"Ashley doesn’t seem to realize the circular nature of his claim. How can he be sure that he knows science? Apparently, because he knows that he is NOT ignorant of science. This is the fallacy of begging the question."
That is not an argument it is meaningless tosh.
"I guess there is no reason why an evolutionist shouldn’t misrepresent creationists, since there is no rational basis for morality on an evolutionary worldview."
FALSE ALLEGATION AND BLATANT STEREO-TYPING OF YOUR CRITICS.
"His reasoning is indeed circular." You are calling me a liar, Jason. And I am not a liar and do not appreciate being called one. I have already TOLD you that I reject the flood for OTHER reasons too. Nothing to do with circular reasoning. The event never happened in history. And we don't find loads and loads of fossils all radiocarbon dating from around 4,300 years' ago (or another common (older) date if one assumes, as you do, that this dating method is 'unreliable' because of less carbon, than conventionally assumed, 4,300 years ago).
Your behaviour is disgusting. (Go on and censor me - I'm adding this to the BCSE community forum thread for anyone to see so I don't care either way. If you don't censor me you will twist my words - given a choice I'd prefer to be censored.)
"So for example, assuming that fossils were deposited over millions of years instead of a worldwide flood cannot be used as evidence against a worldwide flood." It CAN if the millions of years scenario (backed up by much other evidence) explains what is seen better - as is indeed the case.
"The global flood radically changed Earth’s topography, pushing continents apart, and building mountains." NONE of this happened, or could happen, in just the last 6,000 or so years.
"I don’t mean to disparage Ashley in any way..." LIAR. "... "but he really hasn’t studied this issue at all". You are calling [me] a liar, Jason. I KNOW that I am being truthful. Thus I am learning more and more what a nasty piece of work you can be, in that you don't care if you misrepresent me but care about ensuring your followers dismiss me and dismiss what I write. If you are LOOKING for a liar criticising you, you have got the wrong man. Which is a bit of a problem for you, I would suggest.
The carbon 14 you mention is contamination. And the Coconino sandstone was formed by wind not water.
The marine fossils, IF they are found both close to the surface and near the summit, would be at the top of the (current) geologic column in the Himalaya. You are twisting my words again as I never mentioned the Quaternary (which I did know is much more recent than the Permian).
You are taking me for a fool Jason. I warned you against doing that. Me indicating that I believe altitudes would be the same before and after the claimed date for the Genesis flood is NOT the same as me (allegedly) suggesting (I did no such thing as I have already TOLD you) that Cambrian strata are 'found' at the same altitudes throughout the world.
As anybody can tell.
"It is just amazing to me that Ashley doesn’t see that his reasoning is circular." It's very simple. My reasoning is based, partly, on the sheer lack of evidence for the explanations put about by young Earth creationists (such as 'head for the hills' explaining the geologic record).
Like I said, and Jason is merely blustering in response, his comment about evolutionists is a red herring with respect to the last 6,000 years and - Shock Horror - Jason is committing one of his own fallacies. A red herring is also a literary device that leads readers towards a false conclusion. In this case a false conclusion that because evolutionists know that altitude (elevation from sea level) of rocks has not always been the same, therefore it must have been much different 4,300 years ago as claimed by creationists. Like I said, Jason referring to evolutionists was irrelevant and misleading.
"And what would be the evidence for that claim?" If you read through many of our exchanges, I have pointed them out as appropriate (but you now pretend otherwise and accuse me of fallacies). You should know that I do not make up imaginary claims of creationists falsely accusing me of things (some of your critics might do this). I merely highlight any such false claims whenever they are actually made against me.
I have ALREADY explained to you (in the 'Memo' post) that IF I 'misrepresented' you as saying scientific reasoning (reasoning not from the 'standard' of God's word) is arbitrary opinion, then I did so unintentionally because I MAY have misunderstood what you considered the word scientific to mean when I used it (for MY part I was referring to the likes of evolutionary biology and old-age geology, plus astronomy - but you apparently were referring to what you might term 'good' science).
I do not know why you apparently won't just accept my explanation.
"I suspect that most readers of this blog will readily see that Ashley has pretty well discredited himself". I suggest that you are behaving like a mind-influencing cult leader who wishes to have his followers turn against all critics, especially ones who can write fluent posts.
"Well, I think we all now can see that Ashley had some whopping big misunderstandings about the geologic column." When are you going to tell me what they are, Jason?
"Laws of mathematics are all “hot air?”" NO, Jason. Your argument was.
"It exposes his claim as false and rather silly." My claim is that Jason distorts science - which is easier to do if you have a PhD.
"a character assassination is an attempt to malign the integrity [of] an individual, in this case to dissuade people from believing his arguments". Which is what you have 'graciously' been doing for the last five days. Has it worked?
"Again, nothing was done "behind Ashley’s back"." So why did you not inform me that you had extensively annotated my posts? Especially as I am new here (assuming you do it to other critics too). Why have you ignored this, reasonable, question?
Frankly I don't believe you when you seek to claim that you were upfront. I have had similar experiences with other YECs (though most prefer straight censorship).
"there is overwhelming evidence that such has happened in nature, as documented in the RATE books. LOL. I am familiar with the claims of RATE. If you don't believe me, why not search on the BCSE website for posts on that general topic?
"I already did." Sorry, my QUESTION was about your claim that supernovae explode after less than 6,000 years.
"For some reason Ashley seems to think that by repeating a refuted claim over and over, it will somehow become "unrefuted"." I don't. But I think we must agree to disagree here, Jason.
You did NOT address me directly for some reason, instead (after several days had elapsed) you wrote various negative comments within my posts telling other people what to think of them and me, and also failed to take five minutes to alert me to this. Whereas when I posted about you at the BCSE community forum (where I post frequently) I informed you and others straightaway - there was no lack of openness on my part (which is why you are not accusing me of such). I then also spent a lot of time reproducing various 'rebuttal' comments here.
I suggest that you are rather arrogant and that you have no respect for people who criticise you (you may think the same about me and it is true that I have learnt by experience to disrespect MOST YECs).
Like I suggested earlier you seem to want to get rid of me - thus you have put me on pre-moderation, apparently because I rejected Chris H's latest false allegation against me and called him the 'l' word again.
IF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WAS ON YOUR SIDE ALL THIS LYING AND OTHER WORD GAMES FOR JESUS, AND SEEKING TO ATTACK INTELLECTUALLY EVERYONE WHO DOUBTS YOUR CLAIMS WOULD NOT BE SO NECESSARY
(Which fallacy or fallacies did that fact-based observation include?)