Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Let the gloat-fest BEGIN!

Expand Messages
  • DBWILLIS@aol.com
    I ve repeatedly asked that Todd produce a quote of mine (NOT his false revisions of my words) which supports his accusation that I have misrepresented any
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've repeatedly asked that Todd produce a quote of mine (NOT his false
      "revisions" of my words) which supports his accusation that I have misrepresented
      any AE (specifically Clarke, Tobias, or Tuttle) regarding the Laetoli tracks.
      He won't because he can't. And he wants to ignore my demand for an
      apology. He seems now very interested in moving to a new topic when the prior one
      is still left dangling in the wind. The best he could say finally was that he
      believes H. habilis made the Laetoli tracks, although the date for habilis
      is FAR too young, and the size of habilis is WAY too short, and the foot shape
      is WAY off. Even Tuttle, who surely is very familiar with the habilines
      would not assert that. He said it had to be "Hominidae genus et species
      indeterminata". That means he said it was something UNKNOWN (not H. habilis OR any
      of the australopithecines) which made them. If some AE were to concede that
      it was a Homo erectus (or rudolfensis, heidelburgensis, ergaster, etc.) which
      made them, that dating is ALSO way off. And besides, erectus is likely
      human, and so are the other Homo types Todd mentioned. So Todd has been
      irresponsible in dealing honestly with what the Laetoli evidence implies, AND he was
      shown many times to be a liar about me personally with his claim that I have
      falsely reported what AE ev's have said about the tracks.

      I won't begin a new major topic here (such as a discussion of features in
      the GC) while that previous one is not resolved. Todd's wishful CLAIM that it
      is resolved consistent with AE is not sufficient. Even if he won't denounce
      AE he must at least concede the validity of the strong (or at least
      "considerable") evidence against AE which the Laetoli tracks represent, given our
      present knowledge of all the hominid candidates. Or even if Todd won't, if
      someone ELSE on this list did acknowledge that truth, perhaps I would continue
      here. But no one does. If some other evidence can be shown later of a hominid
      the right size and "date" and foot structure which COULD have made the L
      tracks and which is NOT what could be considered a human then certainly the
      evidence from Laetoli could then be taken out of the YE column. But that has to
      wait since the fossil evidence needed to do that is not there. So TG (or
      another AE) must concede at least that a valid argument disfavoring the AE view
      of human evolution has been made, or I won't move on to other topics. AND I
      demand a clear apology which is unequivocal for Todd lying to say I
      misrepresented ANYTHING that the AE's said about those tracks.

      I also won't abide the general harsh and hypocritical ugliness toward all
      YE's here, including the recent tirade from Cassondra. She is a coward (yeah,
      that's harsh too, so sue me), since apparently she DOES see the truth that a
      non-deceiving God COULD create a world which has at least some types of
      apparent age. For reasonable people, that admission would suggest that we examine
      further what may or may not be reasonable to expect such an instantly
      created world to look like. But NO...she doesn't want that and doesn't expect that
      of the AEs here. Instead she will sit silently by saving all her bile and
      venom for the YEs who dares to speak here and let the AEs mock YEs for
      asserting the concept of apparent age altogether. I may check this list once in a
      while to see if she EVER will speak up to oppose anything an AE says here.
      Maybe she has in the past...I haven't read past posts here. But she should
      have spoken up to oppose AEs when this apparent age topic appeared, if she had
      any willingness to challenge AE ideas. She apparently is afraid to say a peep
      in opposition since she knows that the AE thought gestapo here will stomp on
      her if she does. I had temporarily set aside my intent to leave when she
      made her admission, and was willing to follow that idea some with her and
      others here, but she is way too snotty for me. She fits in with the group though.

      I had another post written in reply on the GC stuff, but had set it aside to
      send later, wondering if it was worth going further down that road. Then my
      AOL program crashed and I lost about an hour of work in that post, so that
      settled for me whether to post it or not.

      So you all have a great time boasting about how successful you were in
      dispatching a stupid YE and how impervious the AE view is to all challenges. I am
      satisfied that if there were any readers here who were open-minded to an
      alternative to the AE view, I would have heard something from one of them.
      There aren't, so I am done with my effort here. Let the gloat-fest BEGIN!

      David Willis dbwillis at america online


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      ... I ll leave the details to Todd to deal with on that. I like DBWillis principle though. It makes him ever more the hypocrite in that he (DBWillis) is the
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        DBWillis begins his latest effort with:

        > I (DBWillis) have repeatedly
        > asked that Todd...regarding
        > the Laetoli tracks.

        > He won't because he can't...

        I'll leave the details to Todd to deal with on that.

        I like DBWillis' principle though. It makes him ever more the hypocrite in that he (DBWillis) is the one I have repeatedly asked to back up his claim to be able to defeat my "Goliath of GRAS" on the basis of some allegedly flawed premise and/or admit his claim was false, explain how he made it and correct it.

        That thread still awaits DBWillis to do what he knows is his responsibility to do.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Baty
        ... Well, in the case of DBWillis, he hasn t been able to finally say anything on the matter. He s simply run off from his responsibilities. DBWillis wants to
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh yes, I failed to note also that DBWillis wrote of Todd:

          > (H)e (Todd) wants to ignore my
          > (DBWillis') demand for an
          > apology.

          > He (Todd) seems now very
          > interested in moving to a
          > new topic when the prior
          > one is still left dangling in
          > the wind.

          > The best he (Todd) could say
          > finally was that...

          Well, in the case of DBWillis, he hasn't been able to finally say anything on the matter. He's simply run off from his responsibilities.

          DBWillis wants to ignore my request that he establish the basis for his claim, admit he cannot, and/or admit it was false and explain how it came to be made and correct it.

          DBWillis wants to keep changing the subject and move on while his claim about my "Goliath of GRAS" is left without DBWillis meeting his responsibilities regarding his claim.

          Again we see quite clearly that DBWillis is guilty of that which he proposes to accuse other of.

          He was especially harsh on Cassondra, who he accused of being a coward.

          DBWillis, when it comes to cowardice, "though art the man"!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • w_w_c_l
          ... I, personally, would be willing to concede (HYPOTHETICALLY) that the Laetoli tracks were indeed made by what apparently were modern humans. After all,
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote (in part):


            > I won't begin a new major topic here
            > (such as a discussion of features in
            > the GC) while that previous one is not
            > resolved. Todd's wishful CLAIM that
            > it is resolved consistent with AE is
            > not sufficient. Even if he won't
            > denounce AE he must at least concede
            > the validity of the strong (or at
            > least "considerable") evidence against
            > AE which the Laetoli tracks represent,
            > given our present knowledge of all the
            > hominid candidates. Or even if Todd
            > won't, if someone ELSE on this list did
            > acknowledge that truth, perhaps I would
            > continue here.

            I, personally, would be willing to concede
            (HYPOTHETICALLY) that the Laetoli tracks
            were indeed made by what "apparently" were
            modern humans. After all, who knows?

            Could be those biased, "stupid ev's" were
            getting down to the end of the funding, and
            desperately needed to come up with something
            to get more grant money. Maybe they just
            went out there and spread a layer of ash,
            gently wet it, sent a couple of barefoot
            natives across it and let it harden in the
            sun.

            The whole layer may be no more than thirty-
            some years old.

            Let's pretend that these footprints were
            just found -- that they had never been
            dated, that no biased so-called experts
            had ever published the first paper on them.

            How does DB Willis propose we proceed with
            the investigation of this phenomenon?

            Rick Hartzog
            Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
          • Todd S. Greene
            Hi David. Yes, I do always gloat about young earth creationists trying to prop up fallacies, and running away from the facts, and then using their dust trail
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi David.

              Yes, I do always gloat about young earth creationists trying to prop
              up fallacies, and running away from the facts, and then using their
              dust trail to try to hide their escape. Thanks for noticing!

              One thing I want to mention, which I've already mentioned, is that I
              do congratulate you for coming out from one of those young earth
              creationist hidey-hold and at least making an "apparent attempt" to
              deal with critics of young earth creationism.

              (Too bad your one attempt to destroy the entire field of geological
              science, with those fantasies about the Grand Canyon, was a terrible
              disaster for the YEC cause. But make no mistake about this - I
              seriously do appreciate you providing yet another demonstration of
              the fact that when it comes to things like geological science, you
              young earth creationists don't even have a clue what you're talking
              about. I owe you a dinner, so if you're ever up my way [south of
              Lansing] - and, no, I'm not joking about this - feel free to stop by
              and hit me up, we'll head on out to the Eaton Place or go on down the
              road to the Coachlight Inn. Hey, the weather's starting to get
              colder, I'll even wear my famous hat!)

              --------------------------------

              As some kind of argument against the evolution of humans, your
              Laetoli argument is worthless. It is built on top of misrepresenting
              what paleoanthropologists are talking about, by ignoring the context
              of their discussions, and by exploiting the confusion of equivocal
              language and paleoanthropological controversy.

              We saw that in the CONTEXT of their discussions and arguments, the
              language paleoanthropologists are using about the prints being "like
              modern humans" is in reference to such features as bipedality and the
              convergence of the hallux having been farther along around 3-1/2
              million years ago than what they had previously thought. As we saw
              from what THEY are actually talking about, this has NOTHING to do
              with actually modern humans but is in reference either to certain
              species of Australopithecines (most paleoanthropologists, including
              Tobias, Clarke, and White), or to a postulated as-yet-undiscovered
              species from that time more like Homo habilis (a few
              paleoanthropologists argue for this position, such as Tuttle).
              Contrary to your misrepresentation of me, I never stated anything
              differently from what I have just summarized in the preceding two
              sentences. Contrary to your misrepresentation of yourself, you have
              indeed worked very hard to misrepresent those guys and pretend they
              weren't saying what they were actually saying in the context in which
              they said it. (Of course, we have observed that misrepresentations
              like this are exactly what we can expect from you, and my own
              experience over the years has shown me that this misrepresentative
              manner we have observed is typical of young earth creationist
              advocates in general.)

              Additionally, in a previous I did indeed explicitly thank you for
              openly acknowledging that Tuttle was specifically referring to a
              postulated precursor species of Homo habilis. I said that's what I'd
              do if you were to explicitly acknowledge that, and I did. When you
              explicitly acknowledged what Tuttle himself said he was talking
              about, you were cappitulating your entire argument. The fact of the
              matter is that their context that you finally acknowledged explicitly
              is that ALL of the paleoanthropologists are themselves talking about
              the bipedality and footprints of either an Australopithecine species
              or a Homo habilis-like species being "like modern humans" PRECISELY
              BECAUSE THEY ARE REFERRING TO THOSE CHARACTERISTICS HAVING DEVELOPED
              EARLIER IN OUR EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTRY THAN PREVIOUSLY EXPECTED.
              Whether you understand this point or not, you acknowledged it by
              acknowledging what Tuttle said he was talking about. The additional
              fact that there were already a number of ancestral species (or close-
              cousin branches) that possessed bipedality and footprints "like
              modern humans" between then (3-1/2 million years ago) and now also
              demonstrated that your Laetoli footprint argument is nothing more
              than an equivocation fallacy.

              --------------------------------

              In regard to your shrew proteins topic, we saw that it was nothing
              more the same conceptual fallacy that creationists, including young
              earth creationist, have about evolution because they fail to
              understand the concept of lineage through time. This fallacy has
              manifested itself in a number of related creationist arguments over
              the past couple of decades. You fail to understand what evolutionary
              lineage means, and so you can't understand what lineage implies in
              terms of phylogenetics. The creationist notion that an elephant shrew
              having a closer pattern of biomolecular similarities to an elephant
              compared to, say, a squirrel, necessarily represents some kind of
              critical problem for evolution, does nothing more than *demonstrate*
              the failure of creationists to comprehend the actual science, JUST
              LIKE with the previous fallacy about there being a problem for
              evolution with closer kinship between chickens and crocodiles than
              between chickens and snakes. You guys just don't get it, so you can't
              even begin to deal with what you don't understand.

              --------------------------------

              In regard to the geology of the Grand Canyon, we have seen that you
              don't even know what the geology is, and then on top of this
              ignorance of the actual geology you use a bunch of false rhetoric
              based on horribly wrong notions about that geology. What's scary
              about your remarks showing such a horrible ignorance of the geology
              is the fact that I happen to know from experience that YOUR COMMENTS
              ARE TYPICAL OF YOUNG EARTH CREAITONIST ADVOCATES IN GENERAL. If I had
              my way, Earth Science would be a requirement in public high school,
              but as far as I know the way things stand now in most states there is
              only one year of science required in most high schools and most kids
              just take a "Basic Science" course. (This lack of educational
              expectations is one reason our country is falling behind so many
              other countries.) YOU, David, need to either take a course in
              Historical Geology at your local community college, and pass that
              sucker with a good grade, or stop holding forth on this subject that
              you very obviously know nothing about. Here's a little cheaper way,
              but if you go this route then you have to have the personal
              wherewithal to ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK - Get this book:

              Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd Ed.
              by Stanley S. Beus and Michael Morales
              (Oxford University Press; 2002; 448 pages)
              http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195122984

              Though tangential to the geology of the Grand Canyon, the following
              book is an excellent one on the early history of the development of
              geological science in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, and how churchmen
              either dealt with what was being learned about geology, or failed to
              deal with it, written by a geologist who is a Christian and who has
              taught at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan for the last
              several years:

              The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to
              Extrabiblical Evidence
              by Davis A. Young
              (Eerdmans Pub Co; 1995; 327 pages)
              http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802807194

              --------------------------------

              In regard to your apparent age argument, well... it isn't even
              science. IN PRINCIPLE it isn't even science. Young earth creationists
              like you love to bring up this idea as some kind of a super fall-back
              position, but when it comes to producing hot, sexy women, or any
              women, or any men either, to show their lack of belly-buttons, you
              have NOTHING. No peculiar giant Sequoias without tree rings. You have
              ZERO empirical data to support your notion of ANYTHING possessing
              certain peculiarities (physical characteristics) that show they are
              not what they appear to be in terms of being around much longer than
              6,000 (or 10,000, or 15,000, or 25,000 [I'm feeling generous]) years.
              We who take science seriously take the trilobite fossils seriously.
              We take the ancient geologic strata of ancient oceans that no longer
              exist seriously (including such near shore strata as the Tapeats
              Sandstone and Bright Angel Shale we see at the Grand Canyon!). We
              take the volcanic necks seriously. They're real, not fake. We take
              the ancient impact crater remains seriously. They're real, not fake.
              The Earth really was hit by some kind of asteroid or comet that
              really existed. That star in the Large Magellanic Cloud really did
              exploded around 168,000 years ago, it's not just some omnipotently
              deceitful cosmic illusion.

              Note also that the consistent apparent age argument actually CONCEDES
              that scientists are right about the empirical data, but apparent age
              advocates (who go all the way to the epistemological solipsism of its
              logical conclusion) just say that "God made everything look that
              way." And with a God who can create the entire Universe yesterday,
              with us mere people having just fake memories that everything existed
              before yesterday (and all of the consistent fake empirical data, down
              to the last micro-detail to prove it!), empirical data is utterly
              meaningless anyway. Of course, David, you admitted that you agreed
              with me that such a position that totally ignores the empirical data
              like that is absurd, AND THAT MADE YOUR APPARENT AGE ARGUMENT A MOOT
              POINT TO DISCUSSION OF THE EMPIRICAL DATA.

              --------------------------------

              Finally, in regard to the logic of what some call the GRAS argument
              (and, frankly, I couldn't care less if you deal the logic in some
              particular manifestation called GRAS or not; the point, after all, is
              the logic of the relevant concepts themselves, and that is what
              should be dealt with, regardless of the particular form of wording),
              we saw (in post #8172) that you deny the GRAS argument, because you
              think that if we take geological science seriously then it could be
              that it is not the YEC interpretation that is wrong but it is the
              Bible itself that is wrong. (Robert, take note.)

