ninewands

Thanks JB,
I just checked this thread for the first time today and saw Dave listed as the last poster and was about to request mod action on it.

Occam's Aftershave

Tick tock, tick tock, the time is running on Dave's clock...

Interesting. Dave can't manage an answer to CM in the formal debate, but he has managed two posts in the peanut gallery and almost two dozen anti-science posts at RD.net. in the last three days. Hmmmm...

Betenoire

Gotta figure out just which of his screeds he's going to C&P. It's a tough one.

ericmurphy

Interesting that in Dave's first "formal" debate, with deadman_932 at the Dawkins site, his first post went up within twenty-four hours of deadman's first post. This time, Dave's going to take the entire five days. Maybe he's a bit more nervous this time, after the utter annihilation he suffered the last time.

BWE

Good luck Dave, you'll need it. I'll be rootin' for ya.

hecate

It will be interesting to see whether new arguments will be presented, especially in the light of; rule 8) Quoting of other sources will not be permitted. Only paraphrasing is allowed.

BWE

Oh dear. Here we go again.

What have we learned today class?

BWE

I'm confused about how these rules work:

Is the first quote an odd man out?

Does this:
not fall within the "scope"?

I understand that there needs to be wiggle room but this looks like a classic goalpost lateral transfer.

How does the line get drawn? Is that for the debaters?

Louis

For those who have seen Davey's schtick before at AtBC or RDF, just to save you some time here is Dave's 1st post redux:

Paragraph 1: Hi I'm a creationist, me. Lookie lookie mesa blog innit. I shall be your propagandist, self publicising, little attention whore until you cut me out like a tumour. (Nauseating)

Paragraph 2: The Chewbacca defence. "If the Herodotus isn't a total lying git then you must Genesis acquit". (Irrelevant)

Paragraph 3: No, really, the talking snake that just got away was THIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSS big! Honest. (Non sequitur)

Paragraph 4: Oh and FYI you're all biased god hating atheist motherfuckers. Your hatred of the supernatural makes baby Jesus sad. So when I get my heiny kicked across teh Intarwebz I can blame your evil Devil worshipping ways. Or something. (Paranoid non sequitur)

Paragraph 5: I know NOTHING about science, and because I am really very very ignorant of the data I a) know all you are ignorant of it like me because I'm great and you're crap therefore I'm better and b) it simply cannot be true. Yes folks, it's the argument from personal ignorance. Please get used to this, we'll be seeing it a lot. Oh yeah, and just sos yah knows, talking snakes = real. I said so, doesn't matter that they don't talk now, I say they did before. And because I don't believe in science and you don't believe in talking snakes, all our shit be the same, dawg. Snoogans. (Logically fallacious appeal to ignorance, personal ignorance and personal incredulity. False relativism)

Paragraph 6: AiG C and P! Oh wait I CAN'T C+P, I have to reword it? Heh? Oh man that's going to take a week of one finger typing. I shall now bring up masses of tiresome irrelevances and big sounding claims that I have had may arse handed to me on a silver platter across the net about. I will bring up the falsified Rate studies, plain old lies about radiometric dating assumptions that I know to be wrong, hell, if'n you're lucky I might even mention dust and asteroids. (Repetition of well refuted creationist claims that are contradicted by the evidence. See TO Index to CC for basic details)

Paragraphs 7 and 8: Theology? Whaddya mean some people who actually know what they are talking about don't believe as I do? Mo-ther-fucker! I'll tear 'em a new one! I ain't having no different god thoughts on my watch. I'm gonna cite me some archaeology. I don't need actual evidence! (Mostly special pleading)

Paragraph 9: Lot's of other people had similar legends, thus, it's all true! Yippee. The thought that lots of other people might have believed similar things that had no evidence will not be allowed! I shall special plead my way out of this because I have no actual evidence other than funny ideas about written things that border on the masturbatory. (Mostly special pleading)

Paragraph 10: In summary, you are all biased. I have stated I believe this shit, therefore you must all now believe this shit. End of. Ignore the fact that I have addressed none of the points raised by my opponent, nor provided anything resembling positive evidence for my assertions. I have merely tried to cast doubt and aspersions onto everyone and everything else.

Any questions?

Louis

ericmurphy

Okay, so now, Dave believes that for CM to demonstrate that the Genesis account is "demonstrably false," he needs to prove that every single statement in Genesis is wrong?

Hardly. All he needs to show as that one fundamental thing, i.e., that the sun is more than a week older than humankind, is true to show that Genesis is demonstrably false.

Things Dave Thinks Are Miracles That Are Not Miracles.

The origin of life from non-life is not a miracle. A miracle is something that defies physical law. Dave has shown no physical law that must be violated to allow the origin of life from non-life.

Dave thinks "miracle" is synonymous with "unexplained." By that definition, sunshine was "miraculous" until 75 years ago.

Unsupported Assertions from Dave

Dave claims that radiometric dating is based on "extremely questionable assumptions," but not only has not provided any assumptions that are questionable; he hasn't even shown any assumptions at all. He claims that if radiometric dating didn't work, "science would still progress," but what he forgets is that radiometric dating techniques are based on fundamental laws of quantum mechanics, and if those laws didn't work, nothing we think we know about physical reality would be true. We'd basically have to start all over again.

Dave Completely Misunderstands the Documentary Hypothesis

The DH has nothing to do with whether Jews were literate at the time Genesis was written. What it does have to do with is an analysis of the text which demonstrates that the Pentateuch was written by at least four, and possibly more, distinct authors. It has nothing to do with whether Moses was literate.

Dave Thinks That Since Some Things In Genesis Are True, Everything In Genesis Must Be True

Not exactly, Dave. Since it's known that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old, Genesis is demonstrably false. Until you can find some evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old (and so far, after over a year at AtBC and at RichardDawkins.net, you've come up with nothing), then CM wins.

What Dave Thinks He's Shown, But Hasn't Really Shown

Why? Because Dave's proven that supernatural things actually happen? Sorry, Dave, you've shown no such thing.
Haven't shown that either.
wrong again, Dave.
Many is not the same as all. Many of the place names and historical events in Gone With the Wind can be confirmed from other sources. That does not make Gone With the Wind factual.
Dave hasn't even begun to show that. He has presented exactly zero evidence that a single statement in Genesis is factual. I don't know who he thinks he's dealing with here, but any idiot can see he has not presented a single twig of evidence to support a single thing he's said.

And, just for the record,