Observation on ANTI-Creationist Tactics

[Dave Hawkins]

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to me
2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threads
3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodger
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than others
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists
6. Argument by link
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"
8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like it
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"
10. Quote mining me, twisting what I say
11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines
12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or galloping
13. Modifying my thread titles (Febble)
14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" but allowing others' off topic posts to stay (Worldtraveller)
15. Merging my topics with other topics under the ruse that they are "redundant" but not merging other people's redundant topics - RD.net is famous for this
16. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog (What's with this? Are we scared someone might become a creationist?)
17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.net
18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last December
19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)

Many more, but that will do for now ...

[Ray Moscow]

Let's take just one of these for the moment:

4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than others

You have repeatedly accused the majority of scientists worldwide of engaging in either a massive dishonest conspiracy or of being so grossly incompetent that they have no idea what they are doing in their fields of expertise.

When confronted about these accusations, and even when shown in detail why your accusations were wrong, AFAIK you have never recanted at all.

Is it inaccurate to say that all those like you who pull such tricks are themselves dishonest?

[SAWells]

7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"


Dave, that's not an argument, it's good advice. Go read.

Challenge for you: read The Ancestors' Tale by Dawkins. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to like it, but you will benefit by the experience of reading it.

[VoxRat]

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to me
2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threads
3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodger
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than others
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists
6. Argument by link
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"
8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like it
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"
10. Quote mining me, twisting what I say
11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines
12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or galloping
13. Modifying my thread titles (Febble)
14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" but allowing others' off topic posts to stay (Worldtraveller)
15. Merging my topics with other topics under the ruse that they are "redundant" but not merging other people's redundant topics - RD.net is famous for this
16. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog (What's with this? Are we scared someone might become a creationist?)
17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.net
18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last December
19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)

Many more, but that will do for now ...This post nicely illustrates the overarching theme of creationist tactics I've been bringing up for some time now: no specifics.

No links, no examples, no references, no way to verify the charge or discover that it's bogus. To take just the first item for example. I'm sure creationists do get called all kinds of names. But to judge how nasty and horrible that is, you'd have to have some context, wouldn't you? Perhaps there is behavior that provoked such vituperation?

I suspect this failure to grasp the significance of specifics is strongly related to creationists' failure to grasp the whole concept of evidence and the concept of falsifiability that explains why they have zero representation in the grown-up scientific literature.

[Ray Moscow]

^^Even a former YEC like me really liked The Ancestors' Tale, Dave! It would certainly save you a lot of time in the long run to understand all that "evidence" and "reason" that convinces so many (otherwise) smart people to accept the TOE and why you get treated like an ignoramus so often on these sciency forums.

(Yes, I'm still an ignoramus, but less so than I used to be. Reading is fundamental.)

[Martin B]

10. Quote mining me, twisting what I say

11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines

Hey, you set that standard a long time ago. You're the one who doesn't think twice about using quotations to your advantage, in spite of the authors intentions or its proper context. If other peoples' quotations are fair game for you, yours are fair game for other people. Alternatively, you could set the bar higher and stop quote-mining people as you routinely do and start forming your own arguments by demonstrating first your own understanding of the topic.

Alas, you almost never ask questions to understand. Not since the last time I engaged you at any length (RnR thread on unicorns). That last time, at least in the beginning, was based on some thoughtful and interesting questions on your part. Ones certainly worth answering, and (again at least in the beginning) you showed some humility.

When you've put in more effort to understand things on your own, then we might give your arguments some additional respect. But using the quotes of others to try to make them say things they're clearly not saying does not demonstrate this understanding. Rather, it demonstrates the opposite: that you do not understand, because if you did you would never see the content of the quote as showing what you think it does.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Dave, you are (as usual) making no distinction between justified and unjustified actions.

Is it wrong to accuse someone of being a quote-miner, for instance? Well, if they ARE a quote-miner (as you are, Dave)... no, it is not wrong. Why should it be wrong? And I don't recall any actual case of "Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines".

Similarly, when you toss out blatant falsehoods: why exactly is it wrong to call you on those?

So here you seem to be exhibiting more of the general fact/fantasy confusion that characterises so many of your posts. Is it "wrong" to point that out too?

[Obd]

That is because, unlike you, we learn from other people.

[VoxRat]

11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote minesTwo classic examples:

The "Provine" exchange on the Dawkins forum, and Darwin - beginning of chapter VI - I believe on IIDB.

Look 'em up folks. Decided whether Dave is telling the truth here.

See that Dave?

Specifics.
Letting people judge for themselves rather than telling them "the truth" (according to Dave).

Try it sometime.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Let's just use this opportunity to bring up a specific falsehood, Dave.
You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

(...emphasis mine). Now, there was a whole new thread (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1011) launched to explore this made-up nonsense, Dave: and, of course, you declined to participate in it. How could you participate? You were making stuff up. We know it, you know it, we know that you know it... and so forth.

Hence, the evasion.

So why is it "wrong" to accuse you of evasion, Dave?

[lao tzu]

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

Oddly enough, the OP in the thread inspiring this one actually cites references to the claims. Or perhaps not so oddly, as another has already noted. The most typical of creationist tactics is mimicking as much of the scientist's method as possible, perforce this excludes the presentation of facts.

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to me

Well, I have to admit there's little reason to refer to any creationist as pond scum or cretin. Lying and trolling, however, are supportable accusations, and as such, do not qualify as mere name-calling.

The "liar" tag, for instance, can be supported by referencing, for instance, a quote mine, made by, for instance, Dave Hawkins, pointing to the context of the quotation, showing how it differs from the usage by, for instance, Dave Hawkins, pointing this out to, for instance, Dave Hawkins, repeatedly, and noting that the untruth, which may have begun as an unintentional slip or a borrowed misinterpretation, continues to be used, quite openly as part of, for instance, Dave Hawkins .sig.

Now, there are usages of "troll" which are inappropriate. Others, such as the description of a thread begun by, for instance, Dave Hawkins, devoid of supporting references modeled after a thread without that lack, are again supportably descriptive, and thus do not qualify as name-calling.

It occurs to me that if less creationists behaved like Dave Hawkins, fewer anti-creationists would have occasion to point it out.

As ever, Jesse

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

This thread is a prime example of yet another creationist tactic -- when confronted with a losing battle [and that appears to be all of them], attempt to distract.
Sadly for dave, this is far too like the story of the young man who is meeting his date for the prom. As she walks down the stately curving staircase, she trips on her gown and stumbles. In an effort to distract, he shouts "look!" and points out the window -- only to discover there are 2 dogs going at it hard and heavy.
The difference, of course, being that the flood-fools have no beautiful young woman descending a staircase, indeed, have no date at all.
Just the embarassement of constantly yelling "looK!" while pointing at yet another case of their own mis-, mal-, and non-feasance in the real world.

dave is particularly amusing in this regard in that he has left thousands of pages of effluent littering the web, all effective proof that no one can say anything vile about dave that is not warranted by the evidence. [again, entirely in contrast to the flood-fool world].

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[damitall]

Wow. 19 whinges, plus "many more"

It's a wonder Hawkins bothers to post at all, since he obviously believes all these fora are biased against him!


Yet, as has been pointed out a number of times, when he does bother to engage properly in discussion and debate - e.g. by answering questions put to him without equivocation or obfuscation, or by supplying real evidence* for his stance, the name-calling stops and everyone benefits from a reasonably courteous and pacy argument.

*It's a bit pointless producing quotes from the bible as "evidence", since few or none of the audience accept the truthiness of ancient writings of largely unknown provenance, written at a time when the very word "evidence" had no meaning recognisable today

[JCL]

Dave,

I have reported your OP for intentionally baiting and for the falsehoods it contains. Just thought you would like a chance to face your accuser.

I will publicly recant the above statement and apologize to you if you can back up each and everyone of your accusations with examples from the posters on this forum. To be fair, you can go to other forums that you have “discussed” your point of view at in the past to find examples.

If you would like an example of how to do this please go to the thread you are emulating here and read for content.

It also seems you are trying to bait the forum moderators into suspending or banning you.

Why is this?
Are you so used to manipulative tactics that you cannot even recognize what you are doing?
Are you trying to create an impression that “Scientists” are repressing your worldview?

Is it something else, please explain. It is rather sad to see that you are no longer even making a half hearted attempt, and have been reduced to cries for attention and nothing more.

[Febble]

Well, with regard to TR, let's take these one, by one, shall we?