              - Todd Greene

              Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
              http://creationism.outersystem.us/
            • Robert Baty
              ... DBWillis has yet to establish that truth ! It appears to be another clear demonstration of that which DBWIllis and his fellow YEC promoters are notorious
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Rick, you quote DBWillis as proposing:

                > (I)f he (Todd) won't denounce AE
                > he must at least concede
                > the validity of the strong
                > (or at least "considerable")
                > evidence against AE which
                > the Laetoli tracks represent,
                > given our present knowledge
                > of all the hominid candidates.

                > Or even if Todd won't, if
                > someone ELSE on this list did
                > acknowledge that truth, perhaps
                > I would continue here.

                DBWillis has yet to establish "that truth"!

                It appears to be another clear demonstration of that which DBWIllis and his fellow YEC promoters are notorious for doing.

                That is, making the fallacious argument from ignorance. Ignorance is not strong or considerable evidence against the notion that some things really are more than a few thousand years old.

                DBWillis' proposal reminds me of his fellow YEC promoter Kent Hovind. If someone would just send Kent the evidence for evolution, he would send them $250,000.00 by return mail!

                Rick, you also propose the following hypothetical:

                > Let's pretend that these footprints
                > were just found -- that they had
                > never been dated, that no biased
                > so-called experts had ever published
                > the first paper on them.

                > How does DB Willis propose we
                > proceed with the investigation
                > of this phenomenon?

                What phenomenon, Rick?

                What need to proceed, Rick?

                DBWIllis pronounces them as having been made by modern humans no more than a few thousand years ago, because that is what his 8 year old thinks they look like, DBWIllis followers believe it, and that settles it.

                Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but with folks like DBWillis around, who needs to investigate? Just ask DBWillis!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Robert Baty
                Todd, I appreciate your summary. ... I have taken note! :o) Given DBWillis tendency to equivocation and dodging and all of that, I m really not so sure that
                Message 7 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Todd,

                  I appreciate your summary.

                  You completed your summary with reference to my "Goliath", writing, in part:

                  > (W)e saw (in post #8172) that
                  > you (DBWillis) deny the GRAS
                  > argument, because you think
                  > that if we take geological science
                  > seriously then it could be
                  > that it is not the YEC interpretation
                  > that is wrong but it is the
                  > Bible itself that is wrong.

                  > (Robert, take note.)

                  I have taken note! :o)

                  Given DBWillis' tendency to equivocation and dodging and all of that, I'm really not so sure that is his position, though it may "appear" to be.

                  In any case, as I have explained on other occasions, it is understood that, for some, there is an option that the "Word of God" is wrong.

                  I doubt that "the Word of God is wrong" is really an option for DBWillis.

                  In any case, the premise of the "Goliath of GRAS" has to do with dealing specifically with the "young-earth, creation-science" movement and its fundamental "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" claim.

                  For them, it is not an option for the "Word of God" to be wrong. That the "Word of God" is not wrong is an undisputed "given" for purposes of dealing with the "Goliath of GRAS".

                  If the Bible is wrong (i.e., not the "Word of God"), then that is a fundamental issue that is not subject to consideration in the "Goliath of GRAS", and one which the "young-earth, creation-science" promoters typically do not entertain.

                  So, one of the unstated premises of my "Goliath" is that whatever "Word of God" that is put forth to support the claim that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" is deemed to be such that it cannot be wrong in what it "really" claims.

                  Given that premise, which is deemed to represent the "young-earth, creation-science" position, the the only other possible result from finding out that some things really are more than a few thousand years old is that the interpretation was wrong.

                  DBWillis had his chances to help me improve my "Goliath" for its intended purpose. All he could do was throw up his nerf-ball and then run off the court!

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty

                  P.S. I suppose that, if it is the case that the Bible really does claim that nothing is more than a few thousand years old and is wrong, then my "Goliath of GRAS" will no longer be needed. As with the doubt about those footprints, as long as there are a couple of options, my "Goliath" is going to be the one to beat as to one of them! "Goliath" can't do it all, but it can do its part, and I think it does that rather well.

                  ------------------------------------



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.