ck1

There is also the possibility that other creationists (his pastor, Ken Ham) have convinced Dave that he is not doing the cause any good by engaging the likes of us in discussion and debate.

Amaleq13

Please focus your criticisms on the argument presented rather than the individual who offered it. IOW, follow the rules and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Thanks in advance,


Doug aka Amaleq13

Silent Dave

I don't believe any argument has been offered in this thread, has it?

Well, okay, there's biblethumping's argument that, while there does exist rational evidence for evolution and an old earth, it's because God is deliberately confusing us . . . actually, that's not even an argument either, is it? It's only a hypothesis, and an untestable one at that. But it's more than anything Dave has offered in this thread, so perhaps we could discuss how well the babel hypothesis fits into the framework of evangelistic Christianity.

Given the supreme importance assigned to salvation in such a framework, I vote for "not well at all."

Calilasseia

I'm tempted also to say in response, "what argument?"

CM presented a detailed step-by-step case for unravelling a young Earth, based upon solid science whose provenance has been established by decades of hard labour. Dave's responses did not address that case once in a substantive fashion. He did NOT address:

[1] Each individual dating metric is founded upon phenomena that can be observed and measured;

[2] Each individual dating metric is founded upon phenomena whose behaviour can be organised into a structured form;

[3] Several of the dating metrics can be tested against material of known historical age in order to ensure that the underlying theory is sound;

[4] The metrics cross-correlate with each other in a consilient fashion, which means that those metrics that have NOT been tested against material of known historical provenance directly are tested against material of known historical provenance indirectly when correlated with another metric that HAS thus been directly tested;

[5] The correlations of all extant metrics are in excellent agreement.

To suggest that [1] to [5] above is somehow indicative of conspiracy or skulduggery on the part of reputable scientists around the world - which is, in essence, Dave's basic "argument" - is not even worth a point of view. If there WAS some kind of 'conspiracy' afoot, and all of these metrics were fatally flawed, it would only take ONE lab to test them against material of known age, publish the results, and the whole edifice would come crashing down. Furthermore, organisations that rely upon these labs pay large sums of money for the work that they do - do you think ANY commercial organisation would pay that kind of money for fraudulent work if they suspected that fraud was afoot? NO! The ensuing lawsuits would be prime time television news material! It's not as if the likes of the multinational oil conglomerates are exactly bereft of funds with which to pay armies of lawyers to drag the labs through the courts if the labs are engaging in fraudulent practice. Likewise, any government that suspects serious fraud in this field has massive resources - ALL the resources of the state - to bring to bear upon any miscreants in this field. For Dave's argument to hold, we are required to believe that the co-conspirators include not only virtually every scientist on the planet, but the world's governments and major commercial enterprises as well. Do you think for one moment that Iran under Ahmadjinedad is going to enter willingly into a conspiracy with Bush's United States? This is such a ludicrous proposition as to be, as I said above, not worth a point of view.

On the contrary, if there is a conspiracy extant, one quarter from what that conspiracy emerges - and provably so - is Dave's own creationist heroes. They even published a document outlining their plans, which for UK television viewers must surely bring back memories of Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, those sinister unseen aliens who, at the start of each episode of that children's programme, told the people of Earth what they were going to do before they did it. Anyone who heads off to one of the retro satellite TV channels and tracks down this series will fall about with helpless laughter at the ineptness of this approach (but then it WAS intended to entertain a much more innocent generation of children), and I cannot help but, in moments of levity, think of Behe, Dembski et al as The Mysterons as a consequence.

Returning to Dave's "argument that wasn't", his assorted cut and pastes were, on occasions, entirely irrelevant to the point he was making. He chose to introduce the Nadeau paper, for example, in the middle of his dissertation on the alleged flaws in C¹⁴ dating of coal samples, when the Nadeau paper did not even cover coal as its subject matter, but marine foraminiferans. The only reason he introduced that paper was so that he could point to one small part of the conclusion of that paper (which applied to a highly specific problem) and claim from their admission of the need for further work on that highly technical aspect of their particular investigation, that these scientists were somehow "stumped as to how to rescue Deep Time", an egregious example of quantifier abuse coupled with a quote mine if ever I saw one. The fact that the paper was irrelevant to his argument about coal because it dealt with an entirely different material of entirely different origin passed him by, presumably because he had not read the paper in depth at all, merely skimmed it to look for minable quotes. Of course such an approach is a well-known and well-documented part of the aetiology of "professional" creationists - Russell Humphreys, the self-styled "creation physicist" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) was not content with skimming papers for quote mining purposes in his own turgid little dissertation (which can be seen deconstructed nicely at RDF) but went one step further even than the other "professional creationists" and engaged in egregious manipulation of another scientist's data to fit his preconceptions. It is interesting to note that the documentary record at RDF contains numerous instances of Dave regarding Humphreys as being beyond criticism (much, incidentally, as Humphreys himself does, but that's another story) despite the overwhelming evidence of Humphreys' skulduggery being presented in a public forum, presumably for no other reason than the notion in Dave's mind that Humphreys, as a creationist, is automatically one of the "white hats", so to speak, and is therefore inherently trustworthy. Humphreys also put in an appearance here in the IIDB formal debate, where Dave accused Henke of using a "bait and switch" argument to discredit Humphreys' work (strange how a creationist should have such intimate knowledge of this, is it not?). Contrast the willingness of Dave to point accusing fingers at reputable scientists and make wild, almost universally unsupported claims of fraud and malfeasance, with his almost fawningly uncritical devotion to figures such as Humphreys, whose proven malpractice is a matter of public record. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that some contributors here are tempted to be testy to put it mildly with Dave, given that his contributions, upon forensic dissection, contain not only a complete absence of understanding of basic science, but in many instances wilful ignorance of such, along with assorted well poisonings, proven instances of quote mines, and a partisan approach to the work of accredited scientists in comparison to that of creationists whose egregious blatantness must surely rank as chutzpah on an epic scale?

It seems that Dave has, in the light of the latest defeat, decided not to return here, at least publicly. Despite being given much leeway to promulgate his views, the crushing verdict of the poll indicates that the moderators were simply giving him sufficient rope with which to hang himself. It appears that he has taken the decision that he can make no further progress here, and for once, I cannot fault his judgement. Though in retrospect, in a sense we owe him a certain debt of gratitude for having been so willing, for so long, to present the creationist case and allow it to be subject to intensive forensic dissection, and in doing so allow the rest of us here to display that forensic dissection as an object lesson to anyone who in future passes this way intent upon the same fallacious proselytising. It is, of course, entirely possible that instead of merely retiring to lick his wounds, Dave too is aware that his campaign has, contrary to whatever initial overconfident notions he may once have held of sweeping aside the Atheist Conspiracy™ and being a standard bearer for Truth And Righteousness™, been an unmitigated disaster ranking alongside the French reliance of the Maginot Line in World War II, and has only served to enhance in the eyes of critically aware observers the truly unholy combination of vacuity and dishonesty that characterises the entire creationist enterprise. However, having won this particular battle, we cannot afford to rest, because doubtless there will be those in the creationist camp who will be learning from this episode too, and who will be regrouping to unleash a different strategem at some future time. The irony of creationists adjusting their approach in response to the selection pressures we have applied, in other words, evolving, is, needless to say, savoured deliciously for the moment. But that pause to savour the feast can be but brief. Others will follow. Some of them may prove to be somewhat more sophisticated in their mendacity, and we must remain watchful.

And with that, I think I have earned my milk and cookies for tonight.

mung bean

We will fight them on the beaches,
we will fight them in the pub.
We will kick 'em in the bollocks,
we will thump' em with a club!

Constant Mews

Another sidelight of the debate was the demonstration by Dave of the utterly ineffectual nature of creationist 'arguments'. Such 'arguments' are quickly and rapidly shredded; and have proved to be completely unconvincing.

Dave's attempts at argument are, therefore, meaningless. Petty and inconsequential, they are of little interest and no effect.

ck1

The problem is, CM, these arguments may be inconsequential on discussion boards like this, but in the US, at least, creationist arguments are convincing to a lot of people. People who vote. And people who sit on school boards. And if we can't reach people like Dave who are willing to engage in discussion, we can't reach those other people at all.

Occam's Aftershave

It's the old 'think globally, act locally' plan. If we can reach even one undecided lurker by showing up the stupidity of Dave's AIG nonsense, we did our good deed.

Faid

You know, I can't help wondering whether dave will show up on yet another forum, with his usual boasting and the same old refuted claims.

And, of course, claiming that the poll results on who won his debate here were "somewhat one-sided" (like he said here about the poll done for his other debate at RD.net).

ericmurphy

If he does, I don't think he'll tell any of us which one it is. But with Google, Dave can run, but he can't hide.