Excellent post Abaddon! Hear Hear.
Creatiolution. This could be the answer.
by Spectrum 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hooberus
As for the link you provide to counter my assertions about AiG, this does not in any way do this. You have done this before, using the exact same link. If one follows that link and scrolls down from your defense of AiG you will find the following comment from me; . . .
And if one continued to "follow that link" to the next page (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx) they will find that several of the (technical claims) points in your "following comment" were in fact responded to almost a month ago. Furthermore, I see no need to respond to most of your other comments (interested readers can compare and decide for themselves).
-
Abaddon
hooberus
Now, I see you have been responding to old posts, in full knowledge these will be so far off my page of threads responded to I will never be aware of them unless you tell me. My, you must have looked forward to springing that one me. LOL.
No response about AiG? I can't see what you CAN say, credibly, so maybe that explains the silence.
I criticised the salary Ken Ham awards himself.
You, having read the salary was not part of the start rating system, quote the star rating system.
Clever. Considering I have criticised Creationists and ID-ers for failing to disclose all the pertinent facts when presenting an arguement, I'n not suprised you follow similary shoddy parctice yourself.
... but will you now make some comment about how you consider someone in a non-profit organisation paying themselves TWICE the average is justified? You endorse that website through your slavish devotion to it, so I expect you to defend it.
As you do me when I use talkorigins. Thing is, you misrepresent the situation.
In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1.ashx which basically has only been responded to by Creationists in the past two months, in your post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810325/post.ashx#1810325 you say "see especially the third" when refering to some links. Okay then. If we look at that http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935, it is a post of yours I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO OVER HALF A YEAR AGO.
Why not mention this hooberus? Why ALWAYS is there something you forget to add?
Just as the ID debate is falsely presented as a controvery in the scientific community, so to you falsely present something as though it hadn't be responded to over six months ago. Just like you 'forget' to mention the three star charity rating is nothing to do with Ken Ham's excessive salary, when that was the topic you were responding to...
And let us not forget that the Dover School trial found the behaviour and conduct of those trying to insert ID into the curriculum as being deficient and unbecoming of people in postions of authority.
Anyone see a pattern here?
Let's see what other games you are playing.
In http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx you claim;
The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data.
I'd read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html if I were you.
You state "I believe [the paper was] also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.".
Having a creationist paper reviewed by creationists is like having a nazi revisonist history of the Holocaust reviewed by nazi revisonists. It means nothing.
Nazi revisonists work on the presupposition that Hitler was a nice bloke, stroked kittens, etc., and any Jews who died in the war obviously were to blame for it, not that many did (empty villages and masses of proof from records of millions just disappearing is not evidence enough for someopne who's already decided they are right. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means nothing.
Likewise, creationists work on the presupposition that god created everything, and masses of supporting evidence for evolution is not evidence enough for someone who's already decided they are right. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means nothing.
Scientists read a theory and then try to break it, and if the scientist presenting the theory has missed a way of breaking the theory they should have picked up on before claioming they had a theory, their credibility suffers. Thus peer review, instead of being 'Ha! I've always said that! The man's a genius!' is 'Well, I can't break the theory so it's probably factual given what we know know'. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means they can't break the theory
I could go on about how, once again, despite clear proof there were flourishing civilisations (and trees) at the Biblically specified period for the Flood which were unaffeceted by it and which left builidings hundreds of years older than the date of the Flood standing (as well as trees), you pretend the Flood is even possible. And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
This is like assuming that because you believe in the tooth fairy, the money under the pilloow could only get there through the auspices of the tooth fairy.
But there seems little point as you will carry on doing your "Emperor's new clothes" routine, just as you have done for years.
So, going to comment about Ham's salary now?
Oh, are you actually admitting you do carry out ad hom attacks against the scientific community as I stated in my last post? You don't deny it (not that you could - I could easily find you doing it as I specified).
Oh, any word on that rebuttal of dendrochronology (not the AiG rubbish I trashed one lunch break, something decent) you were going to provide, or will it be more excuses?
I'm sure I've also asked you for a comment about Behe admitting in court that under his defintion of 'theory' astrology would have to be given a place in the science curriculum alongside ID? Or his consession that under standard definitons ID was at most a hypothesis?
I know I've mentioned recently how irreducable design is a dead duck, as claims (for example, the flagellum one) about irreducable complexity fail under serious scientific scrutiny, as the sub components function and have use seperately.
Funny, I saw Behe on the steps of Dover court house, and he MUST suffer from a bad memory, as he had just seen his 'irreducable complexity' hypothesis rubbished in an open court, and yet was claiming it was right (when the evidence was probvably still being projected onto the courthouse wall). Do you think he maybe was hoiping that most of his supporters would just see that bit, and not see the way his postion was dismantled in court by proper scientists?
That way he can carry on making those claims and they'd never be the wiser. Come to think of it, he didn't mention what he had to admit to in an Australian court during the Dover trial... maybe his poor memory explains his poor science?
And that is an acusation with evidence (oh, okay, a bit of sarcasm), not an ad hom. Calling someone 'forgetful' when they are is not an ad hom if it pertains to the nature of their argument.
Any comment hooberus, or are you going to forget about this thread?
-
hooberus
hooberus
Now, I see you have been responding to old posts, in full knowledge these will be so far off my page of threads responded to I will never be aware of them unless you tell me. My, you must have looked forward to springing that one me. LOL.You were told that I was responding to some of your previous points. (see end of the following post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/104540/1810277/post.ashx#1810277)
No response about AiG? I can't see what you CAN say, credibly, so maybe that explains the silence.
My initial response was I feel adequate- however for the sake of clarification here are my commets again with detail as to why they were given: "Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully." -This was so that persons could get the detailed picture such as his specific salary, expense reimbursements, comparison with regional and national averages (of course in any average there will be many salaries both below and above the average), as well salary as a percentage of overall expenses, etc..
"Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."" -This was written as your accusation was also directed against AiG in general as you started it with: "AiG is a money making scheme;. . . " (note how my response was specifically directed against the general charge of AiG being a "scheme"). -
hooberus
As you do me when I use talkorigins. Thing is, you misrepresent the situation.
In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1.ashx which basically has only been responded to by Creationists in the past two months, in your post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810325/post.ashx#1810325 you say "see especially the third" when refering to some links. Okay then. If we look at that http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935, it is a post of yours I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO OVER HALF A YEAR AGO.
Your response to the specific talk origins errors was to attempt to attribute them to the difficulty inherit in making any "abiogenesisitic probability" calculation - when in fact his errors involve mathematics (e.g. making the entire earth a sphere of water), and omitting well known real world chemical obstacles to protein formation (e.g. chirality, polymerization, etc.), as well as starting off by giving the impression that creationists only criticize "instant" bacteria abiogenesis, and not abiognesis in stages (as they do as well).
-
hooberus
Let's see what other games you are playing.
In http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx you claim;The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data.
I'd read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html if I were you.
I had read the Talk Origins arcticle. Its primary "explanation" that: "the 14 C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks . . . " was in fact what your above quoted comments of mine were responding to. (for more details see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810319/edit.ashx).You state "I believe [the paper was] also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.".
Having a creationist paper reviewed by creationists is like having a nazi revisonist history of the Holocaust reviewed by nazi revisonists. It means nothing.
Your charges against creationist peer review were responded to here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/104540/1.ashx
Moving on:I could go on about how, once again, despite clear proof there were flourishing civilisations (and trees) at the Biblically specified period for the Flood which were unaffeceted by it and which left builidings hundreds of years older than the date of the Flood standing (as well as trees), you pretend the Flood is even possible.
A paper responding to you dendrochronology (bristlecone tree) claims can be found earlier in the above (linked to) thread.
And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding that specific arctcile was already documented here: (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307).
As to the accusation that the arctcile is "incompetent" because it uses the "assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the flood is not proven" it should also be noted that that geological uniformitarianism (an assumption of secular carbon dating) is "not proven" either, yet evolutionists still use it. Finally, I hope to discontinue all further discussions with you regarding your accusations against myself and the sources I use as several more than sufficient responses have been given and I see no need to take any more time. -
moshe
I said: All people argue about is creation- why not the destructive process of extinction? If you believe that the creation of life and the evolving process are directed by a Creator, then is not G-d also responsible for the the natural events that have caused 95% of all prior living creatures to go extinct? You can't have one without the other.
I am still waiting for an intelligent design advocate to explain, if G-d is responsible for the extinction events which opened the way for new species to populate the Earth.
If G-d is responsible, then why go to all the trouble to design intermediate species, just to clear the slate and start over-again and again? Doesn't G-d know what he wants? It would be logical to assume then, that present Man is just another intermediate species-soon to be replaced by a different model as soon as the next extinction event has occurred- with the help of G-d,right?
If the answer is, No " He is not resonsible for the extinction events- it's all random chance" , then wouldn't that take G-d out of the design loop?
If G-d does not intervene to stop natural destructive events like, volcanism, ice ages, asteroid/comet impacts, super nova gamma ray bombardments, solar flares-, magnetic field reversals,climate change, plate movemenst, etc- all of which destroy life- then I believe it's not likely He influences the final results of a planet's life forms.
Based on past history ,couldn't mankind be just another intermediate species?
Yes or no-
peace,
Moshe
-
hooberus
I said: All people argue about is creation- why not the destructive process of extinction? If you believe that the creation of life and the evolving process are directed by a Creator, then is not G-d also responsible for the the natural events that have caused 95% of all prior living creatures to go extinct? You can't have one without the other.
I am still waiting for an intelligent design advocate to explain, if G-d is responsible for the extinction events which opened the way for new species to populate the Earth.
-
hooberus
And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
In response to the above previously I wrote: "Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding that specific arctcile was already documented here: (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307)." I was unable to edit- it should instead be be: Firstly, one of your previous false accusations of "incompetence" against creationists regarding a similar AIG arcticle discussing carbon dating (which also referenced the more detailed carbon dating arcticle) was already documented here:(http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810307/post.ashx#1810307).