Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:12 am

Attempted reply to the ideologue:



"Ashley doesn’t seem to realize the circular nature of his claim. How can he be sure that he knows science? Apparently, because he knows that he is NOT ignorant of science. This is the fallacy of begging the question."
That is not an argument it is meaningless tosh.

"I guess there is no reason why an evolutionist shouldn’t misrepresent creationists, since there is no rational basis for morality on an evolutionary worldview."
FALSE ALLEGATION AND BLATANT STEREO-TYPING OF YOUR CRITICS.

"His reasoning is indeed circular." You are calling me a liar, Jason. And I am not a liar and do not appreciate being called one. I have already TOLD you that I reject the flood for OTHER reasons too. Nothing to do with circular reasoning. The event never happened in history. And we don't find loads and loads of fossils all radiocarbon dating from around 4,300 years' ago (or another common (older) date if one assumes, as you do, that this dating method is 'unreliable' because of less carbon, than conventionally assumed, 4,300 years ago).

Your behaviour is disgusting. (Go on and censor me - I'm adding this to the BCSE community forum thread for anyone to see so I don't care either way. If you don't censor me you will twist my words - given a choice I'd prefer to be censored.)

"So for example, assuming that fossils were deposited over millions of years instead of a worldwide flood cannot be used as evidence against a worldwide flood." It CAN if the millions of years scenario (backed up by much other evidence) explains what is seen better - as is indeed the case.

"The global flood radically changed Earth’s topography, pushing continents apart, and building mountains." NONE of this happened, or could happen, in just the last 6,000 or so years.

"I don’t mean to disparage Ashley in any way..." LIAR. "... "but he really hasn’t studied this issue at all". You are calling [me] a liar, Jason. I KNOW that I am being truthful. Thus I am learning more and more what a nasty piece of work you can be, in that you don't care if you misrepresent me but care about ensuring your followers dismiss me and dismiss what I write. If you are LOOKING for a liar criticising you, you have got the wrong man. Which is a bit of a problem for you, I would suggest.

The carbon 14 you mention is contamination. And the Coconino sandstone was formed by wind not water.

The marine fossils, IF they are found both close to the surface and near the summit, would be at the top of the (current) geologic column in the Himalaya. You are twisting my words again as I never mentioned the Quaternary (which I did know is much more recent than the Permian).

You are taking me for a fool Jason. I warned you against doing that. Me indicating that I believe altitudes would be the same before and after the claimed date for the Genesis flood is NOT the same as me (allegedly) suggesting (I did no such thing as I have already TOLD you) that Cambrian strata are 'found' at the same altitudes throughout the world.

As anybody can tell.

"It is just amazing to me that Ashley doesn’t see that his reasoning is circular." It's very simple. My reasoning is based, partly, on the sheer lack of evidence for the explanations put about by young Earth creationists (such as 'head for the hills' explaining the geologic record).

Like I said, and Jason is merely blustering in response, his comment about evolutionists is a red herring with respect to the last 6,000 years and - Shock Horror - Jason is committing one of his own fallacies. A red herring is also a literary device that leads readers towards a false conclusion. In this case a false conclusion that because evolutionists know that altitude (elevation from sea level) of rocks has not always been the same, therefore it must have been much different 4,300 years ago as claimed by creationists. Like I said, Jason referring to evolutionists was irrelevant and misleading.

"And what would be the evidence for that claim?" If you read through many of our exchanges, I have pointed them out as appropriate (but you now pretend otherwise and accuse me of fallacies). You should know that I do not make up imaginary claims of creationists falsely accusing me of things (some of your critics might do this). I merely highlight any such false claims whenever they are actually made against me.

I have ALREADY explained to you (in the 'Memo' post) that IF I 'misrepresented' you as saying scientific reasoning (reasoning not from the 'standard' of God's word) is arbitrary opinion, then I did so unintentionally because I MAY have misunderstood what you considered the word scientific to mean when I used it (for MY part I was referring to the likes of evolutionary biology and old-age geology, plus astronomy - but you apparently were referring to what you might term 'good' science).

I do not know why you apparently won't just accept my explanation.

"I suspect that most readers of this blog will readily see that Ashley has pretty well discredited himself". I suggest that you are behaving like a mind-influencing cult leader who wishes to have his followers turn against all critics, especially ones who can write fluent posts.

