Re: Let the gloat-fest BEGIN!
- DBWillis begins his latest effort with:
> I (DBWillis) have repeatedlyI'll leave the details to Todd to deal with on that.
> asked that Todd...regarding
> the Laetoli tracks.
> He won't because he can't...
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Oh yes, I failed to note also that DBWillis wrote of Todd:
> (H)e (Todd) wants to ignore myWell, 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') demand for an
> 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...
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"!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote (in part):
> I won't begin a new major topic hereI, personally, would be willing to concede
> (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.
(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
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?
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
- 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)
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
The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to
by Davis A. Young
(Eerdmans Pub Co; 1995; 327 pages)
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
- Rick, you quote DBWillis as proposing:
> (I)f he (Todd) won't denounce AEDBWillis has yet to establish "that truth"!
> 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.
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 footprintsWhat phenomenon, Rick?
> 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 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!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I appreciate your summary.
You completed your summary with reference to my "Goliath", writing, in part:
> (W)e saw (in post #8172) thatI have taken note! :o)
> 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.)
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!
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]