Hooberus said:
:: ... [Hooberus] has demonstrated time and again his complete inability/unwillingness to deal with any subject not already canned in the AnswersInGenesis website. In this, he's no different from the stereotypical braindead Jehovah's Witness who can't/won't deal with anything not already canned in Watchtower literature.
: I disagree.
You can disagree all you want, but my point is demonstrable in general. It's demonstrable even in this reply of yours, where you display the slippery, treacherous wording so typical of Young-Earth Creationists, and don't respond to important points I made. I'll point out instances.
: I have used several websites here (both creationist and evolutionist),
Big deal. So you use canned material from other creationist websites as well. My point was not about the specific website -- this should be obvious to a third-grader -- but that you only post links to this canned material. You hardly ever deal with specifics of the creation/evolution debate using your own words.
Your answering a charge not made is an example of your slipperiness, as shown by your deliberate mistunderstanding of this simple point.
: as well as material from outside reference sources.
Which you normally only post links to as well. You rarely, if ever, discuss actual points made against YECism, but only post links -- which often don't even prove the point you supposedly want to make.
: I have read deatailed information from evolutionists as well as creationists.
So? It's obvious that you ignore a great deal of solid evidence for evolution.
:: Hooberus demonstrated this inability several times in this thread (by ignoring my comment;
: Here is your complete comment Alan: "Hooberus, Sarfati's article is just horrible. But I won't try to convince you; it's just pissing into the wind." I don't see how ignoring a comment such that above demonstrates "inability."
The point is once again simple, Hooberus. My comment was a dig at you to see if you'd rise to the challenge. You could easily have risen to the occasion and said, "Try me." You didn't, and proved my point.
: I did not feel that the comment deserved a response,
Translation: "I knew I couldn't answer, and so I told myself that it didn't deserve a response."
: nor did I desire to give you one due to time, the lack of information in the comment,
The comment itself was a challenge. See above.
: as well as your implication that discussion with me is the same as "pissing into the wind"
Well isn't it? What substantial discussions have you yourself -- not the links you post -- engaged in? What specific arguments given by folks like me, Abaddon, Hillary_Step, Rem and others have you attempted to refute by real, honest debate and in your own words? I know of none. Do enlighten me if I'm wrong by pointing to three posts that prove your claim.
:: by ignoring several arguments that various posters presented)
: Just because I don't engage every single point does not mean that I have an "inability" to do so.
Here again you use that typical slippery, YECcy language. You imply that you engage most points, when in reality you engage hardly any. Again, posting links is not engaging.
: The evolutionists here do not engage every single issue that I bring up.
Certainly not every one, but far more than you do. Besides, most of "your" points are contained in the links you post, which are often voluminous. And of course, as you've demonstrated in this thread with your replies to me and Abaddon with regard to our debunking some of Sartfati's claims, you don't even address the majority of the points we make against claims in those links. Why should we bother to do a lot of work when you ignore most of it?
:: and in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74477/1.ashx where he replied to a long-standing challenge from Hillary_Step with a wimpy "If I decide to take the time to go into your points on the other thread I will probably do it there, or you may wish to search in some of the mainline creationist organization websites." Which means he wasn't able to find an answer to the challenge (now or a long time ago when HS first posed it) on the AnswersInGenesis website, and therefore will almost certainly continue to put off giving an answer.
: The reason I gave for not taking the time to respond to Hillary's relatively recent post (01-Jul-04 00:21 - hardly "long standing").
It's a week old. That's pretty long standing in this forum.
: was simply due to time/
A very poor excuse. You find the time for much less substantial stuff, because all you have to do is post links to canned material. But you found the time to post to a lot of other stuff in the meantime.
: moving on to other threads.
Posh. That is merely what you did, not a reason for what you did. Of course, this contradicts your "time" excuse.
: Your claim that my reason for not responding was due to not being able to "find an answer to the challenge (now or a long time ago when HS first posed it) on the AnswersInGenesis website, and therefore will almost certainly continue to put off giving an answer." is simply a false accusation. I never even checked AIG or any other site on this issue.
Well, when you demonstrate a certain repetitive behavior, it's a pretty good bet that you're doing it again.
:: Hooberus posted a link to an article by one Jonathan Sarfati, http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp , where Sarfati purported to give a response to the article " ?15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense? by John Rennie (Editor), Scientific American. 287(1):78?85, July 2002; Feature article on Scientific American Web site, 17 June 2002." Sarfati's response is titled, "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American" Now, a "point by point response", we normally assume, will show why each of the points being responded to is wrong.
: A point by point response is simply that, a point by point response. There is no requirement that every point be disputed.
Yet again we see that slippery YECciness from you. Sarfati claimed to give a point by point response, for what? For "15 ways to REFUTE materialistic bigotry"! So it's not me, but Sarfati himself who is trying to convince his audience that he's refuting ALL 15 ITEMS on John Rennie's list.
You're not so stupid as to have missed this simple point when I specifically pointed it out, Hooberus. Thus, I can only conclude that you're not being honest.
:: However, Sarfati actually admits that some of Rennie's points are correct, but dismisses them in various ways. Here are the points from the "Table of contents" for the linked article that Sarfati implies he refutes:
:: ...
:: Unfortunately for Sarfati's implied claim of refutation, he actually concedes four of Scientific American's points by admitting that YECs should not argue against them:
:: ...
: Sarfati agreed with the issues that he felt were accurate
Only after in the title of his article he claimed to be refuting them. So he's just as dishonest as a lot of other prominent YEC writers.
: and disputed the others that he disagreed with.
You got that right.
: Why make an issue over agreeing with specifics that you believe are accurate?
Because Sarfati lied to his readers by implying in the title that he was about to refute ALL 15 POINTS that Rennie made, pretending to make a clean sweep of that nasty old evolutionist John Rennie.
: Normally it is considered a sign of honesty to admit when you agree with your opponets on an issue.
Yes, but it's dishonest to claim in one title sentence to refute ALL of one's opponents points, but then in the text of the article admit that it isn't true. Most YECs, who are the majority audience for Sarfati's nonsense, will only read the title, thinking that he's refuted every point that Rennie, in Scientific American made. In this, Sarfati acts exactly like Watchtower writers, who we all know are thoroughly dishonest.
: If someone were to write a complete point by point response to a WT society publication I would hope that where they specificallly felt that the Society was accurate on a particular point that they would so state.
You illustrate my point very well, Hooberus. Point by point refutations are not usually necessary. Most authors who take issue with some points in an article simply state that they're going to dispute the points of interest, and readers take it for granted that the author either has no issue with the untouched points, or isn't interested (for any number of reasons) in tackling them. But when an author specifically mentions that he's going to REFUTE every point, and doesn't, he's lying.
A more honest title for Sarfati's article would be "Ways to refute materialistic bigotry: a response to Scientific American". That doesn't give a false impression that the author is refuting every point.
: Even on some of the four points that Sarfati agreed that creationists should not argue with he provided clarification on issues.
Fine. But that doesn't lessen his dishonesty in choosing a misleading title.
: Perhaps the arcticle should have simply been titled "a point by point response" rather that use the terminology "15 ways . . .etc." since he did not refute all 15 points (though he discussed 15 points). However this hardly seems like an issue worth harping about.
It's very much worth pointing out, for reasons I've stated above. And this shows that you really do understand my point, despite your protestations. Yet another bit of YEC slipperiness.
All that said, Hooberus, at least here you've engaged in some real discussion. Perhaps there's hope for you.
AlanF