"Well, I think we all now can see that Ashley had some whopping big misunderstandings about the geologic column." When are you going to tell me what they are, Jason?

"Laws of mathematics are all “hot air?”" NO, Jason. Your argument was.

"It exposes his claim as false and rather silly." My claim is that Jason distorts science - which is easier to do if you have a PhD.

"a character assassination is an attempt to malign the integrity [of] an individual, in this case to dissuade people from believing his arguments". Which is what you have 'graciously' been doing for the last five days. Has it worked?

"Again, nothing was done "behind Ashley’s back"." So why did you not inform me that you had extensively annotated my posts? Especially as I am new here (assuming you do it to other critics too). Why have you ignored this, reasonable, question?

Frankly I don't believe you when you seek to claim that you were upfront. I have had similar experiences with other YECs (though most prefer straight censorship).

"there is overwhelming evidence that such has happened in nature, as documented in the RATE books. LOL. I am familiar with the claims of RATE. If you don't believe me, why not search on the BCSE website for posts on that general topic?

"I already did." Sorry, my QUESTION was about your claim that supernovae explode after less than 6,000 years.

"For some reason Ashley seems to think that by repeating a refuted claim over and over, it will somehow become "unrefuted"." I don't. But I think we must agree to disagree here, Jason.

You did NOT address me directly for some reason, instead (after several days had elapsed) you wrote various negative comments within my posts telling other people what to think of them and me, and also failed to take five minutes to alert me to this. Whereas when I posted about you at the BCSE community forum (where I post frequently) I informed you and others straightaway - there was no lack of openness on my part (which is why you are not accusing me of such). I then also spent a lot of time reproducing various 'rebuttal' comments here.

I suggest that you are rather arrogant and that you have no respect for people who criticise you (you may think the same about me and it is true that I have learnt by experience to disrespect MOST YECs).

Like I suggested earlier you seem to want to get rid of me - thus you have put me on pre-moderation, apparently because I rejected Chris H's latest false allegation against me and called him the 'l' word again.

IF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WAS ON YOUR SIDE ALL THIS LYING AND OTHER WORD GAMES FOR JESUS, AND SEEKING TO ATTACK INTELLECTUALLY EVERYONE WHO DOUBTS YOUR CLAIMS WOULD NOT BE SO NECESSARY :)

(Which fallacy or fallacies did that fact-based observation include?)
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:56 pm

I have just tried to submit the following comment on Jason's Facebook page:

"Jason

I see you are taking about me behind my back once again!

Since you put me on pre-moderation, please will you tell me whether or not you approved my latest attempted post responding to your continued commentaries on my most recent posts under your blog of 27 March. The attempted post in question was also reproduced at the BCSE thread, timed at 7.12 am on 23 April. See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=45
I am asking because I cannot see either the new post or even some of my other most recent posts - but there are now three pages of posts, so I am possibly looking in the wrong places.

If you did fail my post, I will assume that you either were unable to deal with my points, or you are too busy and couldn't be bothered. Unless you advise otherwise.

As far as I know there have been no further posts directed at me during the past 15 hours or so.

Thanks - if you reply.

Ashley"

https://www.facebook.com/jason.lisle.9

EDIT: I got a message confirming receipt of my Facebook message, but I still cannot see it on the page.

IF Jason has TODAY removed my most recent (annotated) posts and failed my attempted new post shown above at 7.12 am, after starting his Facebook thread YESTERDAY, I can only assume that he realised that I had exposed his deceitful behaviour regarding what I had actually argued in some of my posts and also appreciated that his latest 'rebuttal' would be shown up as very feeble if he allowed the 7.12 am posting.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:30 pm

Attempted post/message just added under Jason's blog (awaiting moderation - and probably will be failed but I just want him to read it):


"I have sent the following message to Jason's Facebook page:

"Jason
I see you are taking about me behind my back once again!
Since you put me on pre-moderation, please will you tell me whether or not you approved my latest attempted post responding to your continued commentaries on my most recent posts under your blog of 27 March. The attempted post in question was also reproduced at the BCSE thread, timed at 7.12 am on 23 April.
See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=45
I am asking because I cannot see either the new post or even some of my other most recent posts - but there are now three pages of posts, so I am possibly looking in the wrong places.
If you did fail my post, I will assume that you either were unable to deal with my points, or you are too busy and couldn't be bothered. Unless you advise otherwise.
As far as I know there have been no further posts directed at me during the past 15 hours or so.
Thanks - if you reply.
Ashley"

I have also received the following from the Christian named 'One Who Learns Online' (I don't know his identity just his email address) - which he has suggested I might post for Jason's attention.
"Ashley
If we were ever to share the platform at a conference panel discussion
(perhaps ETS or AAR/SBL), I would love to ask Jason Lisle:
1) How does he know what "alternative universes" [including "godless"
universes] would be like? (Or unlike?)
2) Why not assume that any universe that is REAL *must* by virtue of
that reality be "rational"? That is, are "irrational universes" just
as ridiculous as talking about square circles or the silly "rock so
heavy that even God can't lift it"?
3) Why can't moral standards exist in the absence of God? [I'm not
saying that they would necessarily be particularly fair or consistent
standards.....nor even especially desirable. But why can't we assume
that the desire for survival alone can produce various "moral
standards"?] [Of course, as a Bible-affirming Christian, I believe
the
hypothetical is no more than that. And once we open the door to a
scenario I personally believe to be impossible, it is very difficult
to
determine what my logic would allow within a fantasy which I believe
can't exist. That is, how can I make evaluations of logic where my
logic has already been temporarily suspended?]
4) If Lisle's "proofs" are so compelling, then why aren't equally
Bible-affirming evangelical Christians who DO strongly believe in the
existence of God finding the arguments compelling? And why did
outstanding Christian philosophers and defenders of the faith like Dr.
Francis Schaeffer stop far short of Lisle's "proofs" when they wrote on
the same topics---even though Schaeffer regularly emphasized the
cultural advantages of a God-based morality system in the rise of
western civilization?
Again, as a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I would love to add a
convincing "ultimate proof of God" to my apologetics toolset. But I
generally avoid alienating my audience with presumptuous claims which
don't stand up to even casual scrutiny. So if I am missing something
vital in my understanding of Lisle's arguments, I would be DELIGHTED
to
be enlightened on this topic. Otherwise, readers find nothing deeper
in
Lisle's arguments than (1) "Because I said so!", and (2) "It is true
because it is OBVIOUSLY TRUE." (And somehow such arguments are
"obvious" only to young earth creationist fans.) Lisle even stated
that Ashley couldn't post his counter-arguments if God didn't exist---
because computers wouldn't exist. Yes, I happen to believe that
without
God, no universe would exist. But I have no logic proof for that
belief, even though I do have my own personal experiences along with
evidence for that existence and I do personally believe what the Bible
says [even though I often disagree with what Lisle THINKS the Bible
says.] Yet, a LOGIC PROOF and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE are something quite
different from a personal "confrontation" and acceptance of God and
the
Lordship of Jesus Christ. And the Bible explicitly states that no one
comes to faith in Christ EXCEPT through the direct call and enabling
of
God. So Christians should keep priorities in perspective.)
One more time: I would LOVE to see Lisle or anyone else come up with
an "ultimate proof of God." But everything I've read so far has fallen
woefully short---and, frankly, as a evangelical Christian who cares
about the Great Commission, I can only hope that my non-theist
audiences have never seen Lisle's "proof". Otherwise I fear that they
will have the same heart-hardening I've seen even among Christian
young
people who read Lee Strobel's CASE FOR CHRIST desperately hoping to
have their slowly-deteriorating faith reinforced and renewed by that
book. Sadly, when I was still teaching on a large university campus I
had both Christian and non-Christian students telling me after reading
Strobel's books: "If that is the best case which can be made for
Jesus
Christ, then the book was counterproductive to its stated goal." And
two of the Christian students among my advisees told, "That thought
left me extremely discouraged." But what is more amazing to me is
that
several of the scholars who Strobel interviewed in that book have
written OUTSTANDING apologetics on their own. So we are reminded of
the downside of looking to a JOURNALIST of appallingly unimpressive
training and background for explaining complex topics better left to
the scholars themselves. It reminds me of the time that Ray Comfort
and
Kirk Cameron appeared on NIGHT LINE to debate the Rational Response
Squad. (Every analogy which comes to mind for describing that debacle
risks violating the propriety of virtually any online forum, so I
won't
try.)
Unfortunately, in the past half century we evangelicals Christians in
America have tended to allow our least competent voices to speak for
our faith. Our most outstanding Christian scholars are virtually
unknown names within society in general---and even within the average
evangelical church. (I've heard introductions of Chuck Swindoll,
Josh
McDowell, and Charles Missler include superlatives like "one of the
greatest Biblical scholars of his generation." Far too many of my
Christian brethren have no idea what defines an outstanding Biblical
scholar and wouldn't know an exegete from an eschatologist.) Sales of
pop-Christian titles and Christian conference circuit bookings largely
determine popularity and "prestige", along with the requisite radio
and
TV exposure. The "peer-review" of young earth creationist leaders
publishing their articles in YEC industry journals has produced
exactly
the shoddy standards everybody would expect. Sadly, when it comes to
Christian pseudo-science apologetics, many non-Christians have been
convinced that the nonsense produced by the loudest voices can be
attributed to and blamed upon the Biblical text itself. So the
credibility of the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in general is
tainted by "doctrines" which have no basis in the scriptures and are,
at best, secondary distractions from the Bible's focus. And that is
why for years I have warned that people like Ken Ham help produce far
more atheists and disenfranchised Christians than Richard Dawkins and
the late Christopher Hitchens ever will. (We as Christians are called
to preach "the foolishness of the cross", not every foolish idea that
pops into our heads. "Fools for Christ" has become far too literal of
a term in describing what has become a virtual clown car of colorful
personalities on Youtube. If Potholer54 hadn't come up with the
Golden
Crocoduck years ago, numerous equivalents would have spontaneously
appeared. No wonder that even YEC hero Dr. Kurt Wise has lamented the
deplorable state of creation science: "....most of which is crap."
A legitimate logic proof stands on its own and CANNOT be debunked. It
provides a step-by-step progression by which EVER step stands on its
own without reliance on any subjective judgments. Yet, Lisle's
"ultimate proof of God" has failed to attract support even among
stalwart Christian theists who share his evangelical faith. That's why
you will never see that "ultimate proof" emphasized outside of young
earth creationist circles. It is neither "ultimate" nor any kind of
"proof". If Lisle should ever produce a "proof of God" of ANY kind,
whether "ultimate" or not, I'll be among the first lined up to use
it. In the meantime, the presumptive boast only further discredits a
movement which we evangelicals have allowed to embarrass us for far
too
long. ALL Bible-affirming Christians tend to get blamed for the folly
of a very vocal few.
So I wonder, Ashley. Do you know of any of my Christian brethren who
might be willing to engage the questions I listed above regarding
Lisle's arguments and "proof"?
OWLO"."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:02 am

I have now located again the text of my attempted post as was shown in this thread at 7.12 am on 23 April - very close to the bottom of the second page of comments (previously it appeared on the first page).

It has now been 'awaiting moderation' for 19 hours.

And Jason has ignored my query to him at his Facebook page.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:20 am

Further message to Jason at his Facebook page:

"I have now found my attempted new post that I enquired about (timed at 7.12 am BST on 23 April when simultaneously posted on the BCSE discussion forum - which is 19 hours ago).
Is it likely to be moderated any time soon, please?
Your Facebook message invited followers to read my 'interesting comments' under your blog - but you appear reluctant to let your followers see my very latest comments (with or without you first inserting square bracketed comments 'translating' my words for the benefit of your followers who have been encouraged to keep a running tally of 'fallacies' posted by critics such as myself).
Ashley"

Now, it's just a waiting game (not one I'm likely to lose sleep over).

Will Jason approve my new posts and add commentaries to them? Or fail them? Or just ignore them and leave them 'awaiting moderation'? Am I now banned (without so far being informed of the fact if so) or merely on a process of slow pre-moderation?

Time will tell.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:51 pm

YEC cult-leader and ideologue Jason Lisle is STILL talking about me to his followers under his most recent blog post:

HIM:
"Hi all,
Have a look at the cartoon on this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ng-epithet
and see if it reminds you of anyone who recently posted on this blog."

ME (but this is 'awaiting moderation' and is rather unlikely ever to be published):
"If my posts here are so poor in your eyes, WHY are you failing to moderate - or else de facto rejecting - my latest efforts, Jason? Despite reminders both here and at your Facebook page.
Because you are a professional LIAR, I politely suggest.
Your attempt to link me with a YEC propaganda cartoon (not yet looked at) and this response both are being posted at the BCSE community forum.
Why not come and join us there and defend your conduct?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:09 pm

Having now looked at the cartoon, I have NOT gone around proclaiming that I 'won' the debate with Jason. Dare I say it, when it comes to my particular case, the YEC propaganda machine is dealing here in stereo-types rather accurately depicting their many opponents. (I don't have a beard either.)

Rather my position - as ALREADY stated in a recent post in this thread - is as follows. That IF Jason has decided neither to publish nor to seek to refute my detailed post to him as timed at 7.12 am on 23 April on this thread, I can only assume that he realises that I have EXPOSED his deceitful behaviour regarding what I had actually argued in some of my postings (I don't mean his logic claims I mean that he refuted things that I never argued). And that he appreciates that his previous 'rebuttal' would be shown up as very feeble indeed if he allowed the 7.12 am posting. And that he would in turn struggle to rebut the 7.12 am posting if he dared allow his indoctrinated followers to read it.

I APPEAL TO ANYONE VIEWING THIS THREAD - WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FAITHFULLY REPEATING TO ME UNDER JASON'S BLOG HIS RATHER DOGMATIC ARGUMENTS - TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND ABOUT WHETHER JASON'S BEHAVIOUR IS APPROPRIATE.

ALTHOUGH I THINK THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES IN DETAIL HOW YEC APOLOGISTS DEAL WITH DISSENTERS, I DO NOT SEEK TO INSTRUCT THOSE VIEWING THIS THREAD ON WHAT CONCLUSION(S) THEY SHOULD COME TO REGARDING BOTH JASON AND MYSELF.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:47 pm

Another attempted comment to the highly annoying Chris H who enquired of me all innocent-like and ignoring my arguments "please, explain where I was untruthful, Ashley":

"Chris H

You falsely accused me of 'equivocating' about the words science or scientific (after I suggested that Jason had done this). Yet I NEVER use those words when I am discussing young Earth creationist apologetics - since I do not consider them pro-scientific. It is YECs like you and Jason who do this ie when Jason bangs on about how he "loves" science. (Also, in the instance where I was accused of 'misrepresenting' Jason, I used the word 'scientific' in response to Jason's "when people reason from an ultimate standard that is not God’s Word" - thus I clearly was NOT seeking to make him 'state', contrary to his viewpoint, that "creation science is based on arbitrary opinion".) As I said, he implied that mainstream science eg evolutionary biology is based on 'arbitrary opinion'. I correctly interpreted the implication of his words, but because I was viewed as a 'trouble-maker' I had to be accused to the gallery not only of arbitrariness but also of 'misrepresentation'.

You also falsely accused me of going behind Jason's back by starting a thread at the BCSE community forum. But I was upfront about the thread from the very start. (Jason has also started talking about me behind my back at his Facebook page by the way.)

Even if Jason prevents you from seeing this response, I trust that he will read it and perhaps search his conscience."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:51 pm

I have managed to resist the temptation to send another wide-circulation email highlighting Jason's very latest antics, but I have just emailed three Christians (two opponents of YEC-ism and one YEC) who commented on my second wide-circulation email.

The main reason for the email is that I am trying to verify that NONE of my comments awaiting moderation eg the one at 7.12 am on 23 April above (which on Jason's blogsite is visible to me timed at 1.29 am US local time on 23 April, and I have a photo of it) are visible to anyone else accessing Jason's site. Should anyone else reading this thread have a spare moment, they may wish to check low down on the second page of comments that my comment 'awaiting moderation' is NOT, as I assume is the case, viewable to them?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:55 pm

My key posting - which I suggest SUCCESSFULLY REFUTED Jason since he appears both afraid to let people see it and now also unable or unwilling to try and discredit it as he has previously sought to do - has now been 'awaiting moderation' for a full 36 HOURS.

I call that censorship.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:21 pm

Extract from my limited circulation email of this evening mentioned above:

"Predictably (and despite reminders under his blog and sent to his
Facebook page), Jason has (a) FAILED to approve (or reject) my
attempted post above and (b) ignored my requests for information.

