it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
hooberus, the Wiki points out that the salary of executives is NOT included in the star rating system, thus Ken Ham paying himself TWICE the rate of a non-profit CEO CANNOT reduce the star rating AiG receives.
You knew this, it was in the article, yet you don't mention it in defending AiG. This is deceptive, but play in the mud (AiG) and you get dirty I suppose...
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;
(I replace hooberus's selection of pages or posts within a thread with the first page of the thread. I am sure he would not want to create a false impression of whether something had been successfully rebutted by directing people to parts of the thread that might give this impression when the entire thread is far more illuminating in this regard.)
I can't believe you consider THAT a rebuttal, especially as you bailed on the thread (again). A successful rebuttal is not just replying. A successful rebuttal is showing you are right, which you signally do not do.
You even conceded on that thread that there should have been links from the articles I attacked to the correspondence. AiG, in two separate articles, makes much of what it claims is a sample containing wood. They make no mention what-so-ever in these articles that the identity of the material in the sample is disputed by the very people who analysed it for them; they use part of the analysis but don't mention the part of the analysis that would rubbish the claims they want to make. This is unprofessional, deceptive (even if unintentional) and typical of that website.
Now this is a hysterical; a petulant whine about how the evil evolutionary establishment silence the clear truth of the ID/Creationist hero. I urge anyone who gives a damn to read this thread as its a delightful illustration of how Creationists would expect plumbers to competently transplant body organs. It also shows the tactics used, either out of cynical intentional deceit or sheer incompetence, by Creationists and ID-ots in defending their beliefs. And YOU think it's a successful rebuttal? Let the reader use discernment and decide exactly how reliable the judgement of someone who would reach that conclusion might be.
Another instance where your self-deception reaches effulgent heights. People may read the thread, or hooberus's post and my reply to it. Either will clearly show that no successful rebuttal is made and anyone who made this claim was either gambling on no one actually reading the link he'd provided, or a sandwich short of a picnic.
Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG. Take for example your accusations regarding radiocarbon dating (on the thread located at:
Your C14 comments beginning with: "Sadly this behaviour continues; . . ." and finishing with: "This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating" regarded the following in the below AiG arcticle:
Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.
As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
- They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".
- The entire article also seems to think that C14 is ONLY produced in the atmosphere (wrong).
- And, as usual, you ignore the fact the Flood DIDN'T happen.
Trotting up and down asking for people to complement you on your trousers when you have none... it's funny.
I have shown that there is ample, reliable biological, radiological, and archaeological evidence indicating a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Flood account are by definition wrong, as trees were growing and Pyramids basking in the Egyptian sun before, during and after the supposed dates of the Flood. There's scads of more 'didn't happen' evidence too, and NO evidence that it DID happen.
Despite having failed to refute this evidence (if you spent as much time trying to refute it as blaming me for you not refuting it you could have a half-decent attempt at refuting it, but no, it's my fault you can't refute it obviously, god's truth has to hide because you're thin skinned apparently), you carry on IGNORING it and making claims BASED ON IT HAPPENING.
This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.
And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.
Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;
Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:
.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?
You are claiming you have succesfully defended AiG when you have not done so in any credible fashion. Why do you persist in the use of such a disreputable site? It's like using www.stormfront.com/nazi/bastard.htm to research the Holocaust. Where the hell are your standards, or is the appearance of being right more important?
I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).
What are the most credible theories regarding abiogenesis right now hooberus? What? Don't you know?
So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?
- People say the toothfairy leaves money under pillow in exchange for teeth. People find money under pillows.
- People say god made the world. They look out the window and see the world.
- Number of times such entities have been observed (not inferred) in a scientifically acceptable fashion = 0
- Likelihood of intelligent design or altruistic dental entities is therefore 0.
No hooberus, it is for you to prove the toothfairy exists. I can't believe you're trying to get us to prove something doesn't exist when you know that one cannot prove something doesn't exist.
Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
All the data does NOT point to an intelligent designer. If it did, as it would be DATA, i.e. EVIDENCE, then an intelligent designer WOULD be naturalistic, as naturalistic events are evidential in nature. But half your belief system is built on bad quotes, so why be surprised?
I used to believe all the poppycock that ID-ers and Creationists believe in. I then examined the evidence properly. This is why I know all your little counter arguments; they are the ones I used to use, in many many cases. I Lent enough and was open minded enough to accept what rubbish they were to someone who didn't start with the assumption there was a god (which I did start with). Of course, you will no doubt ad hom the reasons for me making this discovery, rather than engaging in a debate on the evidence, as the evidence doesn't matter to you.
Whatever a reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests, you would insist it happened just like the goatherd said it did.
And time and time again you stoop to character assassination.
When a scientist effectively says;
'Science is based on evidence and method, claims of god do not provide evidence and fail to be validated under the scrutiny of scientific methodology, therefore using god as an explanation in science is invalid as god is unscientific'.
... you make out there is equivalency between that logical stance, and your presuppositions.
Because of where you were born and how your life turned out, you decided (without any clear reliable proof) that the Holy Book of your culture REALLY IS inspired (ignoring you'd have done the same to the Hindi holy writings if you were born in Bangalore, and have had the same inability to prove your belief) and right about everything.
This is not the same as a scientist saying 'real things have evidence, things that are not real do not have evidence, therefore god is unreal, at least in scientific considerations'.
Are you also saying you have never accused scientists of not believing in god because it relieves them of any responsibility to god?
And let us not forget;
a/ you have no evidence of creation
b/ you have no working theory of creation
c/ you have failed to rebut clear unambiguous and multiple strands of evidence showing that Genesis is not a accurate or literal book.
You sit there, blithely typing away with a Museum in your eyes moaning about crud in the corners of scientist's eyes, criticizing robust theories using discredited websites when you can't prove a damn thing yourself, making theories about post Flood speciation when you've been unable to prove the Flood could even have happened in the date range you believe it did.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, even a little boy can see you're naked for all your airs.
Funny, it is.