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to me

There are two categories here: two of these names "pond scum" and "cretin") are mere insults, and we discourage insults. Content-free insulting posts are split out to The Charred Remains. Ad hominem arguments ("you are a cretin therefore you are wrong") are also liable to be split out. Insults appended to otherwise substantive posts will tend to be addressed by in thread warnings, as I have done. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If the insults start to become a pile-one, then the pile-one may have to TCR.

However "liar" and "troll" are descriptive terms, and may or may not be accurate. There is no rule on this board against calling someone a liar or a troll as long as it is backed up with evidence. A liar is someone who makes a false statement with the deliberate intention of misleading. A troll is less universally defined, but usually refers to someone who posts solely, or primarily, with the intention of stirring up trouble. Again, if there are accusations of trolling they need to be supported. They are also inappropriate here, and should be made as a report in the In Confidence forum.

2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threads

I agree. Please, people, desist. Discuss psychology in general terms, but in a separate thread. Don't derail threads with psychoanalysis, and try to avoid diagnoses of mental illness, however flippant, or alternatively, serious. Two words: Bill. Frist.

3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodger

Linear-style bulletin boards make it difficult to keep track of all posts and responses, especially when scattered over several threads. Also people have time constraints. People should assume good will unless they have hard evidence for deliberate dodging. Also, people should not undertake debates in multiple threads unless they are prepared to address the followup. Dave, this means you.

4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than others

You do it to more people than others, Dave. You have alleged (and not retracted) a world-wide multidisciplinary conspiracy to suppress scientific data. Quite apart from the more general implications, this is tantamount to an allegation of gross dishonesty on the part of every scientist in this forum. Think about it.

5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists

Libel is the making of false public statements that can damage the reputation of someone else. If the statement is true, there is no libel. Any allegation of dishonesty about another person, particularly a public figure with a reputation that is of material value, needs to be supported by hard evidence if it is not to render you (or this board) vulnerable to a lawsuit.

6. Argument by link
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"

Arguments supported by links are encouraged. Arguments that cite evidence without links or references are discouraged. Occasionally, the post in question betrays such a profound ignorance of the relevant subject that "Go and read a text book" is an entirely reasonable response. As is, frankly, the epithet "lazy bum".

8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like it


OK, Dave, you owe me a new keyboard. And another cup of coffee.

9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"

Not on.

10. Quote mining me, twisting what I say

Well, I've put my coffee safely out of reach now, fortunately. I refer you, um, to the Bertsche thread, and several others.

11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines

Geez, Dave - yesterday I actually had to edit your post, so that a link to words by Allen MacNeill went to the primary source, rather than to the PAGE of quotemines on YOUR OWN BLOG!!!!! What's it called again? Something like "Useful quotes for creationists".

Bloomin' 'eck.


12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or galloping

See above.

13. Modifying my thread titles (Febble)

Entirely transparent and justified. Your title was an unsupported assertion. It was important to make it clear that it was merely an allegation by a creationist. You are a creationist, right?

14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" but allowing others' off topic posts to stay (Worldtraveller)

I know of no deleted posts. Content-free posts are sometimes moved to TCR. They are not deleted unless they are illegal or pornographic.

15. Merging my topics with other topics under the ruse that they are "redundant" but not merging other people's redundant topics - RD.net is famous for this

Well, we don't do it here. Merges and splits are done in an attempt to keep threads on track. If you disagree, make a request to reverse the split. It's been done.

6. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog (What's with this? Are we scared someone might become a creationist?)

AFAIK, it's fine to post a link to your blog, as long as it is transparent. What is NOT OK, is to link to your blog via a hotlink that looks like a link to the primary source of the reference material. This is simply dishonest.

17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.net

N/A.

18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last December

N/A

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)

I don't anticipate that happening here, as long as creationist do not troll (qv).

Many more, but that will do for now ...

It's more than enough, thank you.

[Notta_skeptic]

I'll only refer to one of these claims:

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)
Dave was limited to posting in one thread on The Panda's Thumb discussion board. He was not, nor has he ever, been banned from posting. He can still post to this day (I believe - I can't check this as I can't log in as him), but he can only post to one thread.

And an administrator of a board pretty much has free will - if Wesley Elsberry decided a poster was "excessively annoying", he can limit that poster's actions. Elsberry uses this term for any poster that gives the board problems, be they creationist, scientist, troll, liar, or simply a jerk. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. (See hereoisreal as a poster there for example. He's confined to one thread, too.)

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

Just noticed another very interesting aspect of this latest bit of nonsense from dishonest dave, the self-important.
Without going back to look, how many of dave's points do you think are about 'tactics against creationists' and how many are about 'tactics against dave hawkins'?

It is not a small number.



Ready?


Of the 19 points raised, fourteen (!!) include direct reference to 'me', that is, dishonest dave himself.
His complaint is not about how creationists are treated, it is about how he is treated, he himself, specifically.

This seems to me to be more than a little 'over the top'. I had seen evidence in his other threads that the size of dave's ego appeared to be inversely correlated to his competence, but this is blinding.
It really is all about dave, isn't it?
Not about YEC, not about god, not about Christianity, it's all about dave.

how pathetic.

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[Black5]

I'll only refer to one of these claims:

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)
Dave was limited to posting in one thread on The Panda's Thumb discussion board. He was not, nor has he ever, been banned from posting. He can still post to this day (I believe - I can't check this as I can't log in as him), but he can only post to one thread.

This isn't the first time afdave from truthmatters claimed he was banned from Panda's Thumb while in fact his posting was restricted to one thread. Sounds like another creationist tactic. Lie and repeat the lie hoping it will stick.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

I'll only refer to one of these claims:

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)
Dave was limited to posting in one thread on The Panda's Thumb discussion board. He was not, nor has he ever, been banned from posting. He can still post to this day (I believe - I can't check this as I can't log in as him), but he can only post to one thread.

This isn't the first time afdave from truthmatters claimed he was banned from Panda's Thumb while in fact his posting was restricted to one thread. Sounds like another creationist tactic. Lie and repeat the lie hoping it will stick.

Well, to be fair, it's all they have. lies, that is.
The truth is not in them, the truth is not with them, they have no truth, only lies.

dave seems the perfect exemplar of this.

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin

[Zadok001]

Dave - Most of the people here, and at other forums, think you are somewhere between stupid and insane. As far as they are concerned, your "discussions" of creationism have about the same value as the guy who posts every couple days about the grand conspiracy surround 9/11, the JFK assassination, and Roswell.

You are that guy.

Initially, people argue with the conspiracy nut. The conspiracy nut remains unconvinced, and other people are unable to convince him. The nut makes a new thread a few days later, and again, people argue. No one is convinced. The process repeats itself. Eventually, the conspiracy nut is greeted with "Oh, it's that time of the week again", or "You blathering idiot!"

This is not to pass judgment on either yourself or the conspiracy nut, but that's where we are right now. You come in, you throw off a few lines, people argue with you, and eventually dismiss you. The dismissals come closer and closer to the start of each thread as people become used to what you will present, and begin to understand what questions will cause you to abandon a topic.

You aren't going to be convinced. You can't convince anyone (for numerous reasons).

It's not the tactics that are an obstacle to rational debate, it's the repetition. If you really want people to pay attention, and not use these tactics against you, you need to change YOUR behavior to instigate new behavior in your opponents. Everyone else isn't going to change at once (after all, there's more of them), and continuing on this path will have the same result, so there it is YOU who must adjust, must (dare I say it) adapt.

Evolve or die.

[Ian Nerr]

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Pointing out that I am a liar
2. Idle speculation on how an adult can believe so much retarded nonsense
3. Expecting me to answer questions
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty when no reasonable person would think that
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists
6. Providing actual links
7. Expecting me to read actual books
8. Pointing out that creationists haven't presented evidence
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"
10. Quoting the stupid, twisted things I say
11. Pointing out my bogus quote mines
12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" just because it's true
13. Fixing my thread titles (Febble)
14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" (Worldtraveller)
15. Merging my redundant topics
16. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog
17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.net
18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last December

Many more, but that will do for now ...

I fixed it for you.

[deadman_932]

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m133/deadman932/AFDave.jpg

[Ian Nerr]

Short version:

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Valuing truth and honesty

[ericmurphy]

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)

For easily the hundredth time, Dave was never banned at AtBC. He was restricted to a single thread, a thread that went on for something like 400 pages.

Dave has been corrected on this point over and over again, but continues to maintain this falsehood.

What does that do for your reputation for honesty, Dave?

[Ian Nerr]

19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)

For easily the hundredth time, Dave was never banned at AtBC. He was restricted to a single thread, a thread that went on for something like 400 pages.

Dave has been corrected on this point over and over again, but continues to maintain this falsehood.

What does that do for your reputation for honesty, Dave?

Dave's reputation for honesty can't possibly be harmed since he has none.

[RAFH]

Dave, you are (as usual) making no distinction between justified and unjustified actions.

Is it wrong to accuse someone of being a quote-miner, for instance? Well, if they ARE a quote-miner (as you are, Dave)... no, it is not wrong. Why should it be wrong? And I don't recall any actual case of "Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines".

Similarly, when you toss out blatant falsehoods: why exactly is it wrong to call you on those?

So here you seem to be exhibiting more of the general fact/fantasy confusion that characterises so many of your posts. Is it "wrong" to point that out too?

Yes, this is pointed up by the question, "Is it wrong to kill someone else?" Well, the answer depends. Most of the time the answer would be "Yes, emphatically so!" But what if your house has been broken into and the criminals are about to rape your daughters (or sons or your wife or your husband or yourself), would it be wrong to kill them to prevent that? Of course not, at least not if there were no other possible choice, ie - you have a gun on them and have warned them you will shoot them if they do not stop and surrender and they just ignore you and keep on. Then you have every right to kill them. Probably would be best to just wound one of them to show you mean business but I wouldn't fault anyone from just blowing the fuckers away. I might not even get too upset even if they weren't about to rape someone, nobody has a right to enter your home without legal authority, usually that granted by a court of law.

So this sets a principle, yes, it is wrong to harm someone else, but if doing so is justified, it may not be wrong, indeed, it may well be requisite.

And that'snthe problem here, davey, you do quote-mine, you've not only been called in it dozens of different ways, you've even admitted to doing so intentionally. A quote is intended to indicate the author's intent and knowledge and beliefs, their attitude and personality. They are never intended to betray that. If you take a quote out of context and try to use it to show they did not really believe what they have otherwise professed, that is a quote-mine and, yes, davey, you do it all the time. Day in and day out. If you use the words of a person dedicated to the ToE to try to indicate they really don't accept the ToE as the best explanation for the evidence, that is a quote-mine, and, yes, davey, you do it all the time.

The same goes for lying. Yes, it is wrong to accuse someone of lying, but if they are lying, it would be wrong to not accuse them of it. Do ya get it davey. It gets back to that old concept in your precious book, "Ye shall reap as ye sow." In other words, if you quote-mine, if you lie, if you fail to present evidence, if you misrepresent, if you ignore people, if you run away from open honest discussion, if you fail to meet your promises, you will be called on it. Get used to it davey. If you want to be treated with respect, you have to act respectable. Just like if you want to be loved, you have to be lovable. It's that simple.

[Constant Mews]

I would like to comment on one or two of Dave's claims, if I may:
1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to meAs Febble pointed out, liar and troll are descriptions, not "names" as you are using the term. I don't know that "troll" can be substantiated, but "liar" certainly can.
2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threadsHonest intellectual discussion is impossible unless the parties involved are honest and intellectual. Your failings in both these areas are germane to the discussion; and some of the misunderstandings of your statements (and I admit that there are a fair number of misunderstandings of what you say) are based on the fact that you have problems communicating. You don't use words in the same fashion a "sane" person would. I'm sorry you find it aggravating.
3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodgerYou continually dodge questions. This can be easily documented.
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than othersThis has already been well-addressed by others.
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationistsSo far as I know, you have never been libeled.
6. Argument by linkA tactic you employ constantly as you whore your blog.
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"As others have pointed out, this isn't be used as an argument. You are told to go read because your ignorance of the topics under discussion is so appalling that trying to hold a discussion with you is impossible. We want to have interesting and intellectually informed discussions. But that's impossible if you refuse to do your part and actually learn something. Hence the suggestions that you go read. Go learn. And come back when you can hold a rational conversation.
8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like itI admit that creationists don't seem to like the "evidence" that creationist continually try to present. Perhaps that's why they don't defend it.
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"And why is this a "tactic"? If someone is genuinely concerned for your soul, then this would seem to be a rational policy.
10. Quote mining me, twisting what I sayYou don't express yourself very well; you have significant communication problems. You may be mistaking that for quote-mining. And since you continually quote-mine others - by your own admission, well....
11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote minesNonsense. No one has ever accused you of "bogus" quote mines.
12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or gallopingThis has never happened. Provide evidence.
19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)You have never been banned from any forum. This is, quite simply, a lie.

[Dlx2]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.

[Constant Mews]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.

This issue has been discussed in various forums by various participants for well over a year. You correctly point out that Dave is unwilling or incapable of engaging in honest and well-intentioned debate. But Dave has never claimed that this is what he is interested in. He has pointed out that his desire is to preach - by indirection and misdirection, it is true, but preaching nonetheless.

Some of the posters use Dave to stimulate themselves to do research in actual science - not the nonsensical pseudo-science that Dave spouts, and their research is enlightening.

But primarily I respond because I hope to save Dave's soul. I realize this is a project that appears to be nonsense to the majority of the rest of you, and I don't ask you to join me in that fight, but it is of concern to me as a Christian to see one who professes a faith but overturns every tenet of that faith. I want to save Dave from damnation. It's that simple.

And he's funny. If he had any importance or significance in either the scientific or creationist communities, it would be different. But as it stands he's a nothing to anyone except in his own imagination. And that's amusing.

[BWE]

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to meCretin?

2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threads
It's natural though. I mean, you're obviously not quite right in the head and we want to make sure we're not insulting an invalid.
3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodger
Only questions that misrepresent the argument and that isn't dodging.
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than othersThe key word there is 'insinuating'
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists
Problem is creationist attempts to discredit science is based on intentional dishonesty. That makes it not libel. See our debate on dendrochronology for details:

3. The third part is that Creation "Science", the word science here used with the meaning of "sciency" rather than the usual meaning of the word, relies on rhetorical games, logical fallacies, quote-mines, sweeping statements that aren't followed through on and plain old ordinary stupidity. This creation "science"� is responsible for many of the retarded ideas about science that bounce around the internet including the idea that C14 dating can't be accurate despite multiple, independent dating techniques all cross-referencing each other. No challenge to dendro or C14 dating exists that doesn't rely on fallacies and obfuscations for the argument. If you didn't wipe that part of your mental hard drive, you will remember that I supported that assertion with a great deal of evidence.
6. Argument by linkNot to your blogs I hope?
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"
As the saying goes, you could learn a lot from a book.
8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like itI haven't seen this evidence you speak of. Do you have an example?
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"Now that is funny. It was this point that made me decide to respond to this thread.
10. Quote mining me, twisting what I sayThat is some feat. Where did that happen?
11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines
Like this one (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=26507#post26507):
Quote
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity. (John Adams, Works, Vol X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813. OI-32) where the ellipses cover more than a paragraph?

12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or gallopinggish gallop (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Gish_Gallop)
13. Modifying my thread titles (Febble) From misleading to not misleading?
14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" but allowing others' off topic posts to stay (Worldtraveller)How about that final 4 basketball eh?
15. Merging my topics with other topics under the ruse that they are "redundant" but not merging other people's redundant topics - RD.net is famous for thisfamous?
16. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog (What's with this? Are we scared someone might become a creationist?)If you want to quote a source, go to the original I always say.
17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.netThat's because creationism is stupid dave.
18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last Decemberevilutionist conspiracy
19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)I'll let others go for this one. I'm sure there is a post in here already so I won't belabor the point.

Many more, but that will do for now ...

Oh, please continue.

[Jet Black]

the most insidious anti-creationist tactic is just having scientists getting on with their work, and passively demonstrating that creationism is wrong, over and over again.

[Obd]

Let's not forget mockery either.

http://www.motifake.com/motivational_posters/bca9e3a3e8.jpg

[Febble]

General mod note: inferences about either the state of a specific poster's mental health or the state of his/her immortal soul are not appropriate in public posts, nor in unsolicited PMs.

If people want to talk about either psychiatry or salvation, it should be done in the appropriate forums, and kept general.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[Dave Hawkins]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

[Obd]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

That's your view. Lurkers everywhere and even fellow christians seem to think otherwise. But you do have a point. No matter how stupid your arguments may seem to people that do have a decent amount of scientific knowledge, without rebuttal there's a risk of those arguments actually sounding reasonable to people without a decent scientific education. That is why people keep responding to you.

[Ray Moscow]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.

Well, I've raised the same question on another board. However, I have to admit that arguing with Dave is kind of fun. It might be a little boring without Dave or someone else posting nonsense to refute.

[Ray Moscow]

But primarily I respond because I hope to save Dave's soul. I realize this is a project that appears to be nonsense to the majority of the rest of you, and I don't ask you to join me in that fight, but it is of concern to me as a Christian to see one who professes a faith but overturns every tenet of that faith. I want to save Dave from damnation. It's that simple.



OK, I'm not a Christian anymore, but isn't that salvation business supposed to be up to God, anyway?

Surely all the complete unbelievers and apostates here are in equal peril? :p

[VoxRat]

... Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.
As judged by...?

In other words, yet another unsupported generalization. I like to think that pointing out, here and elsewhere, how consistently creationists engage in this undermines their efforts.

[Dlx2]

DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons.

I've been dealing with you for over 2 years. I spent that time thinking that you really were trying to learn, but were mired in dogma. Recent comments by you requesting deletion and other moderation of dissenting comments requesting that you answer on-topic questions that you repeatedly dodged betrayed your actual position. I don't give a damn whether or not you believe in a young earth or accept the facts that the world does not in any way, shape, or form even remotely follow the biblical conception. I am not too happy that you proselytize your bullshit to children, but most kids are smart enough to make up their own minds about things, and no matter how charismatic you think you are, dinosaurs have you beat, hands down. What I do object to is your stubborn unwillingness to answer relevant objections when others have done the same for you in spades, and then have the gall to appeal to moderator action because you feel threatened by such demands.

I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case.

This is absolutely not true. You are unwilling to actually make a case, and you are unwilling to actually engage both the facts and the questions that we've posed to you. My posts here have two purposes. The first is discussion of relevant ideas with knowledgeable and intelligent people, both professional and nonprofessional. The second is meaningful education of intelligent and interested laypersons. I do not have an interest in engaging creationists, and I never really have. For a while, I had you pegged as an intelligent and interested layperson who was simply suffering from too much dogma. However, you revealed yourself to be a dishonest pissant who was simply using 'debate' with professionals as some form of Creationist Cred. I don't have an interest in playing House Debate with little Davey. If I wanted to play children's games, I'd volunteer at a local elementary school. I would undoubtedly make a bigger difference to a lot more people, and I'd undoubtedly find it a great deal more fulfilling than arguing with a middle-aged fraud on an internet forum.

Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The 'cause of evolution' is neither in jeopardy, nor is it anything that you, a fraudulent little AiG sycophant, are in any position to have any effect on. Your ignorance seems to be matched only by your hubris. You're a small, sad, pathetic little man, who lies to himself and others from his little podium on the internet, and tells himself that this validates his worldview to the exclusion of all others. The only difference between yourself and a 5 year old boy is that a five year old boy gets a spanking when he tells lies. That, and the simple fact that a five year old boy eventually grows up into an adult who will take responsibility for his words and actions, something you are in no danger of ever doing.

[VoxRat]

DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons.

I've been dealing with you for over 2 years. I spent that time thinking that you really were trying to learn, but were mired in dogma. Recent comments by you requesting deletion and other moderation of dissenting comments requesting that you answer on-topic questions that you repeatedly dodged betrayed your actual position. I don't give a damn whether or not you believe in a young earth or accept the facts that the world does not in any way, shape, or form even remotely follow the biblical conception. I am not too happy that you proselytize your bullshit to children, but most kids are smart enough to make up their own minds about things, and no matter how charismatic you think you are, dinosaurs have you beat, hands down. What I do object to is your stubborn unwillingness to answer relevant objections when others have done the same for you in spades, and then have the gall to appeal to moderator action because you feel threatened by such demands.

I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case.

This is absolutely not true. You are unwilling to actually make a case, and you are unwilling to actually engage both the facts and the questions that we've posed to you. My posts here have two purposes. The first is discussion of relevant ideas with knowledgeable and intelligent people, both professional and nonprofessional. The second is meaningful education of intelligent and interested laypersons. I do not have an interest in engaging creationists, and I never really have. For a while, I had you pegged as an intelligent and interested layperson who was simply suffering from too much dogma. However, you revealed yourself to be a dishonest pissant who was simply using 'debate' with professionals as some form of Creationist Cred. I don't have an interest in playing House Debate with little Davey. If I wanted to play children's games, I'd volunteer at a local elementary school. I would undoubtedly make a bigger difference to a lot more people, and I'd undoubtedly find it a great deal more fulfilling than arguing with a middle-aged fraud on an internet forum.

Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The 'cause of evolution' is neither in jeopardy, nor is it anything that you, a fraudulent little AiG sycophant, are in any position to have any effect on. Your ignorance seems to be matched only by your hubris. You're a small, sad, pathetic little man, who lies to himself and others from his little podium on the internet, and tells himself that this validates his worldview to the exclusion of all others. The only difference between yourself and a 5 year old boy is that a five year old boy gets a spanking when he tells lies. That, and the simple fact that a five year old boy eventually grows up into an adult who will take responsibility for his words and actions, something you are in no danger of ever doing.Note to self:
Bookmark this post and read through it before biting any more troll-bait from Dave.
Perhaps responses to such troll-bait should consist simply of a link to this post.

[Lucretius III]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The highlighted part is hilariously apt
Dave is actually admitting that the "creationist case" can ONLY advance when real scientists are not there to dispute the nonsense .
In other words Dave is admitting that there is no link between creationism and science.
I would say that this is an admission that creationism has nothing at all to do with science and everything to do with ignorance of science .

[Notta_skeptic]

DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.
Dave, I think the reason many people engage you (Febble, ck1, Constant Mews, Mike PSS, Faid, etc.) is that they truly believe you can learn something. They still think there's hope that if you sit down and concentrate on what they're showing you, you may yet realize that the evidence for an old earth is incontrovertible, and you can still retain a Christian faith without fear of damnation while accepting an old earth paradigm.

You really do need to read some basic textbooks. You can't just pick up all the information you need to understand what they're trying to show you through reading the abstracts of articles with an explanation from AiG.

Science is HARD. Math is HARD. Learning is HARD. If it came easily, everyone would be an expert, no? You need to do the HARD WORK of learning about the subject before you can "refute" their arguments, because it's painfully obvious that you don't understand what you or they are saying. It's frequently embarrassing to read when you demonstrate such cluelessness.

You wouldn't have gotten where you are today if you weren't intelligent. No one is disputing that you have demonstrated learning in the past. We're hoping that you'll continue to demonstrate some learning. Those who are most hopeful keep engaging you.

You should go to the Grand Canyon with the poster who invited you along on his group camp out (can't remember who that is right now, but it's somewhere on this forum).

Good luck with learning, Dave. It doesn't hurt, and it can lead you down paths you never even knew existed. All without damage to your immortal soul. (Sorry, Febble. Last time I mention it, promise!)

[Pappy Jack]

I've been dealing with you for over 2 years. I spent that time thinking that you really were trying to learn, but were mired in dogma.....
Extremely well said.

[Mike PSS]

DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons.

I've been dealing with you for over 2 years. I spent that time thinking that you really were trying to learn, but were mired in dogma. Recent comments by you requesting deletion and other moderation of dissenting comments requesting that you answer on-topic questions that you repeatedly dodged betrayed your actual position. I don't give a damn whether or not you believe in a young earth or accept the facts that the world does not in any way, shape, or form even remotely follow the biblical conception. I am not too happy that you proselytize your bullshit to children, but most kids are smart enough to make up their own minds about things, and no matter how charismatic you think you are, dinosaurs have you beat, hands down. What I do object to is your stubborn unwillingness to answer relevant objections when others have done the same for you in spades, and then have the gall to appeal to moderator action because you feel threatened by such demands.

I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case.

This is absolutely not true. You are unwilling to actually make a case, and you are unwilling to actually engage both the facts and the questions that we've posed to you. My posts here have two purposes. The first is discussion of relevant ideas with knowledgeable and intelligent people, both professional and nonprofessional. The second is meaningful education of intelligent and interested laypersons. I do not have an interest in engaging creationists, and I never really have. For a while, I had you pegged as an intelligent and interested layperson who was simply suffering from too much dogma. However, you revealed yourself to be a dishonest pissant who was simply using 'debate' with professionals as some form of Creationist Cred. I don't have an interest in playing House Debate with little Davey. If I wanted to play children's games, I'd volunteer at a local elementary school. I would undoubtedly make a bigger difference to a lot more people, and I'd undoubtedly find it a great deal more fulfilling than arguing with a middle-aged fraud on an internet forum.

Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The 'cause of evolution' is neither in jeopardy, nor is it anything that you, a fraudulent little AiG sycophant, are in any position to have any effect on. Your ignorance seems to be matched only by your hubris. You're a small, sad, pathetic little man, who lies to himself and others from his little podium on the internet, and tells himself that this validates his worldview to the exclusion of all others. The only difference between yourself and a 5 year old boy is that a five year old boy gets a spanking when he tells lies. That, and the simple fact that a five year old boy eventually grows up into an adult who will take responsibility for his words and actions, something you are in no danger of ever doing.
Rep for Dlx2.

This post belongs in the honesty thread too.

ETA: I notice the rep markers are up and running too.

[Black5]

I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case.

So if you drive qualified scientists away from the discussion with your dishonest methods that's a win for creationism? Schoolyard logic Dave.

Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

Unless you provide an example to back up this statement you will continue to look dishonest.

[ninewands]

This thread inspired by THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=986) with a similar title ...

1. Name calling -- Pond scum, liar, troll, cretin are some recent ones applied to me
2. Off topic psychoanalysis in various threads
Dave, some of the allegations (e.g., "troll") appear to be supported by your own conduct. If you don't want to play rough, stay in the kiddy pool.
3. Dodging questions while at the same time accusing me of being the dodger
Maybe your questions would be taken more seriously if you WEREN'T such a dodger.
4. Mods publicly reprimanding me for insinuating dishonesty and pretending I do this more than others
5. Playing libel police against creationists but not caring a bit if others libel me or other creationists
Dave, you make unsupported accusations of dishonesty against others. When you are accused of dishonesty the evidence is plain to see, in fact it's usually quoted in the post containing the accusation.

As for the libel thing ... if an accusation of dishonesty is supported by evidence of dishonesty it is not libelous. Go whine elsewhere.
6. Argument by link
Yeah, well, that sorta things a smaller waste of bandwidth than C&Ping entire articles which you would never read.
7. Argument by "go read a book you lazy bum"
Dave, you, yourself, have said before that you have NEVER read a book by any non-creationist author. How can you conceivably think that you have the intellectual chops to do combat in an arena like this? You have NO knowledge of what science has to say about itself, or about its subject matter. You have to have SOME background in the natural sciences to even understand what is said to you here. If you REFUSE to read anything but AiG and ICR web pages you will never learn.
8. Saying creationists haven't presented evidence, when the truth is, they have ... but they just don't like it
There has never been ANY scientifically valid evidence presented that supports any aspect of either creationism or its cheesy cousin "Intelligent Design." To the best of my knowledge the ONLY original scientific work ever undertaken by creationists was R.A.T.E. and it has been eviscerated by trained geologists who, believe it or not, really did NOT have an axe to grind. All they did was point out so many flaws in the methodology that it became painfully obvious the experiments were designed to yield exactly the results they got. Not the correct results, mind you, but the result that "supported" the study group's pre-conceived conclusions.
9. PM'ing me with daily "prayers for my soul"
I don't do that.
10. Quote mining me, twisting what I say
Pot ... kettle. Kettle ... pot.
11. Constantly accusing me of bogus quote mines
You do that. I have SEEN you do it in this very forum. I have seen you do it in other fora. I have seen you get called down for it with demands for retraction from the very people you quote-mined.
12. Constantly accusing me of "the Gish gallop" while the accuser is himself dodging or galloping
Nope, Dave ... nobody does this as well as you do. I suspect even Gish, his own self, would have a hard time keeping up with you.
13. Modifying my thread titles (Febble)
The title of a thread is not sacrosanct. This is especially true when the title contains a provable (in this case, proven) falsehood.
14. Deleting my posts because they are "off topic" but allowing others' off topic posts to stay (Worldtraveller)
Take it up with Lane.
15. Merging my topics with other topics under the ruse that they are "redundant" but not merging other people's redundant topics - RD.net is famous for this
You got a problem with RD.net, take it up with their forum management. I've not seen this happen here.
16. Making restrictions on posting links to my blog (What's with this? Are we scared someone might become a creationist?)
Rather than link-pimping your blog why don't you try linking to the original source of a quote? Of course, if you post a link to a quote-mine on a creationist website don't be surprised if someone else posts a link to the true source, in context, just to show how badly the original (real) scientist has been quote-mined.
17. Effectively only allowing creationists to start threads in low level forums -- "Debunking Creationism" at RD.net
You got a problem with RD.net, take it up with the management there.
18. Encouraging me to report inflammatory and off topic posts and use the complaint forum, only to issue me a temporary suspension later for doing exactly what I was told to do ... "I was being a bother" -- IIDB last December
You got a problem with IIDB, take it up with forum management there.
19. Banning creationists under the pretense that they are "excessively annoying" -- Wesley Elsberry (his mod actually did the banning without his knowledge during the very same week that Wesley himself was engaging me in dialog, but he decided to support his mod after the ban)
You got a problem with another forum take it up with that forum's management. We can't fix other fora.
Many more, but that will do for now ...
Would you like a little cheese to go with your whine?

[Constant Mews]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The highlighted part is hilariously apt
Dave is actually admitting that the "creationist case" can ONLY advance when real scientists are not there to dispute the nonsense .
In other words Dave is admitting that there is no link between creationism and science.
I would say that this is an admission that creationism has nothing at all to do with science and everything to do with ignorance of science .

I must admit that Dave puts his own petard to constant use. His posterior must resemble swiss cheese at this point.

[Constant Mews]

But primarily I respond because I hope to save Dave's soul. I realize this is a project that appears to be nonsense to the majority of the rest of you, and I don't ask you to join me in that fight, but it is of concern to me as a Christian to see one who professes a faith but overturns every tenet of that faith. I want to save Dave from damnation. It's that simple.



OK, I'm not a Christian anymore, but isn't that salvation business supposed to be up to God, anyway?Depends on which Bible book you consult, of course. ;)

Surely all the complete unbelievers and apostates here are in equal peril? :p

The rest of you are honest in your lack of theism. Dave is dishonest in his Christianity. One is more culpable in the eyes of God than the other.

[Constant Mews]

DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons.

I've been dealing with you for over 2 years. I spent that time thinking that you really were trying to learn, but were mired in dogma. Recent comments by you requesting deletion and other moderation of dissenting comments requesting that you answer on-topic questions that you repeatedly dodged betrayed your actual position. I don't give a damn whether or not you believe in a young earth or accept the facts that the world does not in any way, shape, or form even remotely follow the biblical conception. I am not too happy that you proselytize your bullshit to children, but most kids are smart enough to make up their own minds about things, and no matter how charismatic you think you are, dinosaurs have you beat, hands down. What I do object to is your stubborn unwillingness to answer relevant objections when others have done the same for you in spades, and then have the gall to appeal to moderator action because you feel threatened by such demands.

I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case.

This is absolutely not true. You are unwilling to actually make a case, and you are unwilling to actually engage both the facts and the questions that we've posed to you. My posts here have two purposes. The first is discussion of relevant ideas with knowledgeable and intelligent people, both professional and nonprofessional. The second is meaningful education of intelligent and interested laypersons. I do not have an interest in engaging creationists, and I never really have. For a while, I had you pegged as an intelligent and interested layperson who was simply suffering from too much dogma. However, you revealed yourself to be a dishonest pissant who was simply using 'debate' with professionals as some form of Creationist Cred. I don't have an interest in playing House Debate with little Davey. If I wanted to play children's games, I'd volunteer at a local elementary school. I would undoubtedly make a bigger difference to a lot more people, and I'd undoubtedly find it a great deal more fulfilling than arguing with a middle-aged fraud on an internet forum.

Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

The 'cause of evolution' is neither in jeopardy, nor is it anything that you, a fraudulent little AiG sycophant, are in any position to have any effect on. Your ignorance seems to be matched only by your hubris. You're a small, sad, pathetic little man, who lies to himself and others from his little podium on the internet, and tells himself that this validates his worldview to the exclusion of all others. The only difference between yourself and a 5 year old boy is that a five year old boy gets a spanking when he tells lies. That, and the simple fact that a five year old boy eventually grows up into an adult who will take responsibility for his words and actions, something you are in no danger of ever doing.

Beautifully expressed. And all the empirical evidence supports the theory that Dave has driven people away from Christianity, and has done nothing whatsoever to harm the cause of evolutionary biology.

As usual, Dave has no data to support his claims. Can he cite a single person on these boards who has been convinced by his reasoning? Can he cite a single scientist who has been intrigued enough to actually research a creationist claim? Can he provide a single example of a scientific discovery based on the creationist paradigm?

Of course not.

[ericmurphy]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

Dave, the idea that it takes actual credentialed scientists to blow away your arguments is amusing, but pathetically wrong. I'm an uneducated lout, with a diploma from an American high school of middling competence, and I can obliterate your so-called "arguments" without breaking a sweat.

You have an impossible time making a case for young-earth creationism. Every single claim you've ever made in support of a young-earth hypothesis has been dissected with a glittering array of scalpels, mostly by people who are not experts in the particular field under discussion.

I know you see yourself as some sort of champion of the young-earth cause, defeating respected scientists with the power of your arguments, but it's safe to say you're virtually alone in such a view. Even fellow creationists' support of your claims has been lukewarm at best.

And the truth is, Dave: you're the second-best argument in support of evolutionary theory and atheism around, with first place going to Guzman.

[Constant Mews]

You really think Guzman does a better job convincing folks of the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory than Dave ? Interesting.

[Dlx2]

You really think Guzman does a better job convincing folks of the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory than Dave ? Interesting.

Dave doesn't exhibit the seething racism and homophobia that characterize Guzman's discourse.

Also, butterfly wombs.

[ericmurphy]

You really think Guzman does a better job convincing folks of the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory than Dave ? Interesting.

Actually, yeah, I think he does. It may even be true that Guzman understands (in some extremely limited way) evolutionary theory better than Dave does.

[Dave Hawkins]

But primarily I respond because I hope to save Dave's soul. I realize this is a project that appears to be nonsense to the majority of the rest of you, and I don't ask you to join me in that fight, but it is of concern to me as a Christian to see one who professes a faith but overturns every tenet of that faith. I want to save Dave from damnation. It's that simple.



OK, I'm not a Christian anymore, but isn't that salvation business supposed to be up to God, anyway?

Surely all the complete unbelievers and apostates here are in equal peril? :pLOL

(Not LOL at the thought of anyone's soul being in peril ... LOL at CM's curious selectivity in the enterprise of saving souls ... Hmmm ... I guess this means there's at least 1 person here that likes me!)

[Dave Hawkins]

BTW mods ... I really don't mind CM trying to save my soul ... It's already been saved, but he didn't get the memo. No need to moderate him on my behalf, although I do appreciate the gesture.

[RAFH]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

Enjoy? Not really, but you are amusing, plus it is our sworn duty to let you expose yourself and the terrible effects of FUNDAMENTIA.

[RAFH]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.

I hear you loud and clear Dlx2, but I am not interested so much in discussion with davey of kids4truth and truth matters (not at all) but in exposing him. Every post he makes is a testament to his silliness and the silliness of his whole world view. He really is a very excellent example of what is wrong with the world view. He is just like that stupid movie 'Expelled', which makes a mockery not of evolution and science but of the people that made it. They've pretty much blown their entire stock of credibility and now they are facing definite prosecution for their bold copyright infraction of the Harvard group's work. They have no choice but to cut that out of the film or get whacked very publicly.

It's the whole point about free speech. Really obnoxious speech will destroy itself by it's very obnoxiousness. All we have to do is give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Take Dover, they thought they'd score a great victory, but went down in flames and, worse for them, there is now Federal Court precedence in the matter.

Same with Teh Great Bluffoon davey, give him enough rope and he'll tie himself up and then hang himself. He always has, he always will. In every exchange he always comes off looking like just what he is. He's run away from every thread and nearly every forum he's been in.

Of course, there's the side benefit of all the fantastic folks like you put out there. I've learned more on the various forums in the last year than I had in the previous 20 or so.

[espritch]

So why is it "wrong" to accuse you of evasion, Dave?

For the same reason is it wrong to point out that the Emperor is walking down the street buck naked.

[Constant Mews]

But primarily I respond because I hope to save Dave's soul. I realize this is a project that appears to be nonsense to the majority of the rest of you, and I don't ask you to join me in that fight, but it is of concern to me as a Christian to see one who professes a faith but overturns every tenet of that faith. I want to save Dave from damnation. It's that simple.



OK, I'm not a Christian anymore, but isn't that salvation business supposed to be up to God, anyway?

Surely all the complete unbelievers and apostates here are in equal peril? :pLOL

(Not LOL at the thought of anyone's soul being in peril ... LOL at CM's curious selectivity in the enterprise of saving souls ... Hmmm ... I guess this means there's at least 1 person here that likes me!)

Indeed. I am concerned about your salvation. As a person, you represent everything I loathe about Americans.

[Constant Mews]

You really think Guzman does a better job convincing folks of the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory than Dave ? Interesting.

Actually, yeah, I think he does. It may even be true that Guzman understands (in some extremely limited way) evolutionary theory better than Dave does.

Guzman certainly knows more about the theory and how it works, I will grant you. His beliefs are peculiar, and his homophobia more rampant, but OK. I will grant that Guzman is a better advocate for atheism even than Dave.

[ck1]

You really think Guzman does a better job convincing folks of the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory than Dave ? Interesting.

Actually, yeah, I think he does. It may even be true that Guzman understands (in some extremely limited way) evolutionary theory better than Dave does.

Guzman certainly knows more about the theory and how it works, I will grant you. His beliefs are peculiar, and his homophobia more rampant, but OK. I will grant that Guzman is a better advocate for atheism even than Dave.
Sorry, Byers gets first place in this creationist matchup.

[deadman_932]

Without naming names... I can't choose a favorite whacko.

They're all like my little frothing, twitching children that I have to love equally because they're ALL special.

[ck1]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

Dave, Sounds like you think this is a PR issue. Some sort of public popularity contest.

It's not.

What gets taught in science classes, which is really the subject of this whole "debate", is the consensus reached by practicing scientists. If creationists avoid labs and conferences and peer-reviewed journals, then they have no "case" and their promotional efforts are just so much extra-scientific, meaningless fluff.

[RAFH]

So why is it "wrong" to accuse you of evasion, Dave?

For the same reason is it wrong to point out that the Emperor is walking down the street buck naked.

Nah, that's an aesthetic decision, you do know what 70 year old men look like buck naked, don't you? It's not a pretty sight.

[ericmurphy]

Actually, yeah, I think he does. It may even be true that Guzman understands (in some extremely limited way) evolutionary theory better than Dave does.

Guzman certainly knows more about the theory and how it works, I will grant you. His beliefs are peculiar, and his homophobia more rampant, but OK. I will grant that Guzman is a better advocate for atheism even than Dave.
Sorry, Byers gets first place in this creationist matchup.

I'd agree with that, but Byers hasn't really been posting around here much. In terms of sheer volume of tard, and hence the discrediting of creationist beliefs, Byers takes a back seat to both Guzman and Dave.

[RAFH]

One question.

Why the hell are you people still responding to this charleton?e

There's a certain amount of tolerance that someone like Dave deserves, and that is tolerance up until the point where they demonstrate clearly that they have no desire to engage in honest and well-intentioned debate. Dave has passed that point. There is really no reason to waste your time formulating responses to his drivel anymore.DLX2 must be fairly new to my threads. This question has been asked by many people over the past 2 years but, curiously, people enjoy discussing these things with me for a variety of reasons. I will say though, that the fewer qualified scientists (like DLX2) there are who are willing to engage me, the easier job I have of making the creationist case. Most of those who try to refute me do a very poor job and wind up hurting the cause of Evolution promotion.

You have to be kidding davey. You've never presented any evidence for anything, well, other than obvious quote-mines and complete misrepresentations and your own incredulity. You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?

It's why you are so special around here, you are just such a great example of what FUNDAMENTIA does to people. Keep it up davey.

[ericmurphy]

I think a point Dave really needs to ponder is, his material here should not be intended primarily to persuade people who are already creationists. Those people a) don't require persuading, and b) are not amenable to argument anyway. If Dave is to accomplish anything, it's to persuade actual, credentialed, working scientists as to the validity of his arguments. I think even Dave would have to admit that he's been a cataclysmic failure at doing any such thing. He hasn't managed to extract the tiniest admission of doubt from any scientist here or anywhere else he's posted. Those of us who are not credentialed scientists, such as myself, are afforded the priceless opportunity to see just how completely worthless creationists' arguments really are, courtesy of Dave, Guzman, and to a lesser but even more incomprehensible extent, Byers.

[Dave Hawkins]

What gets taught in science classes, which is really the subject of this whole "debate", is the consensus reached by practicing scientists.I almost agree but not quite. It is true that voters will typically implement the consensus of scientists in their science classes, but this is not necessarily so and certainly not mandated by any laws I know of.

My kids use the Abeka curriculum and, while most of the material draws from the consensus of scientists, the quasi-religious part of that current consensus--such as Darwinism and Millionsofyearsianism is taught with a wink and a chuckle (or in some cases a scowl). IOW ... The curriculum creators want my kids to be aware of these "isms" much as they want them to be aware of other famous myths of the past ... Geocentrism, Flatearthism, etc.

[Febble]

What gets taught in science classes, which is really the subject of this whole "debate", is the consensus reached by practicing scientists.I almost agree but not quite. It is true that voters will typically implement the consensus of scientists in their science classes, but this is not necessarily so and certainly not mandated by any laws I know of.

My kids use the Abeka curriculum and, while most of the material draws from the consensus of scientists, the quasi-religious part of that current consensus--such as Darwinism and Millionsofyearsianism is taught with a wink and a chuckle (or in some cases a scowl). IOW ... The curriculum creators want my kids to be aware of these "isms" much as they want them to be aware of other famous myths of the past ... Geocentrism, Flatearthism, etc.

Well, in that case, Dave, will you get them to read The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)?

And is there any reason why you won't read it yourself?

[ck1]

What gets taught in science classes, which is really the subject of this whole "debate", is the consensus reached by practicing scientists.I almost agree but not quite. It is true that voters will typically implement the consensus of scientists in their science classes, but this is not necessarily so and certainly not mandated by any laws I know of.

My kids use the Abeka curriculum and, while most of the material draws from the consensus of scientists, the quasi-religious part of that current consensus--such as Darwinism and Millionsofyearsianism is taught with a wink and a chuckle (or in some cases a scowl). IOW ... The curriculum creators want my kids to be aware of these "isms" much as they want them to be aware of other famous myths of the past ... Geocentrism, Flatearthism, etc.

I hope Notta Skeptic comments - I would like her opinion on this Abeka curriculum. This is something I am not familiar with.

The current scientific consensus is not quasi-religious. It only appears to be so to you because the current scientific consensus is not consistent with youir biblical views. If your interpretation of something is religious, then obviously someone else's alternative explanation must also be religious, too!

[Notta_skeptic]

For ck1:

Three decades ago, God raised up A Beka Book to provide Christian schools with God-honoring, high-quality textbooks and teaching aids to help each school fulfill the goal of its ministry. The hundreds of traditional Christian educational materials developed by A Beka Book have been developed and refined over a period of 50 years in the classrooms of Pensacola Christian Academy. Christian schools throughout the nation recognize that A Beka Book sets the standard of excellence in the publishing of textbooks and other materials for Christian schools.

At A Beka Book, we are unashamedly Christian and traditional in our approach to education.

The A Beka Book approach to Christian education keeps learning lively, interesting, and memorable. Our materials reflect sensible theory that is firmly anchored to practicality. A Beka Book materials have been developed as a result of 50 years of actual classroom experience in Pensacola Christian Academy, one of America’s largest and most respected Christian day schools.

Our skilled researchers and writers do not paraphrase progressive education textbooks and add Biblical principles; they do primary research in every subject and look at the subject from God’s point of view. Of course, the most original source is always the Word of God, the only foundation for true scholarship in any area of human endeavor. Thus our publications are built upon the firm foundation of Scriptural truth and are written by dedicated and talented Christian scholars who are well grounded in the practical aspects of classroom teaching. For excellence for your Christian school, you can trust A Beka Book. (emphasis mine)

Mrs. Arlin (Beka) Horton, senior vice president, has played the leading role in the development of the academic program available from A Beka Book. Through the years, she has faithfully invested her multiple talents to give balance and excellence to all areas of the Christian school curriculum. Beka Horton sets the overall direction and editorial policy for the textbooks and curriculums and personally edits many of the materials published by A Beka Book. Her many years as an outstanding Bible teacher are reflected in the Bible program, and her understanding of the Scriptures, coupled with her keen reasoning abilities, have helped the authors in each subject area to reach our goal of building the content of every textbook on the foundation of God’s Word. link (http://www.abeka.com/OurFoundation.html)
A Christian curriculum directed and edited primarily by a "Bible teacher" - not a certified teacher, not a curriculum expert, not a specialist in any field other than a self-taught "Bible teacher."

'Nuf said.

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.

P.S. And I am an expert on curriculum development and academic standards, national and state. Need to see my CV? ;)

[Constant Mews]

Without naming names... I can't choose a favorite whacko.

They're all like my little frothing, twitching children that I have to love equally because they're ALL special.

You really need to be more careful what you're feeding your children.

[Fathermithras]

How can anyone call The modern theories of biology religious and then be an advocate for YEC? Is it really even possible to assert that with a straight face? YEC is pure science despite ZERO consensus wit regard to papers and studies (There isn't consilience among creationist theories) and evolutionary theories supported by hundreds of thousands of papers and studies....is religious? Dave, I'm shocked. You must have no conscience.

[Constant Mews]

What gets taught in science classes, which is really the subject of this whole "debate", is the consensus reached by practicing scientists.I almost agree but not quite. It is true that voters will typically implement the consensus of scientists in their science classes, but this is not necessarily so and certainly not mandated by any laws I know of.

My kids use the Abeka curriculum and, while most of the material draws from the consensus of scientists, the quasi-religious part of that current consensus--such as Darwinism and Millionsofyearsianism is taught with a wink and a chuckle (or in some cases a scowl). IOW ... The curriculum creators want my kids to be aware of these "isms" much as they want them to be aware of other famous myths of the past ... Geocentrism, Flatearthism, etc.

Unfortunately, despite your constant reassertion of this point, there are no religious aspects of "Darwinism" and "Millionsofyearsianism" - partially because these 'subjects' do not exist except in the ignorant, anti-science world of Fundamentalism, and because there is nothing whatsoever to distinguish evolutionary biology, biology, paleontology, geology, etc. from any other branch of science - except that evolutionary biology has more evidence than most.

Why do you bother to make these "proclamations"? Do you think anyone - including theists - agrees with you? As has been pointed out on this and several other threads, you've never managed to make any competent scientist doubt any portion of evolutionary theory.

You have made yourself and your faith look like a collection of squabbling morons, but that's another point entirely.

[Constant Mews]

My kids use the Abeka curriculum and, while most of the material draws from the consensus of scientists...I find it hilarious that Dave cannot even spell the name of the teaching curriculum used by his children. It's "A Beka", Dave. Look it up sometime. :D

[Constant Mews]

How can anyone call The modern theories of biology religious and then be an advocate for YEC? Is it really even possible to assert that with a straight face? YEC is pure science despite ZERO consensus wit regard to papers and studies (There isn't consilience among creationist theories) and evolutionary theories supported by hundreds of thousands of papers and studies....is religious? Dave, I'm shocked. You must have no conscience.

He certainly has no understanding of evolutionary theory. Hell, he can't even spell the name of the school curriculum his children use.

[ck1]

For ck1:

Three decades ago, God raised up A Beka Book to provide Christian schools with God-honoring, high-quality textbooks and teaching aids to help each school fulfill the goal of its ministry. The hundreds of traditional Christian educational materials developed by A Beka Book have been developed and refined over a period of 50 years in the classrooms of Pensacola Christian Academy. Christian schools throughout the nation recognize that A Beka Book sets the standard of excellence in the publishing of textbooks and other materials for Christian schools.

At A Beka Book, we are unashamedly Christian and traditional in our approach to education.

The A Beka Book approach to Christian education keeps learning lively, interesting, and memorable. Our materials reflect sensible theory that is firmly anchored to practicality. A Beka Book materials have been developed as a result of 50 years of actual classroom experience in Pensacola Christian Academy, one of America’s largest and most respected Christian day schools.

Our skilled researchers and writers do not paraphrase progressive education textbooks and add Biblical principles; they do primary research in every subject and look at the subject from God’s point of view. Of course, the most original source is always the Word of God, the only foundation for true scholarship in any area of human endeavor. Thus our publications are built upon the firm foundation of Scriptural truth and are written by dedicated and talented Christian scholars who are well grounded in the practical aspects of classroom teaching. For excellence for your Christian school, you can trust A Beka Book. (emphasis mine)

Mrs. Arlin (Beka) Horton, senior vice president, has played the leading role in the development of the academic program available from A Beka Book. Through the years, she has faithfully invested her multiple talents to give balance and excellence to all areas of the Christian school curriculum. Beka Horton sets the overall direction and editorial policy for the textbooks and curriculums and personally edits many of the materials published by A Beka Book. Her many years as an outstanding Bible teacher are reflected in the Bible program, and her understanding of the Scriptures, coupled with her keen reasoning abilities, have helped the authors in each subject area to reach our goal of building the content of every textbook on the foundation of God’s Word. link (http://www.abeka.com/OurFoundation.html)
A Christian curriculum directed and edited primarily by a "Bible teacher" - not a certified teacher, not a curriculum expert, not a specialist in any field other than a self-taught "Bible teacher."

'Nuf said.

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.

P.S. And I am an expert on curriculum development and academic standards, national and state. Need to see my CV? ;)

I knew you would be to go-to person on this!

Thanks for the details.

Are there any links (or quotes) to demonstrate what this curriculum actually teaches about the biological sciences (esp. evolution) or about how Abeka earth science describes the history of this planet?

Dave, From what NS says, Abeka does not teach mainstream science, except to disparage it. Do your kids know anything about mainstream science (as working scientists like myself would describe it)? Or do you teach your kids that they should not trust it?

[Black5]

Well, in that case, Dave, will you get them to read The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)?

And is there any reason why you won't read it yourself?

Dave, Febble is one of the most patient people responding to you and has asked you to read this half a dozen times. Please read it as a courtesy to her. It will take maybe 10 minutes.

[ck1]

Well, in that case, Dave, will you get them to read The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)?

And is there any reason why you won't read it yourself?

Dave, Febble is one of the most patient people responding to you and has asked you to read this half a dozen times. Please read it as a courtesy to her. It will take maybe 10 minutes.

Dave, Could you read this as a courtesy to Febble, please?

[JCL]

Dave, this should be the easiest task that you have ever set up for yourself. You made specific accusations, and I trust you can back them up. This is a direct questioning of your integrity.

Please review my earlier post (conveniently quoted below) and respond…

Dave,

I have reported your OP for intentionally baiting and for the falsehoods it contains. Just thought you would like a chance to face your accuser.

I will publicly recant the above statement and apologize to you if you can back up each and everyone of your accusations with examples from the posters on this forum. To be fair, you can go to other forums that you have “discussed” your point of view at in the past to find examples.

If you would like an example of how to do this please go to the thread you are emulating here and read for content.

It also seems you are trying to bait the forum moderators into suspending or banning you.

Why is this?
Are you so used to manipulative tactics that you cannot even recognize what you are doing?
Are you trying to create an impression that “Scientists” are repressing your worldview?

Is it something else, please explain. It is rather sad to see that you are no longer even making a half hearted attempt, and have been reduced to cries for attention and nothing more.

[Ian Nerr]

He's never been anything more than a troll.

[Notta_skeptic]

He's never been anything more than a troll.
No, Ian, he's a true believer. Nothing gets in the way of his beliefs, especially facts.

[Notta_skeptic]

Are there any links (or quotes) to demonstrate what this curriculum actually teaches about the biological sciences (esp. evolution) or about how Abeka earth science describes the history of this planet?

Dave, From what NS says, Abeka does not teach mainstream science, except to disparage it. Do your kids know anything about mainstream science (as working scientists like myself would describe it)? Or do you teach your kids that they should not trust it?
From biology in grade ten:
Life Sciences
Natural History and Scientific Investigation
Evolution: A Retreat from Science
From geology in grade nine:
Foundations of Geology
Rocks and Minerals
Weathering and Erosion
Interpreting the Fossil Record
And my favorite: from health in grade eight:
Sex education from the Bible (link) (http://www.abeka.com/Resources/PDFs/ScopeAndSequence.pdf)
When do you suppose they teach the boys they're supposed to marry their brother's widow? (Genesis 38:8)

[ck1]

From Abeka:
Evolution: A Retreat from Science

Dave,

Is that what you choose to teach your kids?

Do you think that is an accurate representation of the current scientific consensus that should be taught in introductory classes?

Or is the scientific consensus irrelevant in your kids' science classes?

[Notta_skeptic]

Off-topic:

I always think of 9 PM eastern time as "bath time, prayer time, and bed time" around the Hawkins household, so I don't expect Dave to be on-line or posting very much.

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.......

[ck1]

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.


Are home-schooling parents held to no standards?

I know about the recent ruling in California, but is that an exception to the rule?

How do colleges evaluate home-schooled kids?

[deadman_932]

Tri-City Home Educators 4500 Little Blue Parkway Independence MO 64057
Dave Hawkins (grades K5-12) Home school group Tri-City Baptist Church
http://www.aacs-mo.org/schools.aspx

At least he is only allowed to deal with the 5th graders and above.

[VoxRat]

Tri-City Home Educators 4500 Little Blue Parkway Independence MO 64057
Dave Hawkins (grades K5-12) Home school group Tri-City Baptist Church
http://www.aacs-mo.org/schools.aspx

At least he is only allowed to deal with the 5th graders and above.Holy shit.

Literally.

[ck1]

From that link:

The table below lists all of the schools that are members of the Missouri Association of Christian Schools (MACS) for the current year.....

School /Name /Address /City/ State /Zip Code ..../Administrator /Students

Tri-City/ Home Educators/ 4500 Little Blue Parkway/ Independence/ MO /64057.... /Dave Hawkins /26

[Notta_skeptic]

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.


Are home-schooling parents held to no standards?

I know about the recent ruling in California, but is that an exception to the rule?

How do colleges evaluate home-schooled kids?
Home-schooling varies by state, but religiously schooled students are exempted from almost everything. Colleges rely on SAT and ACT scores and student portfolios of work when evaluating home-schooled children.

In the case of Christian colleges, entry requirements are much lower. I knew people who entered private Christian colleges with no high school degrees or even a GED, just a recommendation from their pastor.

[Notta_skeptic]

When I worked in the government, I had access to information from a number (in the thousands) of home schooling organizations. Many used their family name (e.g. "Notta_skeptic's Life of Jesus Home School") to name their organization. It usually meant Mom teaching the kids in the kitchen or living room, regardless of how fancy the name was. Most were self-classified as K-12 "schools." I even got requests for "Christian-based" science units. Alas, the US government did not produce them (or at least did not admit to doing so!)

[ck1]

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.


Are home-schooling parents held to no standards?

I know about the recent ruling in California, but is that an exception to the rule?

How do colleges evaluate home-schooled kids?
Home-schooling varies by state, but religiously schooled students are exempted from almost everything. Colleges rely on SAT and ACT scores and student portfolios of work when evaluating home-schooled children.

In the case of Christian colleges, entry requirements are much lower. I knew people who entered private Christian colleges with no high school degrees or even a GED, just a recommendation from their pastor.

Are those Christian colleges accredited?

Do you have statistics on what proportion of homeschooled students go to college and what proportion go to accredited schools?

[ck1]

I also recognize that there are a lot of home-schooled kids that are well- educated. I was a volunteer teacher for a number of years in an elementary school-age supplementary science program that attracted a lot of home-schooled kids. All the students in the program seemed highly motivated and interested in basic science.

[Notta_skeptic]

Are those Christian colleges accredited?

Do you have statistics on what proportion of homeschooled students go to college and what proportion go to accredited schools?
Christian colleges are "accredited" through a Christian college network, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS). TRACS is recognized by the United States Department of Education. The current administration formally recognized TRACS as an accrediting agency soon after GWB's first election.

I don't have statistics on home schooled children (many states don't keep them, and most states have only a cursory reporting system). Students from predominately Christian home schools attend predominately small private Christian colleges (when they go at all - many fundamentalists discourage their daughters from attending college). Other home schooled children seem to be equally dispersed between traditional colleges and no college attendance, with a slightly higher proportion attending college than the general high school population at large.

[Dave Hawkins]

No public school held to state or national standards would use these materials.


Are home-schooling parents held to no standards?

I know about the recent ruling in California, but is that an exception to the rule?

How do colleges evaluate home-schooled kids?No standards? Are you kidding? The A Beka curriculum standards exceed the public school curriculum standards. We should be inspecting them ... who knows ... if homeschooling keeps growing and having the success it has in recent years, we may be doing just that.

Incidentally, did you know that these four guys were home schooled?

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/3178421-Mount_Rushmore-Mount_Rushmore_National_Memorial.jpg

[Dave Hawkins]

Tri-City Home Educators 4500 Little Blue Parkway Independence MO 64057
Dave Hawkins (grades K5-12) Home school group Tri-City Baptist Church
http://www.aacs-mo.org/schools.aspx

At least he is only allowed to deal with the 5th graders and above.Holy shit.

Literally.Must be a product of the public school system Thinks K5 is 5th grade. :dunno:

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, this should be the easiest task that you have ever set up for yourself. You made specific accusations, and I trust you can back them up. This is a direct questioning of your integrity.

Please review my earlier post (conveniently quoted below) and respond…

Dave,

I have reported your OP for intentionally baiting and for the falsehoods it contains. Just thought you would like a chance to face your accuser.

I will publicly recant the above statement and apologize to you if you can back up each and everyone of your accusations with examples from the posters on this forum. To be fair, you can go to other forums that yo