|
191 October 16 2009 at 14:49:52 Name: Comments: I think I should explain something as background to the post I made yesterday. One of the main reasons why I post here is to affirm nonChristian detractors of Hovind in their belief that he is dangerous. He both applauds and recommends war crimes against Muslims, and heads (or headed) an organization (CSE) that seeks to spread his views globally. In addition, one of the crimes for which he is currently in prison, is intimidation of witnesses in his tax-fraud case. Finally, his CSE, in an attempt to silence his critics, criminally perjured itself by falsely asserting that it held copyright to the materials in his critics' videos. Although most of Hovind's supporters are honest, well-intentioned people who simply do not realize what a warped character he is, Hovind also has a hard core of supporters who are willing to lie through their teeth for him. As an example of what warped folks such supporters themselves are, they typically excoriate his critics for "crucifying" Hovind, while having no particular problem with Hovind's suggestion that Muslims prisoners of war be shot with hollow-point bullets filled with pigs' blood. Three such Hovind supporters whom we've encountered here are Heyo, A Guest, and most recently, John Harris. So, yes, Hovind is dangerous, and his detractors, both Believer and nonBeliever, have every justification for seeking to expose him. 192 October 16 2009 at 04:04:18 Name: 24.118.175.218 Comments: k 193 October 16 2009 at 00:05:39 Name: Jim Smith Comments: *************************** To Anonymous Poster 1 (The author of the post time-stamped October 15 2009 at 00:57:19) *************************** I can't speak for trebob, of course, but I think he would be entirely satisfied if you said something like the following: *** "I am able to maintain my untroubled belief that Genesis is literally true, by dogmatically refusing to examine any evidence that it may be factually wrong on any point whatsoever. That is why I have not bothered to read trebob's links." *** If you're not willing to say that, then I think you owe it to trebob to read his links, and then respond to them. ******************************* To Anonymous Poster 2 (The author of the post time-stamped October 15 2009 at 16:27:47) ******************************* How do you reconcile your statement *** Here John Harris is willing [to debate], and you shut him out *** with the demonstrable fact that he repeatedly (in 7+ posts) refused to provide any evidence whatsoever for his allegation against the scientific credibility of Carl Marychurch's website? Also, I invite you to read (in its entirety, please) his post of September 19 2009, and (again in its entirety) trebob's analysis of Harris's posts at http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html In short, our unwillingness to spend any more time responding to Harris has something to do with the fact that he's a willfull incompetent and a megalomaniacal liar. On the other hand, if that's the sort of people YOU like to correspond with, then go right ahead. 194 October 15 2009 at 16:27:47 Name: 24.118.175.218 Comments: I think you are afraid of John's arguments, and can't stand that someone has the nerve to believe what you do not. I can tell by the tone of many of your posts you are fed up with him, and have given up trying. I ask what is the purpose of this site, if not to debate the facts. Here John Harris is willing, and you shut him out. 195 October 15 2009 at 15:03:37 Name: Jim Smith Comments: Regarding the post of John Harris: 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. (See, among other things, trebob's analysis of Harris's posts in http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html.) At the same time, Jon Harris wanted (and still wants) Carl Marychurch to provide "indisputable", "airtight" proof for evolution. Not only that, but Harris, at least initially, wanted that proof spoon-fed to him in the pages of this guest book, rather than being referred to off-site links. It will be interesting to watch Harris tap-dance to justify that double standard. One of the reasons why I stopped responding to him was that I see no point discussing anything with a person like that. As for my statement that Harris is a delusional, megalomaniacal liar, I'm content to let other guests form their own opinions after reading my posts of 7 October 2009, and (MOST ESPECIALLY) Harris's of September 19 2009, as well as trebob's analysis metioned above. 196 October 15 2009 at 10:56:58 Name: Carl M Comments: The best example of this exercise would be what Carl said on October 05 2009 at 07:32:06 regarding my request for water-tight evidence. According to Carl, I would need to prove that the radiometric dating is 100% wrong. This is a biased view towards a particular belief system. I shouldn't have to prove that the radiometric dating is 100% wrong! All I should be able to do is cast convincing doubt against the radiometric dating system (in general) to render it unreliable. Rather like a criminal who would be acquitted when there is doubt against every evidence brought in the court of law - such doubts don't seem to affect the macro evolution theory - what a hold it has on our society?. It is not "biased" to point out the fact that there are thousands (millions?) of samples taken, and for a conclusion of "6,000 years" to be viable, every single sample must be wrong. That is only rational. I'm surprised you find reality to be biased. You are not arguing against a single sample but all samples. Oh, and the legal standard is not "doubt" but "reasonable doubt". There is a difference. Any decent defense lawyer can make an argument claiming "doubt" - that's their job - they do it in every trial. Yet according to your thinking, the very act of making an argument to try to create "doubt" wins the case. Oh, oh, radiometric dating has diddly squat to do with "macro evolution theory" (aka Common Descent) other than to put absolute dates to events. Carl, firstly thank you for "noticing a pattern". Yes, I am looking for water-tight arguments. After all, this is science based on observable evidence, right? You've just created a huge contradiction. You have simultaneously claimed all sides of an argument should be heard so as to not be "biased" and claimed science produces "water-tight" arguments. You can't have it both ways. For every concept of science - even the axioms of science itself - there is somebody somewhere on the planet arguing against it. Under your system we can't separate the crackpots from the Nobel Laureates or Kent Hovind from Albert Einstein. By the way, I haven't received a response for my question regarding information brought to you from Creationist sites. I asked: "shouldn't we listen and consider the opinions of all scientists regardless of who they are without prejudice?" If so, then there are many sites that bring a lot of doubt about our scientific methods for our current dating system and the macro evolution view of the origin of life etc. In the big scheme of things - perhaps - but what has this to do with my website about Kent Hovind? I'm detecting a Post Modernist "all ideas are equal" theme creeping in, and sorry to be biased, but such muddled headed thinking never lead to anything good. The very process of "considering" must end with a conclusion; the idea is right or it's wrong. You appear to have forgotten the last step. Ok, I'm glad that we agree that the radiometric dating system is indeed "Not 100% infallible and not perfectly water tight". This brings us close to my originally statement "I'm hoping at some point we would be able to agree (at some level) that this method of dating is not entirely accurate and that it can certainly be misleading" 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. To go with you courtroom analogy, you would be claiming DNA evidence should never be used - ever - because sometimes a sample is contaminated, degraded, or incorrectly processed. Should we move on to Geologic Column, and the rest of the website, or do we simply agree that all similar statements made on this website are likewise questionable and somewhat biased to fit the theory? If your overall argument is that my website is biased towards the prevailing consensus of the scientific community then I plead guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. I couldn't be more guilty if I tried. From what I have seen - and forgive me if I have misunderstood - you claimed I was "biased" in my arguing in favor of the overall validity of radiometric dating because sometimes anomalous results can occur. You still have not explained why radiometric dating needs to be infallible. Nor have you explained what any of this has to do with Kent Hovind. 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. 197 October 15 2009 at 01:24:38 Name: John Harris Comments: Hi guys, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've been on holiday and just come back. Firstly to David. Thanks for calling me Johny boy in you post dated October 05 2009 at 04:05:27, some of my friends call me that. By the way, for me that's usually spelt Johnny Boy. They even call me Johnny Fun sometimes, just for Fun :) - not sure why :). With reference to the link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You said "It doesnt take a detective to see that jonhy isnt being entirely honest here". That's not really nice David. I wasn't trying to be dishonest, I looked back about 10 pages but couldn't find this reference other than the one I gave trebob on the September 19 2009 at 02:30:19. I didn't realise that this reference went back to May. I found this now, it goes back 16 pages. Unfortunately, this is well before my time. Nevertheless king David :) the contents of this page/link doesn't prove macro evolution and also (as explained earlier) I used it myself for trebob so that he/we can come to an agreement about the difference between micro and macro evolution. To my friend Jim. I'm surprised, you haven't responded to my question in my last post regarding calling me a liar ("Are you sure you meant to address that statement to me?"). I have noticed that on more than one occasion you called me a liar (particular in trebob's blog), and indeed in your post dated October 07 2009 at 02:14:14 you called me a "megalomaniacal liar". Not sure why the agressive tone. Are you simply an unpolite person? Are you really a scientist? Nevertheless let me explain this word for you. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, liar means the following:
Trebob, will you update the blog to reflect subsequent discussions and responses, or is this blog totally biased (similar to the macro evolution theory)! Jim, regarding my accusation (which appears to be a sore point for you): "Sadly, not everything on your [Carl Marychurch's] website is scientifically accurate. (September 08 2009 at 00:50:04)" was originally written as a result of reading the contents of www.kent-hovind.com. It didn't take much reading to conclude that all your allegations against what Kent Hovind said was based on a belief system and the interpretation of the facts that suit the macro evolution worldview. Clearly, your understanding about science was totally biased and consequently your approach was made with a closed mind. This is the reason behind my original statement. Basically, your belief system compels you to take the little science we have and apply it to an accepted theory rather than challenging it. Therefore, the interpretation and implication of the science is inaccurate, hence my comments. The best example of this exercise would be what Carl said on October 05 2009 at 07:32:06 regarding my request for water-tight evidence. According to Carl, I would need to prove that the radiometric dating is 100% wrong. This is a biased view towards a particular belief system. I shouldn't have to prove that the radiometric dating is 100% wrong! All I should be able to do is cast convincing doubt against the radiometric dating system (in general) to render it unreliable. Rather like a criminal who would be acquitted when there is doubt against every evidence brought in the court of law - such doubts don't seem to affect the macro evolution theory - what a hold it has on our society?. Carl, firstly thank you for "noticing a pattern". Yes, I am looking for water-tight arguments. After all, this is science based on observable evidence, right? By the way, I haven't received a response for my question regarding information brought to you from Creationist sites. I asked: "shouldn't we listen and consider the opinions of all scientists regardless of who they are without prejudice?" If so, then there are many sites that bring a lot of doubt about our scientific methods for our current dating system and the macro evolution view of the origin of life etc. (I'm sure you are aware of them). Does your comment "Who's been a naughty boy? You copied that entire section from Creationwiki", suggest that you don't approve the source of this information? (by the way, the statement "Who's been a naughty boy?" and other similar statements made in this post, demonstrate a good sense of humour - it was received well). Ok, I'm glad that we agree that the radiometric dating system is indeed "Not 100% infallible and not perfectly water tight". This brings us close to my originally statement "I'm hoping at some point we would be able to agree (at some level) that this method of dating is not entirely accurate and that it can certainly be misleading" in my posting dated September 26 2009 at 17:35:12. Should we move on to Geologic Column, and the rest of the website, or do we simply agree that all similar statements made on this website are likewise questionable and somewhat biased to fit the theory? 198 October 15 2009 at 00:57:19 Name: 24.118.175.218 Comments: I am not doing this to avoid questions, but rather to ask why he feels I cannot have faith in God. Is it he who avoids the question? Again I ask trebob. I have seen your points a number of times, but am just curious whether or not he truly believe I cannot have faith in God? 199 October 15 2009 at 00:06:17 Name: Jim Smith Comments: Hello Anonymous Poster, A request: could you please choose some identifying name for yourself, to avoid possible confusion with other Anonymous Posters? In some of our discussions here, trebob and I have found it useful to keep a tally of how many times guests have evaded issues we've raised, or have failed to provide any substantiation for their accusations. By my count, you've now evaded the issues raised in trebob's links (see below) four times. Of course, your refusal to address those issues damages your credibility considerably. Therefore, could you tell us whether you EVER plan to read them, and then respond to them substantively? Trebob's links are http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/04/creationists-and-starlight.html and http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/05/young-earth-creationism-vs-population.html 200 October 14 2009 at 23:07:12 Name: 24.118.175.218 Comments: My faith still lies in God and His Word that he designed humanity in his image. My faith will not falter nor be any less in Him for my belief. If you think otherwise I am sorry this is your opinion. << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>
|