed?
Frank
Dana Tweedy
> >
> > I'm curious, Jason. At what point in your PhD studies did your college
> > say you were allowed to use the title "Dr."?
>
> During the first half of my Ph.D. studies, a DIFFERENT Bible college
awarded
> me a Th.D. degree for my outstanding ministry and academic achievements.
Of course those "outstanding achievements" were that you gave your own
accredidation to the bible college in question. In effect, you gave
yourself the Th.D for your own definition of "outstanding ministry and
academic achievements".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> I've hesitated before answering this question because I haven't considered
> all of the consequences of this answer/theory. What if dirt was created
as
> Adam and Eve were created? As fully developed?
>
> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I
doubt
> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave
me
> to a previous question.
Jason, I've asked this before. Why don't you think for yourself,
instead of letting AiG think for you? AiG is a religious ministry, who's
members have pledged to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
They are not scientists, and they are sure to tell you only what you want to
hear, rather than give you a thoughtful, well researched answer.
Open yourself to the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct.
If you cannot do that, no answer you get will be useful to you. Without the
possibility that you are wrong, you can never know what answer you accept is
correct.
DJT
MoonsOfJupiter
news:Xt9Yb.4113$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Hey, maybe somebody could do a research project on this. Maybe even at the
doctorate level?
:O:
wd
Hiero5ant
"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:Xt9Yb.4113$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
(resistance... breaking down...)
How would they know the answer to this question? WERE THEY THERE?
AC
Invoking magic works every time.
>
> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
> to a previous question.
Oh goody.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Thomas H. Faller
Some points to consider, which I hope to amplify in another letter:
1. All sediments and soils show evidence of the amount of energy
which put them there.
2. The minerals found in soil are at an equilibrium with the soil
they are in.
3. Soils typically form a "profile" from surface to depth, which is
produced by interaction with water, organisms in the soil, carbon
dioxide and other factors. Profiles vary from soil to soil. Some
take centuries to develop, greatly affecting land use.
4. Sediments under water also develop soil profiles - we just don't
usually encounter them. Delta, lake, river and sea sediments have
unique signatures based on energy, chemistry and history. As lakes
fill up and rivers change course, we farm the sediments they leave.
If soils were the same everywhere, we would expect to find as many
civilizations starting in the highlands.
5. Every grain, every mineral is part of a pattern. Dirt doesn't
come from the dirt store.
Tom Faller
Phillip Brown
> Open yourself to the possibility that your beliefs may not be correct.
> If you cannot do that, no answer you get will be useful to you. Without the
> possibility that you are wrong, you can never know what answer you accept is
> correct.
>
Best expressed by Oliver Cromwell - "I beseech you, in the bowels of
Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
>
>
> DJT
--
phillip brown
Mike Dworetsky
"Frank Reichenbacher" <vesu...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:beydndSBFoJ...@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:7k1Yb.4064$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Therion Ware wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> > > Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
> > > reply to alt.atheism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Therion Ware wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> > >>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing
> > >>> the reply to alt.atheism
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and
> > >>>> avoid using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my
> > >>>> Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I
> > >>> be able to obtain a copy?
> > >>
> > >> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I
> > >> suppose I could scan it or scan a transcript.
> > >
> > > A copy of your dissertation, of course. And a tape of the viva would
> > > be interesting too!
> >
> > It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in
May
> of
> > 2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to go. I
> might
> > make it, though.
> >
> > I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation. I've
> been
> > given permission to submit the Old Testament portion of the newest
edition
> > of my book for my dissertation. It is over 400 pages long and meets my
> > university's standards. However, if I have the time and desire, I may
> write
> > my dissertation on fasting.
>
>
> A dissertation should not ever consist of materials published or developed
> prior to the student's participation in the graduate school advanced
degree
> program.
Absolutely correct. The standard is that it has to be work done in
residence, under academic supervision. In part, this is to ensure that the
work is really the candidate's and not a "ghost writer". It also has to be
an original contribution to research, not just a review or synthesis of work
done by others.
>
> If this is an indication of the rigor or your university's standards, then
I
> may still decline to address ou as a "doctor" even if you should receive
the
> diploma.
>
It sounds awfully easy, not at all like the long hard pull in hard science
that I went through or that I put my students through.
> I have done two 40 day fasts and feel I can
> > contribute something new and interesting to the knowledge base (we can't
> > exactly call it the "field" of fasting) of this discipline.
>
> I can't wait to hear what the "thesis" would be.
>
> Frank
Ditto.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Richard Smol
says...
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet.
Shoot...
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Richard Uhrich
......
> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
> to a previous question.
>
> God bless,
> Jason
>
What, God isn't speaking to you anymore?
--
Richard Uhrich
--
"I reminded them and their families that the war in Iraq is about
peace." G. W. Bush after visiting wounded soldiers.
Richard Uhrich
> Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:10:11 +0000 (UTC), a
> stranger called by some "Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> came
> forth and told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>
>>I disagree because you are wrong. Shepherd Bible College specifically told
>>me that I could use the title Dr.
>
>
> I woulod point out that Shepher Bible College isn't accredited by
> anyone I can discover. It's a diploma mill. Your degree is useless.
>
> --
>
Of no value, but quite useful in the Fundie Preaching business.
catshark
<redd...@NOSPAMlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>news:Xt9Yb.4113$Le2....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>snipping
>
>> I've hesitated before answering this question because I haven't considered
>> all of the consequences of this answer/theory. What if dirt was created
>as
>> Adam and Eve were created? As fully developed?
>>
>> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I
>doubt
>> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave
>me
>> to a previous question.
>
> Jason, I've asked this before. Why don't you think for yourself,
>instead of letting AiG think for you? AiG is a religious ministry, who's
>members have pledged to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
>They are not scientists, and they are sure to tell you only what you want to
>hear, rather than give you a thoughtful, well researched answer.
In other words, "birds of a feather . . . "
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
AC
Richard Uhrich <uhr...@NOSPAM.san.rr.com> wrote:
> Jason Gastrich wrote:
> ......
>
>> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
>> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
>> to a previous question.
>>
>> God bless,
>> Jason
>>
>
> What, God isn't speaking to you anymore?
I wonder if God's still fueling up his Honda,
Eric Gill
> Therion wrote:
>
>>> As you know perfectly well www.aboutjasongastrich.org deals only
>>> with your public face, what you've posted to usenet and so forth.
>>> And as observed elsewhere it is very much a work in progress.
>
> Well, I haven't read much of it, but I would hope that you would post
> my clarifying statements about tithing and paying bills instead of
> only posting my (possibly) ambiguous ones.
Have you amended you quotes list yet to reflect proper context?
If not, why should you be able to hold someone else to higher standards?
John Popelish
> Newly created dirt would be pretty easy to spot. We see it where
> recent mechanical abrasion has removed enough particles from bedrock
> and ground them down to soil size. It's angular, badly sorted by
> size and by mineralogy, contains mostly the same minerals as the
> parent rock, has bigger fragments mixed in, and few organics.
> Where you have steady transport processes, it can get sorted, usually
> by size related to distance from the source.
Are you saying that you think God created dirt by grinding up rocks?
How did he create the rocks? Rocks that we find, today, are also
recordings of processes. What would a newly created rock that had no
history look like? How would it be different than igneous,
metamorphic or sedimentary rock?
> Maybe the pre-Flood
> world had soil like you'd find on Hawaii or Pompei; you'd have heard
> a lot more from the Israelites trying to spend 40 years walking on the
> stuff, and where did all the other post-Flood sediment come from,
> and why didn't Noah notice a change?
--
John Popelish
John Popelish
Exactically.
There is no question that cannot be answered by, "It was a miracle."
--
John Popelish
Bobby D. Bryant
> This line of questioning was the only effective rebuttal in the Duane
> Gish debate I witnessed. Gish basically ignored the whole question by
> stating flatly that Adam and Eve had no navels, and that trees in the
> garden of Eden had no rings, and then changed the subject. But this has
> since become one of my favorite questions for young Earth creationists.
> They are generally surprised to discover that dirt is a result of a
> process, and that the history of that process is evident in all dirt.
> No one has been able to tell me what newly created dirt would look like,
> or how I would recognize some if I found it.
No navels?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Popelish
> I've hesitated before answering this question because I haven't considered
> all of the consequences of this answer/theory. What if dirt was created as
> Adam and Eve were created? As fully developed?
>
> I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
> they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
> to a previous question.
On a similar vein, have you wondered what a newly created water course
would look like? Would a spring flow from a round hole in a rock, or
would a newly created spring be created to have the look of an
erosional process that occurs when water flows through and over rock
for thousands of years. Would a newly created stream look like a
manufactured drainage ditch, or have the appearance of countless years
of erosion, spring flooding, sediment distributions along the bottom,
etc., etc.? And how about those navels and tree rings? Would the
newly created animals and plants have the appearance of nonexistent
age?
Of course, if you answer that newly created stuff looked as if it were
lots older than it actually was, then there is nothing you can trust
about the appearance of anything in the universe. It is all an
illusion created by a trickster god who is out to fool us with his
magic. Either you think the universe is an illusion or not. I think
you have to pick one of these choices as an assumption to base your
model of reality upon.
--
John Popelish
Christopher A. Lee
<cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>[etc.]
>> With all due respect, you have made your decision. I'm seeking people
>> that are ready to trust Christ for salvation.
>
>Then why do you post to alt.atheism?
And why does the moron imagine there is any decision to be made?
Oh. I just noticed - my question answers itself.
>Sue
Steve Knight
>I've hesitated before answering this question because I haven't considered
>all of the consequences of this answer/theory. What if dirt was created as
>Adam and Eve were created? As fully developed?
>
>I'll email AIG about this right now and let you know what they say. I doubt
>they will say that dirt was fully developed, based on an answer they gave me
>to a previous question.
Oh, boy!
I can't wait for them to tell you the atheists are right and A&E
was bullshit!
I am glued to the newsgroup!
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself
BWAH HA HA AH HA AHA HA HA HA AH AHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't know the meaning of the word, Gastrch . . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Honorable President Right Reverend Yang, Esq
<lflank...@ij.net> wrote:
>
>
>Jason Gastrich wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself
>
>
>
>
>
>BWAH HA HA AH HA AHA HA HA HA AH AHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>You don't know the meaning of the word, Gastrch . . . .
And yet he has plenty to be humble about.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -542 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
Harry K
> [free.christians removed from newsgroup]
> "Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com>:
>
> >Jason Gastrich said:
>
> ><snip>
> >>> Oh, and while I've got you on the line, I'll ask you Lenny Frank's big
> >>> questions: what is the scientific theory of Young Earth Creationism,
>
> >>Is Genesis 1 and 2 difficult for you to understand? It satisfies me as a
> >>tenable theory of creation.
> ><snip>
>
> >While the subject is up, I'd like to say a word or two about the
> >world of the Genesis creation. There was a garden growing in soil.
> >There was dust to fashion a man. There was soil to farm
> >after the Fall. There was clay for bricks. There was sand for
> >deserts to wander in. This all has to come from somewhere. Yes, it
> >could all have been created in place, but before we accept this
> >simple yet uncomfortable answer, where does dirt come from now?
> >What is dirt?
>
> [snip excellent post]
>
> Man as old as dirt!
>
> regards,
> Nantko
Ouch! That hurt.
Harry K
harvest dancer
> Therion Ware wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:54:05 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> > Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing the
> > reply to alt.atheism
> >> Therion Ware wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Jason
> >>> Gastrich ("Jason Gastrich" <newsg...@jcsm.org>) said, directing
> >>> the reply to alt.atheism
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I'm not leaving usenet. I've decided to humble myself and
> >>>> avoid using the title "Dr." on my usenet posts until I earn my
> >>>> Ph.D. degree in 2005.
> >>>
> >>> I'll be interested to read it if and when you qualify. Where will I
> >>> be able to obtain a copy?
> >>
> >> When you say "it," what are you referring to? My diploma? I
> >> suppose I could scan it or scan a transcript.
> >
> > A copy of your dissertation, of course. And a tape of the viva would
> > be interesting too!
>
> It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in May of
> 2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to go. I might
> make it, though.
>
> I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation. I've been
> given permission to submit the Old Testament portion of the newest edition
> of my book for my dissertation. It is over 400 pages long and meets my
> university's standards. However, if I have the time and desire, I may write
> contribute something new and interesting to the knowledge base (we can't
> exactly call it the "field" of fasting) of this discipline.
>
> Jason
I wonder if the work on your dissertation will cause you to actually
learn about your own religion. I've been to your website, and I, a
PAGAN, noticed errors. It's not even my faith and I noticed errors.
Jason
Bobby D. Bryant
Couldn't a miracle prevent a question from being answered that way?
John Popelish
Sure. miracles can do anything, including self contradictory things.
Logic and reason have no power before miracles. Everything you know
is wrong.
--
John Popelish
Bobby D. Bryant
> It will be a stretch to finish by April of 2005, so I can graduate in
> May of 2005. I'm working hard on my courses and have several more to
> go. I might make it, though.
>
> I've been considering a few different ideas for my dissertation.
Going to finish a dissertation in a year, and don't even know what the
general subject is yet?
John Wilkins
Took me 7 years, and I knew at the start what mine was about. That Jason
must be some thinker and researcher...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkind.id.au www.wilkins.id.au
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote