An attempt to deal with a creationist

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:11 pm

Yet more appalling behaviour by Heininger in the past 24 hours.

His evasive long-winded ramble. And my stiff reply just now.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... WUYPKDQ0BG

THE MAN IS A FRAUD.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:51 pm

http://www.amazon.com/review/RHBBAKCND3 ... 3ES3HOF58J
If you have a spare five minutes' you may wish to visit Heininger's review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?' and decide whether or not it is helpful ie whether it tells you anything about the book's contents and whether it helps you decide whether you might want to read it sometime.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:30 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://www.amazon.com/review/RHBBAKCND3UQG/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3JI92AO7V6BVN&cdPage=1&asin=1921643064&newContentNum=20&store=books&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx3OS7U6U02GN9B&newContentID=Mx2VI2FOKTSRJFP#MxAJ3ES3HOF58J
If you have a spare five minutes' you may wish to visit Heininger's review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?' and decide whether or not it is helpful ie whether it tells you anything about the book's contents and whether it helps you decide whether you might want to read it sometime.


It's not even remotely a review. It's an advertisement.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:33 am

It breaks the rules of advertising by slagging off competing products ie much more informative (but negative) reviews.

I've emailed CMI about this man's behaviour (not that I expect them to tell me they condemn it - though they might do so 'silently'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:27 pm

If you look at the David Levin review thread at Amazon you will see that Heininger has finally acknowledged the existence of my challenge made to him a week ago.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with another creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:55 pm

MOVE OVER John Heininger (actually I think he's run away) you've got COMPETITION. From one Kim Beazley:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2LRG82604 ... hisHelpful
http://www.amazon.com/review/RTKCRCSINT ... hisHelpful
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:29 pm

The rather rude Beazley continues not to disappoint, but this post is to report the latest shedload of empty hot air from the evasive fraud who is John C Heininger the creationist Director of the Australian Evangelical Apologetics Society: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... hisHelpful

"Ashley, it seems has, like all true Darwinian fundamentalist believers, appealed to "methodological naturalism" to support his failed evolutionary hypothesis. And, along with Levin, has yet to discern the difference between an unverifiable hypothesis, and verifiable operational science. When they both discern the difference between "Methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", on which Darwinism is based, they will see the difference between real verifiable science, and unverifiable evolutionary scientism.

The Empirical & Scientific Method, on which methodological naturalism is based, consists of a process where an initial hypothesis is proposed, followed by investigation by "observation", verification of "observations" by others, and drawing a generalization based on the verified "observations". The advantage of Empirical & Scientific Method, is that the evidence is "public" for all to test, repeat, evaluate and verify. Such that everyone is compelled to accept the conclusions, in spite of their ideological presuppositions or religious beliefs. Representative of empirical science is the theory of gravity, the laws of motion, atomic and quantum theory, and special and general relativity. All of which can be tested by observations in the present, with the results "publicly" observed and repeatable in the present, either in experiments or visually.

In contrast, Darwinism is based on "unobserved" past events that cannot be repeated. As such, no observations exist that can be tested, repeated, or verified by the scientific method. This means the evolutionary continuum cannot be publicly observed, nor tested by experiment in any laboratory, and therefore cannot be tested against the empirical world, an essential criteria to qualify as science.

Meaning, that Darwinism does not quality as verifiable science, in spite of widespread notions to the contrary. An unverified hypothetical theory that cannot be observed by others, or verified by the scientific method, and cannot be falsified, cannot be science. It cannot be falsified because "explanations" can be invented to cover every prediction.

A reality that must be ultimately faced, even by a scientific community completely and utterly seduced by "philosophical naturalism", and now living in denial of "self-evident" realities. Namely, that the universe clearly reflects intelligence and design at every level, and in every way. Which is foundational to every field of science, without which you cannot do science. I suggest you all read John Lennox's latest book, "God's Undertaker" and discover the absurdity of "methodological atheism" on which you all dysfunction, and come back and join the real world.

Thus, the Darwinian continuum exists only in the mind of the faithful. Those scientists and others who have uncritically accepted the evolutionary hypothesis as a fact, "until proved wrong". This is contrary to everything science stands for. As science operates on the principle that no hypothesis is ever regarded as a fact, until it is proved the be so, by the scientific method. In contrast, the evolutionary continuum is entirely based on "inferences" regarding "unobserved" past events that can never be verified by the empirical scientific method. There is no possible way of knowing or scientifically establishing, whether evolution happened one way, and not another way, or even whether it happened AT ALL. As I endlessly point out, in the hope that some light will penetrate the Darwinian atheistic wilderness - No one was there!

