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

Re: Let the gloat-fest BEGIN!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.