|
151 November 12 2009 at 04:45:55 Name: Heyo Comments: so insults and no evidence? I come willing to listen, but you have trouble answering the simplest of questions. Instead filled the page with insults, opinions, and close minded remarks. I wish to have an honest debate. Do you truly wish to make a difference in this issue? If so let me know, for I am listening with an open mind. 152 November 12 2009 at 03:25:10 Name: trebob Comments: Hello again Heyo. Most scientists spend years studying to obtain a degree in one discipline, so it is not unfair for us to ask you to spend some of your time (possibly days, weeks, or even months) studying on your own what the scientific concepts you might object to actually state and the scientific methodology used to develop them. Please come back after having studied the following materials and answering the related questions. You must post your answers as a reply to the blog entry at the upcoming link using the same name you used here and you must answer them in the same comment entry (don't post a separate comment to answer each single one). http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html 153 November 12 2009 at 03:22:02 Name: Jim Smith Comments: Hello again, Heyo, Back in May/June of this year, you proved yourself to be just like John Harris. That is, you're a willfully ignorant scientific illiterate and liar who refuses to read the information provided to you, and who believes that we should "just chill out" about Hovind's approval of war crimes against Muslims. (I'll provide proof of this at the end of this post.) I, like trebob, refuse to keep providing you with the same material that you have already, repeatedly, refused to read. In his response below, trebob referenced the link that he prepared just for people like you and John Harris: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html I will not respond to you until you've done that quiz according to trebob's instructions, and until you've also done the quiz that you can find in my posts entitled "Have You Come Here to Defend Hovind?" ******************************** Regarding the proof of what I said above, ******************************** here's my post of June 04 2009, to which your own response (June 05 2009) was just two words: "You (Jim ) win." ****************************** My post of June 04 2009 Begins ****************************** June 04 2009 at 17:08:24 Name: Jim Smith Comments: GOOD GOING, DAVID Remember this quote from Hovind supporter **Heyo**? ***"You just need to chill out man you are way to up tight over such a small matter."*** That was the response that he gave when informed of (among other things) Hovind's approval of war crimes and atrocities against Muslims, and his conviction for witness intimidation in connection with his tax-fraud case. (http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/kenthovind?pass=&page=6. See my post of May 23 2009 at 19:52:10, and his reply of May 24 at 11:44:20) Some background, for new visitors: About a week ago, one of the regulars here (*trebob*) made a post about the supernova of 1987, and what astronomers' subsequent observations of it tell us about the possibility that the speed of light has decreased with time. A Hovind supporter named *Heyo* accused trebob of having merely copied and pasted that article from a source like Wikipedia. Heyo also asked **Can anyone follow that thing? Can you even understand that thing trebob?** (May 23, 2009 15:55:26) As has been his consistent practice here, Heyo presented no evidence for his accustation, and has refused to retract it. In fact, he has made his attacks against trebob's competence even stronger (again without a shred of evidence) since a third participant (David) noted that trebob is a professional astronomer. When David pressed Heyo to either substantiate those accusations or else retract them, Heyo gave his characteristic response to such demands: he ridiculed David for making so much of such small things, and told him that he should **settle down**. It has previously been pointed out to Heyo that this is the sort of response an abusive husband gives when confronted with his lies. The opening quote of this present post gives other examples of what Heyo thinks are **small matters** that people should just **/chill out** about. So good work, Dave. You've produced the clearest example yet of Heyo's abusive tendencies and utter disregard for the truth. ****************************** My post of June 04 2009 Ends ****************************** AND HERE IS HEYO'S REPLY **************************** June 05 2009 at 04:33:18 Name: Heyo Comments: you win **************************** As I recall, after making that post, you never came back here again until just now. It amazes me that you would think that an ally as dubious as yourself would do anybody any good, on any issue whatsoever. 154 November 12 2009 at 03:19:16 Name: david Comments: Heya there Heyo. "Give me real evidence that one organism has changed into a different organism by way of evolution." Perhaps you did not take the time to read my reply to you on June 04 2009 at 15:45:19 where I address this very issue at your request? "If you wish to gain any ground in this issue..." This makes me laugh. I’m not sure when or if I may stop. "...you will be willing to present evidence in a simple fashion, instead of giving me hundreds of links" Tre had the best rebuttal to this in his post on November 11 2009 at 17:37:54. And my reply to you on June 04 2009 at 15:45:19 did not contain a single link just as you requested, until after I was done explaining evolution in my own words as per your request. "I truly am willing to listen if you are willing to provide the answers in a clear and concise way." That’s not what your previous track record shows. Such evidence as you are requesting now was provided to you during your first run here and you dismissed it all without providing any scientifically valid objection. When observations were pointed out to you confirming that the universe is older than 6,000 years you dismissed it without valid objections and accused Tre of ripping his post off Wikipedia and of not understanding the equations but not once did you bother to back up your accusation. I now join Jim and Tre in inviting others to backtrack and read Heyo’s posts starting on May 23 2009 at 14:46:04. Heyo, your own post on November 11 2009 at 06:12:50 with quotes such as "Bringing up good arguments to and a lot of questions that need answering that evolution just doesn't give" would seem to imply that you already consider yourself an expert on evolution. Therefor you should have no problem with taking Tre’s quiz at http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html. After you've done that we’ll talk further. 155 November 12 2009 at 01:01:01 Name: Heyo Comments: I'm a simple man, so in your simplest words tell me how we have witnessed evolution in a controlled environment. I do not want speculation on events that have occurred in the past. Give me real evidence that one organism has changed into a different organism by way of evolution. I am tired of all the confusion that is presented on this site. If you wish to gain any ground in this issue you will be willing to present evidence in a simple fashion, instead of giving me hundreds of links to other sites that are a mirror of your opinion lacking just as much in evidence as your theory. Give me a clear cut answer as to how man has evolved from one organism into what we are today. No smoke no fog. If evolution is true this will be possible. If it is a fabrication you may repeat your previous arguments as you have done countless times. I truly am willing to listen if you are willing to provide the answers in a clear and concise way. Please one answer at a time. No ganging up, no insults, and NO CONFUSION. I will start simple. How did mankind become what we are today? 156 November 11 2009 at 19:29:38 Name: david Comments: A quick correction: In my previous post where it says "Lie have never witnessed evolution" obviously I was intending to quote Heyo. As such the line should read "We have never witnessed evolution" my apologies for the typo. 157 November 11 2009 at 19:26:27 Name: david Comments: Hey again Heyo. You find that wikipedia article yet? Jim Smith on June 04 2009 at 17:08:24 "Bringing up good arguments to and a lot of questions that need answering that evolution just doesn't give." Like when John had his claims about dating methods and the geologic column completely destroyed by Carl and had his faulty understanding of subjects pointed out to him many times by Jim, Carl, Tre, and myself and still claimed victory? Just like Harris "you have a strange way of keeping score." Carl M October 28 2009 at 06:26:54 "Lie have never witnessed evolution" Lie that you have been corrected on. June 04 2009 at 15:45:19. So just like Harris in the last few weeks, you haven't done any research in the last few months. Can't say I'm surprised given your previous track record. "I am sorry to see that Carl, Jim, and Bob resort to such tactics as insults rather than evidence." Lie. Plenty of evidence has been presented all of which john has dismissed without presenting any kind of valid objection. It was partly johns refusal to examine such evidence that let to jim, carl, tre, and me refusing to discuss anything with him any further. http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html 158 November 11 2009 at 17:37:54 Name: trebob Comments: Welcome back Heyo and thank you for taking the time to comment. Unfortunately most people who make comments similar to yours often do not show the slightest understanding of what evolutionary theory states or how science works. Most scientists spend years studying to obtain a degree in one discipline so it is not unfair or unreasonable for us to ask you to spend some of your time (possibly days, weeks, or even months) studying what the concepts you might object to actually state. By reviewing the materials at the upcoming link and then answering a few questions about them we can be sure you actually have some understanding of the scientific concepts discussed there and will be able to participate in a logical, rational, and informed discussion on them. If you are unwilling to take the time to do this it will be taken as an admission that you do not care whether the statements you make are accurate in which case there is no point in further discussion. You must post your answers as a reply to the blog entry at the upcoming link using the same name you used here and you must answer them in the same comment entry (don't post a separate comment to answer each single one). http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html 159 November 11 2009 at 06:12:50 Name: Heyo Comments: I think John Harris has been very honest in his debate. Bringing up good arguments to and a lot of questions that need answering that evolution just doesn't give. Evolution is a lot of smoke and fog with no concrete evidence. It is not even a real science. Science is something we can recreate over and over again in a controlled environment (such as a lab). and come out with the same results. We have never witnessed evolution, but rather just speculated from various findings. I am sorry to see that Carl, Jim, and Bob resort to such tactics as insults rather than evidence, I am sure John has done it as well, but seeing these three gang up on him has shown me more than enough evidence that they really have a weak argument and prefer to resort to brutish tactics, and disregard the real argument. I hope in the future things may change for them, but feel they may be hopeless cases. 160 November 07 2009 at 16:51:51 Name: JIm Smith Comments: Comments: REGARDING THE POSTS OF JOHN HARRIS: From Jim Smith, first posted 31 October 2009, revised 7 November 2009 (Substantiation for the following will be presented at the end of the post.) In seven weeks of posting here, John Harris has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant scientific illiterate and serial liar, who has twice indicated that he has a right to make accusations without presenting any substantiation for them *until he�s ready*. Harris has been told of Kent Hovind�s approval of war crimes against Muslims, and has never registered any objection to it. Instead, he has criticized us for "crucifying" Hovind by exposing him. Harris also cites Hovind (a known liar and incompetent) as a source, without apology. At the same time, Harris insists upon *watertight*, *indisputable� evidence for an old Earth. As an example of what Harris means by those terms, consider what he believes is a reasonable objection to radiometric dating. That is, consider what he believes is a credible explanation of how rocks from a young Earth came to have isotope ratios that indicate those rocks are actually more than 4 billion years old. Harris maintains that those ratios resulted from contamination during the Global Flood. He insists upon this while knowing that meteorites also date to 4 billion years ago, according to their ratios of those same isotopes. When this disconnect was pointed out to him, he followed his usual pattern by triumphantly posting yet another link to a site filled with the speculations of incompetents. In this case, Harris's source maintained that meteorites are actually Eath rocks that were not only contaminated by the Flood, but blasted into space by cataclysmic events associated with it. This, supposedly, explains how mineral grains enclosed within solid nickel-iron meteors happen to have ratios of isotopes that indicate that the meteors are actually bilons of years old. The above set of speculations (for more analysis, see trebob's link about asteroids, below) is the sort of lunacy that Harris considers a reasonable objection to the accuracy of radimetric dating. His insistence that Old Earthers must address such scenarios seriously is lunacy compounded, but it's typical of what we've heard from Harris. It's also typical that Harris seemed to have made no effort to find and study any refutations of these speculation before trimphantly linking to them. At the same time, he accuses the rest of us of having our minds closed. For the reasons given above, I will not give any reply to his future posts, other than by repeating this one. REFERENCES: Carl Marychurch�s summaries: (1) November 02 2009 at 05:44:57 (The best short example); and (2) October 28 2009 at 06:26:54 David�s summary: October 31 2009 at 10:51:25 Trebob�s detailed analyses: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/reading-posts-about-astronomy-made-by.html My posts: September 17 2009 at 20:08:21 and October 20 2009 at 18:39:24 John Harris, September 19 2009 at 02:30:19 (A good example of the sort of megalomaniacal drivel Harris has expected us to wade through in this discussion.) << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>
|