Which means that the subjectively based evolutionary presuppositions, conjecture, inferences, assumptions and ideologically loaded predictions of Darwinism can never be established as an empirical scientific "fact", and thus will forever remain an unverifiable hypothesis. An ideologically driven theory based on "philosophical naturalism", which can never be affirmed by "methodological" naturalism or tested and verified by the scientific method.

All of which means it's totally irrelevant how many scientists, church officials and members of the public support the theory of evolution. Darwinism will forever remain an "unprovable" theory, and "unverifiable" hypothesis. As it can never be affirmed by "methodological" naturalism and the Empirical & Scientific Method. All of which means the theory of evolution can never be established as "scientific fact". Not ever!

p.s Shad, you cannot do science unless you work on the self-evident reality that the universe has, unity, structure, order, intelligentability, design, and anthropic fine tuning that can be discovered by mathematics. All of which clearly spells out that the universe is far to unified to have been organized by a "committee", and far to complex to have happened by "chance". In short, the evidence for creation surrounds you on all sides, and at every level."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:33 pm

My reply to Heininger (emailed wider):

"John C Heininger, Director of the Australian Evangelical Apologetics Society

Here once AGAIN is my challenge to you, which I made at the end of August (duplicated under your own 'review') and which you have still NOT addressed (even though creationist Jon Hughes appears to think you SHOULD meet it):

PLEASE will you provide some evidence that you have actually read - and understood - Sarfati's book. Along the lines of "on page x he discusses y, and I agree with him - and disagree with Dawkins - for the following reason(s)".

PLEASE will you confirm whether or not you have read my review of Sarfati's book.

If you HAVE - as your comments at your own 'review' suggest - I am assuming that the following assertion from that review does apply to my review (among others). "Having read Sarfati's book with great care, yet again, after reading all the anti-Sarfati anti creationist subjectively based pro evolutionary GENERATIZATIONS, which turn out to be utterly false (as I will progressively show in future posts), I can assure readers that this book is absolutely brilliant, and no negative review I have read on this posting is objectively sustainable." Assuming this is so, I would again ask that you kindly have the courage and the decency to DEMONSTRATE in detail your sweeping CLAIM with respect to at least some, if not all, of the comments I made in my own review. So far you have completely IGNORED what I consider a perfectly reasonable request. Not to mention your own promise that you would substantiate the particular comments made in your own mini review! All of which does not add to your credibility as a 'reviewer'.

From memory (but the Levin thread is enormous so I cannot easily double check) ALL we seen from you on this website is preaching that historical or origins science is a waste of time because nothing can be proven - so that means that the theories concerned are therefore falsified(!) - but luckily God has told us exactly what happened in Genesis so it doesn't matter after all that science is limited when it comes to investigating the past (what if we hadn't heard from God?). As far as I recall you have never discussed detailed arguments from Sarfati's book and have instead resorted to sweeping and rather repetitive GENERALIZATIONS about how science can only tell us anything useful when we have empirical, observable, repeatable evidence and processes to examine in the present.

Three final questions:
Have you reflected upon your behaviour here? [NO.]
Are you going to continue to ignore and evade my posts that are directed towards you? [YES.]
Are you now going to disappear from the website for another couple of weeks, hoping I might forget about what I am asking you here? [Yes.]

REMEMBER?

Also, you promised me that I was the "next cab off the rank". REMEMBER?

Instead we get yet another repetitive rant about the Empirical & Scientific Method.

Well, you proved me wrong. I was expecting you to disappear without trace. Oh me of little faith.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby cathy » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:51 am

Ashley it appears that whilst you and the other non creationists keep presenting evidence and pointing out the myriad specific points where the creationists are talking rubbish, all they keep saying is naturalistic mechanistic science, atheistm, paradigms and worldviews. Exactly the same as our creationist Marc does. And they don't seem to explain what the hell they are on about, and they don't respond to any arguments to the contrary.

So if that is their issue, why don't they just come up with some supernaturalistic, non mechanistic, non materialistic methods that are as robust as science and that actually provide a genuinely valid way of testing that godidit 6000 years ago via magic, to the satisfaction of their paradigm, worldview and to the satisfaction of the general non believing populus (like the rest of science has to) rather than grumbling on about others.

If science's methods keep showing an ancient Earth and evolution than the onus is on them to provide a method that doesn't rely on it and that is as robust and as valid and explains away the findings of science more adequately than the science, and wasn't fraught with the massive insurmountable problems that every piece of creationist 'science' throws up. cos if you're relying on an a tiny piece of an ancient religious text as the only evidence you have-you really are going to face the problem that lots of people either don't believe that religious text or don't believe that fragment is literal.

