Constant Mews

Dave, all you ever do is cut and paste from creationist sources; you have yet to make any actual argument on your own. Why worry about spelling, when you're incapable of either making your own argument or supporting someone else's?

There's a bloody great beam in your eye, Dave. If you weren't blind, you'd see it.

Constant Mews

Sure. Every single creationist article or source that you have quoted or cited has either been dishonest, incompetent, or just plain stupid.

Every single one. As BWE pointed out long ago - there are NO creationist scientists who are capable of producing a competent 'creationist' science article.

Your ignorance of science blinds you to this fact, I'm afraid.

Constant Mews

This is a good point: Dave is demonstrably hypocritical.

Dave Hawkins

No. I would like you to fully read and evaluate Loy and Gardner, then make your argument in your own words to demonstrate your understanding and agreement with them. This is one of the few things I appreciate Constant Mews for. His challenge to me to do this raised my awareness of this and I think it is an important skill. Some of my critics have been correct in their criticism of me in the past. I have C&Ped other's arguments in response to questions at times. And while I think this is OK to do so long as it is labeled as others' arguments, CM has convinced me that it can be more effective to use your own arguments in your own words. However, I feel that it is also not effective to use your own words ONLY. That is ... some posters just ramble on and on empty headedly about anything and everything and it is obvious that they are just spouting their opinions and have done no research or reading at all. Both techniques are less than effective IMO.

Constant Mews

And in fact he did demolish your arguments. Every single one of your arguments has been demolished multiple times. Nor does it matter whether the person in question demolishes it by pointing to existing research or not - what matters is that you have now accused yet another person of being dishonest and a fraud.

Dave, you have libeled the entire scientific community by claiming that they are engaged in fraud, a massive conspiracy, or are hopelessly stupid.

Back up this assertion or withdraw it, but libel is a serious criminal charge - as you should well know having committed it elsewhere.

Stephen T-B

I notice that afdave doesn't answer many of the questions he's asked, and I don't suppose he'll answer this, since it's probably a bit too difficulty for him, but I wonder if he can suggest how the story of Noah and the Flood got into the Bible.

Constant Mews

You are demanding that he do something that you have never once done yourself? This is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Then perhaps you ought to actually try it. You certainly don't do it now, and to demand that someone else do what you've made it quite clear that you're too lazy to do is, as I say, hypocritical. But intellectual integrity doesn't seem to be something you're displaying in your 'arguments'.How would you know? You've never been able to refute either kind of argument - direct citation or stream-of-consciousness. Both have defeated you completely, since you take refuge in abandoning any thread that becomes difficult for you to respond to and starting some meaningless accusatory thread elsewhere.

Constant Mews

It's a standard creationist problem: they only answer one question in twenty (at best) and only the ones that they can do so by cutting and pasting someone else's argument.

This is why Lake Suigetsu is such an excellent anti-stupid creationist 'science' argument. No creationist has ever been able to deal with it, so they are forced to resort to conspiracy theories that require every scientist in the world be guilty of fraud or stupidity.

That's libel, Dave. Care to back up your assertion with fact?

deadman_932

Allow me to repeat what I said earlier about sandstone layers in south Egypt that you claim were exposed by high-energy water flows, Dave:

So if you don't KNOW about the geology of the region, Dave, how can you claim that it was high-energy water flows similar to the Palouse event that stripped off the limestone covering the sandstone strata?

Or did you just pull that "answer" out of that hidey-hole where you keep so many of your claims?

shirley knott

Thank you Constant. You pre-echo'ed my response.
I'll go on record as specifically stating that AIG is dishonest through and through. [baboon dogs anyone?] Ken Ham is demonstrably dishonest. Walt Brown is, if not dishonest, clueless in the extreme and engaged in intentionally misleading others. NO YEC is honest, Dave. Not one. Not ever, except perhaps trivially -- honest the same way a stopped clock is accurate, that is, by accident.

<edit>

I could go on, but why bother? The evidence is there for everyone to see -- on After the Bar Closes, on Richard Dawkins net forum, and here.
You could begin to redeem yourself by addressing the questions you've left outstanding on 3 web-sites now. (I believe there's even a handy-dandy little list of topics you have avoided/failed to address.) And you continue by acknowleging what the fact of your inability to answer says about your arguments, your claims to knowlege, and your commitment to reason.
But you won't. I know this to the same degree of certainty that I know the sun will rise tomorrow.


And yes Dave, I know this little excursion is an attempt on your part to deflect attention away from your cowardly libel of Richard Leakey. It may even be an attempt to pre-empt the ever-so-deserved parallel thread "Dave Hawkins proven to be dishonest". It doesn't matter, you've sinned, you've committed egregious libel and slander, against the living and the dead, you've abandoned reason in favor of a pathetic bibliolatry. And you are strenuously avoiding acknowleging just how little reality is encapsulated in that sick sorry little delusion.
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott