|
181 October 25 2009 at 14:42:41 Name: Jim Smith Comments: HOW JOHN HARRIS CAN WIN THIS DEBATE WITH HIS NEXT POST If John Harris is on schedule, he'll post again within the next few days. His posts have repeatedly demanded "watertight", "undisputable" (sic) evidence that radiometric dating is reliable, while he himself has cited proven incompetents without apology, as sources for the unreliability of that dating. Since Harris has begun to complain about the duration of this debate, here's how he can win it outright, in his next post: ******************************** Harris can drop his double standard, and present his "watertight, indisputable evidence" that the Earth is less than 1 million (1,000,000) years old. ******************************** I suggest that Harris has no such evidence, and that his insistence upon such evidence for an old Earth is a prime example of the kind of rigged game that Hovind supporters want to play in the public schools, at the taxpayers' expense. 182 October 20 2009 at 18:39:24 Name: Jim Smith Comments: I had to make my previous post on the run, so I didn't have the time to mention three important points. (1) Harris's belief that he may withhold his evidence until a time of his choosing, is a damning confession. In the eyes of almost anyone, it would ruin his credibility instantly, and completely. But Harris positively flaunts it. (He's now stated it for the second time.) (2) Harris is well aware that he did not "always" maintain that he would present that evidence at a time of his choosing. He started off by ignoring every single request that he present it. The post that finally drew a response from him was mine of Sept 09 2009 at 17:45:43 : Quote begins: ********************** ... I notice that you have once again failed (in five posts now) to substantiate your claim that "Sadly, not everything on [this] website is scientifically accurate." As you have neither substantiated that claim nor retracted it, nor even acknowledged that we asked you to do so, is there any reason why a reasonable person should not conclude that you are simply a liar? ***************** Quote ends Therefore, his statement that he "always" maintained that he would present it is a demonstrable, knowing lie. (3) The statement that he attributes to me in an effort to show that I lied (see the second highlighted portion of his post), is not, in fact, mine. It's something trebob wrote it in his blog (http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html). This is now the second time that Harris has made this misattribution. (See October 05 2009 at 01:01:42, where Harris also errs in saying that trebob's blog is mine.) Anyone who wants to see more of my reasons for calling Harris a delusional, megalomaniacal liar may read his post of September 19 2009. 183 October 20 2009 at 13:51:46 Name: Jim Smith Comments: To no one´s surprise, John Haris has ben caught in another transparent lie. ************************ ...I have always maintained that [the information substantiating my allegation against the credibility of Marychurch's website] will be revealed when I AM ready ... ************************ Harris has not "always" maintained this. He ignored our first several requests for substantiation completely. He then told us that it was arrogant of us to assume there were no errors on this site. He started to take the above line only when that substantiation was demanded from him. In addition, this line is an assertion of what he feels is his right to withhold his evidence indefinitely. He knows very well that that that "right" of his is one reason why I stopped responding to him substantively. I see no point in debating with a megalomaniacal liar who claims the right to withhold his evidence from us. 184 October 20 2009 at 12:32:26 Name: Carl M Comments: Response to John Harris: Apart from the fact that I have always maintained that this information will be revealed when I AM ready This is turning into Lost. I stopped watching Lost after Episode 3 of Season 1. In order for macro evolution to be credible we MUST rely on and have proof for very old dates. If the earth is not billions of years old, then that alone will stop macro evolution in it's tracks. Logic flaw: if radiometric dating does not work that only means radiometric dating does not work. If radiometric dating failed that would not affect the underlying age of the planet (whatever that may be). If we can't date the age of the planet that does not mean the planet is young. Common descent exists regardless of the age of the planet. "However, the reasonable conclusion is that radiometric dating more often than not accurate and therefor a valid way to measure the age of geologic structures. You appear to be suggesting the "1%" of errors should be given equal weighting to the "99%" of accurate results." Sorry mate, it's just not entirely true to say that the radiometric dating is more often than not accurate and that it has a 1% of error. You misread or I miswrote. I said "the 1% of errors" - I was not talking about the error of a particular sample. First we have to assume that 100% of the assumptions made are 100% reliable. Also, as discussed in previous posts, if we add enough contamination to the mix, the dates can be more than (much more than) 1% wrong. Going back to the courtroom analogy, I agree that we should only accept "reasonable doubt". In your example of the DNA evidence, we can scientifically try, test and compare results therefore, we can trust the outcome. But in the case of billions of years old dating, we just can't be 100% sure that the outcome is 100% correct unless of course we can go back in time or meet someone really, really, really old who can verify the dates :) I'm sorry, I can't help with either one of these. There is no one I know that would stake their lives on the dates given by these dating methods (I sure hope you won't). You're stuck in a single sample mindset. Let's assume we only have a 50% confidence in a single sample (this is low for illustrative purposes only). That is, equal chance of being correct, and equal chance of being totally wrong. Now lets take 2 samples (perhaps of different pieces of geology). Now the odds are: 25% both samples are wrong, 25% both are correct, and 50% of only one being correct. To put that another way; 75% chance of at least one correct sample. Now let's take 1000 samples. The probablity of all being wrong is 1 in 1E+301. That is a 1 followed by 301 zeros. Which means the probablity of at least one sample being correct (and therefor the Earth being very old) is 99.9999 .... taken to 300 decimal places ... %. I don't know where you got the idea we can't "scientifically try, test and compare results" within geology. What do you think geophysicists and geochemists, as just two examples, do for a living? By the way Carl, have you changed the contents of your posting after its initial post? I am sure, there was something in there that mentioned something about having an agenda and something else that said "yes I mean you..." etc., but that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Still there: October 05 2009 at 07:32:06. The Geologic Column was totally invented/imagined by Charles Lyell who was not a scientist, he was a lawyer. He assumed that the Earth was old (he didn't really know). His motive was to prove evolution (although he was a coward and didn't want to admit it publically - proven by letters he wrote privately). Over 175 years later, fossils are mainly cross referenced with the Geologic Column and is the main point of references for radiometric dating. The index fossil would not even exist without this made up theory. 1) Most "scientists" of that period were trained as something else. 2) You've got your history backwards; Lyell came before Darwin. It has been claimed (probably correctly) that Lyell wanted to disprove the Biblical view of the Earth (Noah's Flood particularly). So what? 3) 175 years later .... yeah, 175 years of more geologic research. 4) You've seriously muddled up absolute dating and relative dating. Absolute dating is stuff like radiometric dating. Relative dating does not give ages but periods. Index fossils and the Geologic Column give relative dates. Why? Because 175 years of research has shown that is how the world's geology is organised. 5) I'm only responding to this because Hovind also makes the same stupid claims (sorry for being blunt) If it could be proven that macro evolution is not true, what would be the purpose of this website? There are more layers of The Stupid within Kent Hovind than just being contrary to the current consensus regarding Evolution Theory. In fact, just as a matter of interest, if macro evolution was proven to be a total and complete lie (and I mean total and complete lie), how would that affect you? Would it change how you view life? And I repeat what I said on Sept 5; "While I happen to agree Evolution Theory is just mind blowingly awesome, I won't loose much sleep if it is someday disproved." 185 October 20 2009 at 03:59:33 Name: Anon Comments: Whatever you say bud. I just figured since trebob's first response was that he had an IP tracker that he could figure out who posted what, as well as Jim said he uses one too. But I suppose not everyone has one so I'll use a name from now on. 186 October 20 2009 at 01:38:25 Name: John Harris Comments: To the "Anonymous Posters" who said "believe what you will and I will believe what I will. just know that my faith in God is no less that's all I ask". Good on you mate! There is no doubt that your faith is more sound than Jim's faith. By the way, can I encourage you "Anonymous Posters" to use a name, reference or handle so that there is no confusion when you add any posts. Cheers mate. Jim, let's have one last attempt to explain the true dictionary meaning of the word liar (which is apparently your favourite word for anyone who disagrees with you). According to the Oxford American Dictionary, liar means:
You insist that I am deliberately telling lies. The supporting material you have behind this alligation is this:
As explained in my post dated October 05 2009 at 01:01:42, ..\comdesc\ was not given to me (in fact I gave it to trebob on September 19 2009 at 02:30:19) and ..\CB901\ was not posted anywhere I could find, ..\CA202\ was given to me by trebob on September 08 2009 at 06:52:14 (not Jim). So did you lie in the very material you offered in order to prove that "I" was a liar? But surely that would make YOU a liar Jim. But wait...it gets better. The above was apparently your response to my request to offer undisputable evidence regarding macro evolution. How embarrassing to you, it didn't even do THAT. So, could it be that when I asked for undisputable evidence regarding macro evolution you actually lied by supplying these materials (since they were not undisputable evidence)? What's going on Jim? Is this your method to intimidate people? It's just not nice, is it? Your intimidation methods may have worked before, but not this time matey! Chill out, cool down and take it easy brother :) Oh wait, Jim, you also use another supporting material which apparently qualifies you to call me a liar. You said "It is a demonstrable fact that John Harris repeatedly (in 7+ posts) refused to provide any evidence whatsoever for his allegation against the scientific credibility of Carl Marychurch's website". Apart from the fact that I have always maintained that this information will be revealed when I AM ready (and clearly explained the reason behind this in my post September 11 2009 at 22:03:18), on the September 19 2009 at 02:30:19 I have listed 3 items that demonstrates how this websites relies on unproven theories or unreliable science to make it's point. I didn't even have to look far for them, they were simply the very first 3 statements I read. There is plenty more Jimmy Boy....(wow, red rug to a bull). If you want to call me a liar, try not to lie whilst doing it? Also, Jimmy I would so dearly like to tear apart all your allegations and comments you made on your previous post but I don't have enough spare time. You see Jimmy; I have a full time Job and can't just keep wasting time on such petty twisted comments. Focus on the point I am making. You have NO solid proof that macro evolution actually happened (scientifically or otherwise). What you have is no more or less than just another religion. I don't think you like that and that's what causing all your negative comments. Enough of this nonsense debate! Calling people names should not be your aim or the purpose of this website (or is it?). One more thing Jim (dear friend), you take too much of my time discussing irrelevant issues and I have taken too much space responding to you. Your input has been reduced to nothing more or less than insults and personal criticism. I would like to encourage you to change tactics. It's just not scientific and is very boring to visitors! You know what they say, "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything". Is that a saying you're familiar with? "nuff said", "end of"... Carl, thank you for your response. I do look forward to them. It's a refreshing change from the above. You said "dating has diddly squat to do with "macro evolution theory" (aka Common Descent) other than to put absolute dates to events.". Unfortunately, I must disagree. In order for macro evolution to be credible we MUST rely on and have proof for very old dates. If the earth is not billions of years old, then that alone will stop macro evolution in it's tracks. "However, the reasonable conclusion is that radiometric dating more often than not accurate and therefor a valid way to measure the age of geologic structures. You appear to be suggesting the "1%" of errors should be given equal weighting to the "99%" of accurate results." Sorry mate, it's just not entirely true to say that the radiometric dating is more often than not accurate and that it has a 1% of error. First we have to assume that 100% of the assumptions made are 100% reliable. Also, as discussed in previous posts, if we add enough contamination to the mix, the dates can be more than (much more than) 1% wrong. Going back to the courtroom analogy, I agree that we should only accept "reasonable doubt". In your example of the DNA evidence, we can scientifically try, test and compare results therefore, we can trust the outcome. But in the case of billions of years old dating, we just can't be 100% sure that the outcome is 100% correct unless of course we can go back in time or meet someone really, really, really old who can verify the dates :) I'm sorry, I can't help with either one of these. There is no one I know that would stake their lives on the dates given by these dating methods (I sure hope you won't). By the way Carl, have you changed the contents of your posting after its initial post? I am sure, there was something in there that mentioned something about having an agenda and something else that said "yes I mean you..." etc., but that doesn't seem to be there anymore. "But if you want to change the topic and perhaps claim the Geologic Column (or its interpretation) is not infallible while not explaining what that little factoid has to do with Kent Hovind in general or my website in particular, then go crazy nuts. Please don't be offended if I don't reply." Carl, it might actually surprise you to know that this particular theory is the one I trust the most...:)...Surprise!....Just kidding....:).....I actually dislike this one the most (no surprise!). The Geologic Column was totally invented/imagined by Charles Lyell who was not a scientist, he was a lawyer. He assumed that the Earth was old (he didn't really know). His motive was to prove evolution (although he was a coward and didn't want to admit it publically - proven by letters he wrote privately). Over 175 years later, fossils are mainly cross referenced with the Geologic Column and is the main point of references for radiometric dating. The index fossil would not even exist without this made up theory. Sorry Carl, this one hurts! "..Nor have you explained what any of this has to do with Kent Hovind." On September 19 2009 at 02:30:19 I explained that for me "this is not about Kent Hovind but about the hypothesis of evolution that is the fuel behind this website". If it could be proven that macro evolution is not true, what would be the purpose of this website? In fact, just as a matter of interest, if macro evolution was proven to be a total and complete lie (and I mean total and complete lie), how would that affect you? Would it change how you view life?
<< 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>
|