If the 'universe is awash with evidence of design' than show us where it is, or at least give a method to test it. I liked what the one person said about motivation-that a real scientist that believed might be motivated to understand Gods science but would STILL use the same naturalistic methods as an atheist scientist, get the same results and reach the same conclusios. Because that is the only method we have that is robust and works. Just saying it looks complicated is neither an argument, proof nor a method of testing. Their arguments are simply moronic.

They are like lawyers saying 'he's innocent cos he says so, so why do you keep going on about the mountain of forensic evidence against him'. The jury might need a bit more.

I for one do not consider a constant repitition of the words worldview, paradigm and naturalistic, materialistic science to be either evidence nor science nor a valid or logical argument. Whereas small kids stick their fingers in their ears and say la la la la, creationists stick their fingers in their ears and say paradigm, worldview, naturalistic materialistic atheistic same evidence different interpretation. Those are just words NOT arguments and NOT research.

And like small kids, when they finally realise they are losing the argument they resort to personal insults instead. The fact that CMI and AiG and the rest are getting ever more offensive to anyone that disagrees suggests they are aware the scientific battles are well and truly lost and the paradigm, nasty atheists and compromisers, lets frighten the faithful into submission line is all that is left to them.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:56 am

cathy wrote:They are like lawyers.....



They are lawyers! The man that founded intelligent design, Phillip Johnson, is a lwyer. The Disco Kid's public face, Casey Luskin, is a lawyer, the Centre for Intelligent Design's "recruiter, Lord Mackay, is a lawyer, one of its chief architects, John Langlois, is a lawyer, the American creationist "universities" notoriously put their money into their law departments rather than scientific research, the creationists even have their own law firms such as the Thomas Moore Legal Center...

The creationist activist movement is riddle with lawyers.

Strange, isn't it, that they have to turn to lawyers, probably the least qualified profession on this planet when it comes to science.

But I suppose it helps when the creationists are pathologically incapable of answering a straight question.

(On second thoughts, it doesn't; that why the creationists have lost every battle they have taken to the courts, including the US Supreme Court and, of course, Dover. Would anyone here really want the dolts at the Thomas Moore Law Center as their defence lawyers?)
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:02 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:The rather rude Beazley continues not to disappoint, but this post is to report the latest shedload of empty hot air from the evasive fraud who is John C Heininger the creationist Director of the Australian Evangelical Apologetics Society: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... hisHelpful



Ashley, methinks you are slowly catching the old frauds and phonies by the short and curlies!
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby cathy » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:18 am

They are lawyers! The man that founded intelligent design, Phillip Johnson, is a lwyer. The Disco Kid's public face, Casey Luskin, is a lawyer, the Centre for Intelligent Design's "recruiter, Lord Mackay, is a lawyer, one of its chief architects, John Langlois, is a lawyer, the American creationist "universities" notoriously put their money into their law departments rather than scientific research, the creationists even have their own law firms such as the Thomas Moore Legal Center...

A good lawyer can attempt to make something of even the weakest argument! So either they're not very good lawyers or the argument is so weak that even they can't make anything of it. Well in reality their argument is non existent!! If they had anything about them at all they move on.

They are just more proof that creationism completely rots the critical faculties and damages the brain.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:37 am

cathy wrote:
They are lawyers! The man that founded intelligent design, Phillip Johnson, is a lwyer. The Disco Kid's public face, Casey Luskin, is a lawyer, the Centre for Intelligent Design's "recruiter, Lord Mackay, is a lawyer, one of its chief architects, John Langlois, is a lawyer, the American creationist "universities" notoriously put their money into their law departments rather than scientific research, the creationists even have their own law firms such as the Thomas Moore Legal Center...

A good lawyer can attempt to make something of even the weakest argument! So either they're not very good lawyers or the argument is so weak that even they can't make anything of it. Well in reality their argument is non existent!! If they had anything about them at all they move on.


Well, when faced with other lawyers including judges, such as at Dover (and every other legal case they've taken on), they fall face down into the nearest cowpat.

As for C4ID getting Lord Mackay on board, this was the man that got thrown out of the Wee Frees* for the evil of going to the Christian funeral of a personal friend. It begs the question why he was involved with such a bunch of intolerant, bigoted, pricks in the first place.

* May have been the Wee Wee Frees - I can't remember and don't really care.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:27 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:The rather rude Beazley continues not to disappoint, but this post is to report the latest shedload of empty hot air from the evasive fraud who is John C Heininger the creationist Director of the Australian Evangelical Apologetics Society: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... hisHelpful



Ashley, methinks you are slowly catching the old frauds and phonies by the short and curlies!


I think they can handle a rude, evasive, poorly-informed, or narrow-minded atheist who presents hasty arguments, shoots at the wrong target or doesn't notice the bigger picture.

I like to think that I fail to meet their Bible-based expectations of what an opponent of YEC-ism, and intolerant or simplistic fundamentalist arguments, should be like.

As I said by email to Christine Janis (who replied to my latest email to and about Heininger, mainly to complain about Carl Werner):
"Creationists assume evolutionists must be hiding things and inventing 'just-so stories'. Because the Bible - which tells them how the world operates - states that wicked people and godless people both "suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them" (from Romans 1:18-19, New International Version)."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: An attempt to deal with a creationist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:48 am

My latest email to John Heininger et al:

Ken Legg

You have just sent me an email (not marked 'private') which says:
"Ashley. It seems like you are the one who is being evasive. You haven't answered John's response. Ken."

John's longwinded response contained NO question, and merely repeats similar tirades previously posted by him in the same discussion thread. I DID however give an answer - which you would see if you clicked on the link to Amazon.com that I supplied. My answer basically was "Why are you ignoring, yet again, my perfectly reasonable and logical questions to you that were prompted by your own attempt at a Sarfati book review?"*

However I'm prepared to comment further. That whilst it may be ultimately unprovable, the modern evolutionary synthesis appears to be the strongest scientific theory that exists to explain the life we see on Earth today (whether or not God started that life by abiogenesis) and the theory is based on methodological naturalism and ignores so-called 'supernatural actions' as otherwise it would not be science but fantasy. John proclaims what he calls Darwinism to be "an ideologically driven theory based on "philosophical naturalism", which can never be affirmed by "methodological" naturalism or tested and verified by the scientific method". I'm not a biologist but I disagree with that assessment. Sometimes things in the distant past might be true but also difficult or impossible to verify completely by the scientific method. It would be unscientific to reject them out of hand.

He may only had have time to glance at this exchange, but the reply from Ken just shows how blinded to facts fundamentalists seem to be. An ally of Heininger's is apparently suggesting that Heininger's dubious behaviour is 'OK' - but mine is somehow 'evasive'.

Heininger's 'response' is just a clumsy smokescreen that evades - for about the third time - my specific questions, and doesn't even add anything new to the discussion.

I'm shortly adding this email exchange to: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2743&start=15 and to: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2YDNZOVN3 ... hisHelpful

http://www.thegodreality.com/speakers.htm

Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr)
* This was my actual reply on 17 Sept (so far ignored by Heininger):
John C Heininger, Director of the Australian Evangelical Apologetics Society

Here once AGAIN is my challenge to you, which I made at the end of August (duplicated under your own 'review') and which you have still NOT addressed (even though creationist Jon Hughes appears to think you SHOULD meet it):

PLEASE will you provide some evidence that you have actually read - and understood - Sarfati's book. Along the lines of "on page x he discusses y, and I agree with him - and disagree with Dawkins - for the following reason(s)".

PLEASE will you confirm whether or not you have read my review of Sarfati's book.

If you HAVE - as your comments at your own 'review' suggest - I am assuming that the following assertion from that review does apply to my review (among others). "Having read Sarfati's book with great care, yet again, after reading all the anti-Sarfati anti creationist subjectively based pro evolutionary GENERATIZATIONS, which turn out to be utterly false (as I will progressively show in future posts), I can assure readers that this book is absolutely brilliant, and no negative review I have read on this posting is objectively sustainable." Assuming this is so, I would again ask that you kindly have the courage and the decency to DEMONSTRATE in detail your sweeping CLAIM with respect to at least some, if not all, of the comments I made in my own review. So far you have completely IGNORED what I consider a perfectly reasonable request. Not to mention your own promise that you would substantiate the particular comments made in your own mini review! All of which does not add to your credibility as a 'reviewer'.

From memory (but the Levin thread is enormous so I cannot easily double check) ALL we seen from you on this website is preaching that historical or origins science is a waste of time because nothing can be proven - so that means that the theories concerned are therefore falsified(!) - but luckily God has told us exactly what happened in Genesis so it doesn't matter after all that science is limited when it comes to investigating the past (what if we hadn't heard from God?). As far as I recall you have never discussed detailed arguments from Sarfati's book and have instead resorted to sweeping and rather repetitive GENERALIZATIONS about how science can only tell us anything useful when we have empirical, observable, repeatable evidence and processes to examine in the present.

Three final questions:
Have you reflected upon your behaviour here? [NO.]
Are you going to continue to ignore and evade my posts that are directed towards you? [YES.]
Are you now going to disappear from the website for another couple of weeks, hoping I might forget about what I am asking you here? [Yes.]

REMEMBER?

Also, you promised me that I was the "next cab off the rank". REMEMBER?

Instead we get yet another repetitive rant about the Empirical & Scientific Method.

Well, you proved me wrong. I was expecting you to disappear without trace. Oh me of little faith.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron