The shifting sands of creationist thought

[Black5]

Dave claims to have a number of people on ignore. Well probably not because his ego requires that he read everything anyone types about him. However he is using "ignore" as another way to avoid answering those tough questions non-YEC's tend to ask.

It is time to change tactics in dealing with Dave. I think we should band together and pledge only to respond to Dave as follows until he decides to participate in discussions as an adult.

As a group our daily response should be something along the lines of:

• The first (and only substantiative) response to him is in the form of a question Dave needs to answer (to validate a claim) or a criticism of a dishonest or otherwise weaselly tactic he used. It can be a competition among us to see who can be the first.
• All other responses to him that day should just re-iterate the daily question or criticism (with a link to quicken the process).
• Additionally, if someone else (a new participant) responds Dave we could inform them of our group effort and ask them to join.

I understand/appreciate the need and value of countering his comments with respect to the fence sitters and lurkers who may be watching the discussion. However, as far as I know, the afdave discussion has been going on for two years on five or more forums. That is more then enough evidence for the lurkers. We have another problem. We have an individual who refuses to participate in a fair, honest manner and yet continues to spew illogical garbage. We need to solve that problem.

I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Benjamin Franklin

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, don't forget to provide that paper that shows your claimed pre-Flood C14 ratio to be experimentally verified. Thanks

[Dave Hawkins]

No, Ninewands, I don't have you on ignore, but there is so much error displayed in the last few posts by so many people that it's not worth my effort to respond to each one.

Geez, Dave. Plenty of people go to a great deal of effort to point out your errors, would you not return the favour and point out one or two of ours?

Happy to. And I do in your case. But this thread seems to be kind of pointless now. Why not hop over to the other thread and analyze this post of mine ... More Study of Contemporary Lacustrine Processes Needed?

Expend some of that great effort of yours on reading and comprehending my post, then post a thoughtful rebuttal ... or admit that you must agree. FYI -- I like it better if you respond the way Lasting Damage does -- largely with his own composed analysis. The line by line rebuttals give me a headache.

[Black5]

Occam, thanks for pointing out todays afdave dishonest statement. If he ever provides a valid reference I'll have to change my blog but then I doubt he will ever come through.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I like it better if you respond the way Lasting Damage does -- largely with his own composed analysis. The line by line rebuttals give me a headache.

I imagine they do Dave - having someone examine the details of your bullshit, and point out the glaring problems with each separate line must give you fits.

I'm sure you'd prefer people didn't cross-check your claims and point out the lies and dishonesty, but that's not the way this board works Davie-doo.

Too bad for you!

[Febble]

FYI -- I like it better if you respond the way Lasting Damage does -- largely with his own composed analysis. The line by line rebuttals give me a headache.

I'm sure they do, Dave.

OK, I have composed a response to you here.

[SophistiCat]

Thought this slight paraphrase would be appropriate for this thread:

Creationist Science: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it... to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the words 'creationist science' involved the use of creationist science."

[Occam's Aftershave]

Thought this slight paraphrase would be appropriate for this thread:

Creationist Science: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it... to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the words 'creationist science' involved the use of creationist science."

Give that cat a rep! :p

[Susannah]

Geez, Dave. Plenty of people go to a great deal of effort to point out your errors, would you not return the favour and point out one or two of ours?

So, Dave says:

Happy to. And I do in your case. But this thread seems to be kind of pointless now. Why not hop over to the other thread and analyze this post of mine

Giving himself the lie in the space of 4 short sentences. Where in "hop over" somewhere else and "analyze this post of mine" is there any hint of the pointing out of other people's errors that he is so "happy to" do?

[clivedurdle]

It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

Where to start!

We have a very clear picture of increasing complexity with time - like super novae creating new elements.

We have natural nuclear power stations.

There is a fascinating argument that regular tidal washing of uranium in sand particles for millions of years allowed conditions for life

Did life begin on a radioactive beach?

* 12 January 2008
* Lewis Dartnell
* Magazine issue 2638

DID life on Earth begin on a radioactive beach? That's the claim of one astrobiologist, who says that life's ingredients could have emerged from the radioactive sand grains of a primordial beach laced with heavy metals and pounded by powerful tides.

Any origin of life theory needs to explain how the building blocks of cells - such as amino acids and sugars - assembled into complex molecules, and how certain elements came to be incorporated. Though radiation might seem an unlikely source to kick-start such processes because it breaks chemical bonds and shatters large molecules, including DNA, it can provide the chemical energy needed to produce life's building blocks.

Natural "nuclear reactors" were active in the past, such as the uranium ore seam in Oklo, Gabon, which regulated the fission of uranium in a similar way to nuclear-powered submarines (New Scientist, 6 November 2004, p 12). However, conditions at ...
The complete article is 612 words long.

To continue reading this article, subscribe to New Scientist.
Get 4 issues of New Scientist magazine and instant access to all online content for only GBP £2.95

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ive-beach.html

Dave you are thinking in a very on off yes no fashion.

We probably have all the pieces of the jigsaw required to understand the emergence of life but have not yet put them together properly - large parts of the jigsaw are complete.

You cannot conclude just because the jigsaw is not complete that we are completely wrong and cannot see any patterns.

What is that attitude about?