I suggest that this is all about making Jason 'look' good to his
supporters. Yet he has misrepresented me and then silenced me. It also
appears that these YEC Christians have decided in advance that their
critics are always illogical liars - and anything they actually say
must interpreted in the light of that 'conviction'. One might even
suggest that they have become victims of their own propaganda in that
they may wish to be honest but in reality dare not be as it would
expose their argument which they think is 'from God'."

I would be interested to see any comment by anyone reading this who might think that I am somehow mistaken.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:11 pm

I received an email response from the YEC recipient - but I frankly don't know why he bothered.

HIM:
"Ashley,
With all due respect, you do not understand this issue. I have
debated hundreds of people on this issue and you are not near the top
of good debates I've had. The best debates I've had are with people
who understand my position and can find the flaws from within my
argument, and that HAS happened. You think the argument is X, so you
set X up and knock it down - and then think you are impressive. That's
a straw-man fallacy. If our argument was never X, then your entire
logic fails. That is a lot of what Jason has said to you that you
repeatedly do not recognize.
You say our "head for the hills" flood argument, and laugh it off.
Have you ever listened to Dr. Snelling speak for two hours about the
science and evidence behind the "head for the hills" argument?".

ME:
"With all due respect you have failed to provide any evidence
whatsoever that I "do not understand this issue".
You are a follower of dogma, and dogmatists can never accept valid
criticism from their opponents. Especially if they are 'defending
God'.
It is obvious that Jason is now censoring me because allowing my post
- as reproduced in my email - would be embarrassing to him and
discredit him in the eyes of any of his followers who might happen not
to have been sufficiently indoctrinated. As I have stated, my attempted
post of 23 April exposed how HE used 'strawman' tactics and sought to
put words into my mouth. Instead of trying to deal with my post, he now
seeks to up his propaganda attack and try to link me to this: http:
//www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/24/logical-fallacies-
question-begging-epithet
I did become annoyed with SOME of Lisle's supporters and Lisle
himself. I have never denied that.
As for being 'arbitrary' I was thus according to Lisle's questionable
definition of that term viz that if you cannot explain 100% why an
evolved universe would have scientific laws (he can't show that it
would not) then all your arguments are 'worthless'.
I dealt with 'head for the hills' in the discussions with Lisle's
followers. The responses I received did not disprove my criticisms
(which may explain why when I originally posted them at an Amazon.com
book review discussion the YEC reviewer TWICE ignored them).
Lisle is behaving like a cult leader.
This exchange goes onto the BCSE community forum. Where you once
posted - but then disappeared.
Ashley"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:54 pm

LISLE at 10.22 am local time on 24 April:
"Hi all,
Have a look at the cartoon on this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ng-epithet
and see if it reminds you of anyone who recently posted on this blog".

ME at 3.51 pm local time today (just now):
"Jason
Nice bit of propaganda - was that cartoon all your very own work?
My REAL position on you, your blog post, and how you respond to critical comments is shown here (my post at 6.09 pm BST on 24 April):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=45
IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THE TRUTH YOU WILL PUBLISH THIS RESPONSE.
And, if not, you won't.
Assuming you dare even read my attempted posts.
Ashley"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:36 pm

I am reasonably confident that I have discovered one or more live email addresses for Mr Lisle and that the following email has been delivered OK:

"Jason
Please would you do me the courtesy of informing me whether you have
banned me without telling me from posting under your blogs, or whether
you will eventually moderate my attempted post at 1.29 am on 23 April
and subsequent attempted posts. Thank you - IF you respond.
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... n-vs-gods-
word/comment-page-2/#comments

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=45
Mr A Haworth-Roberts"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:07 pm

I could see nothing by way of 'rules' for postings on Lisle's website. In fact there's very little there - just a series of blog posts and this page:
http://www.jasonlisle.com/about-lisle/

All I can see on the subject of rules is his (inserted) comments against my posts in recent days eg:

"Editor: ad hominem attack cut. Again, Ashley has violated the rules regarding no character attacks on this site" (I called someone a 'liar' because they were lying, as I also showed); and
"Let’s take a break from Ashley for a little while, shall we? Granted, his arguments have all the logical merit of a 2-year old throwing a temper tantrum. But even that can get irritating after a while."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron