Charlie Wolcott

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

Charlie Wolcott

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:24 pm

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/ (I refer to exchanges under a post dated 2 June flagging a Ken Ham YouTube video)

An insight into how internet young earth creationists behave and into what type of person becomes an internet young earth creationist Christian.

Wolcott: "The difference between Ken Ham and Bill Nye (among virtually all Bible deniers) is that Ken told the truth he would not change his position on the authority of Scripture. Nye said one piece of evidence would change his mind. He was presented with many. No change. Any time I see "I follow the evidence", I laugh because I have yet to see a single person make that claim and actually do it."

Me: "Please tell us exactly what evidence Ham presented that 'should' have led to a change of mind by Nye after the debate.
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/arc ... nye-debate
For the record, this is what Nye said at the time: "We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately."

Wolcott: "I'll address the evidence when you address the argument I am making. Has Bill Nye EVER expressed any reality to even listen to anything YEC has to say? Because when he returned to actually go to the Ark he refused to even talk with the PhD about it and when he presented his case, he made it very obvious he never bothered to find out what the YEC arguments actually were. Oh, he got 6 days, and 6000 years, and global Flood right, but that's it...and he didn't get it from AiG directly.
I know you think I am just talking about the debate, but I referenced the debate for the claim and in the time since, Bill Nye hasn't even bothered to look or consider anything. Ken Ham did not try to refute Evolution in the debate and instead won the debate by addressing the question at hand within the first five minutes (not my formal opinion but that of a Texas Court Justice) by proving one can be a YEC and functional scientist in society today.
My argument is Ken Ham knows where he stands and is honest that he is not going to change his mind and Bill Nye made a claim he never had any intention of carrying out. You address that before I'll talk about evidences."

Me: "Wolcott evasiveness noted. I thought he was an expert? I did not fail to 'address' his argument. And everyone can see that. You are now moving the goalposts by making more criticism of Bill Nye. Everyone can see that. You claimed Nye was presented with 'many' pieces of 'evidence' at the (original) debate but failed to change his mind. I asked you for an example of said evidence and even provided a full transcript of the debate. And - as someone predicted - you DUCKED the question. Everyone can see it. Scientists do not just accept arguments from non-scientists (such as Nye) just because arguments were put to them in a debate or some other event. That is not how it works. And you know it. And it's not because they are slaves to any religious book. It's because the arguments often fail the scientific test."

Me: "Correction - the non-scientist I was referring to is Ham (it's late here in the UK)."

Wolcott: "It's not evasion. It's keeping YOU from derailing the comment. I simply reinforced and clarified my original comment. Deal with it. I'm not going to chase you around.
Scientists do not accept arguments from non-scientists such as Nye? So why is he their spokesperson?"

Wolcott: "To go with your correction, Nye refused to speak with the scientists with more credentials that most of those who he speaks with on his own side. He refused to listen to a word and actually learn what he was fighting against. Both you and "Bible and Science Forum" have learned well from his stock.
And yes, Nye is a non-scientist. The only thing he knows about actual science is the script they gave him 20-30 years ago. And the fact that you think unless you can prove a historical event by pure scientific means, it also proves you have no right to be in any discussion on the matter. But the ignorant and arrogant love to hear the sound of their voices. The Bible calls them fools."

Me: "Charlie Wolcott There's nothing to 'deal' with."

Me: "Charlie Wolcott Nye is pro science. Ham is pro creationism."

Me: "I was NOT derailing. I asked you a simple QUESTION. You ducked it."

Wolcott: "Nye is pro-liberal, government control over everything, not pro science. You again equate evolution with science here which is precisely what you denied earlier. Ham is pro creation. Despite your opinions otherwise, that doesn't make him an idiot."

I'll let this evasive bigoted extreme right wing liar have the last word since anyone still reading the thread can see that many of his statements - including the parting shot "you again equate evolution with science here" - are plain false. Yes, I was saying creationism is not science, if that is what Wolcott originally meant (I can't now locate the comment in question). Young earth creationism rejects vast swathes of science (not just evolution but also geology and astronomy). What I denied, based on my straightforward reading of his original comment - and I still deny it - is that I am suggesting that 'evolution is science' (it is part of science but not all of science - which is an obvious no-brainer).

The bottom line is that Wolcott made a sweeping original statement which, when unexpectedly challenged, he could not or would not substantiate.

I also note that in other exchanges under the same 2 June post various comments by the (theistic evolutionist) bible.and.science.forum have now been hidden - whilst various posts attacking him (including by Wolcott) are still visible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Charlie Wolcott

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:02 am

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
Assuming he is not referring to some other person (WHO), liar Wolcott is repeating his falsehood regarding my words to him (no longer visible as far as I can see) that were posted here: https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
Because, as mentioned in the preceding post, I let him have the last word at the Ham facebook thread, the bigot thinks I must be admitting to something and is declaring himself vindicated at the Sorensen hate page.
This is what he is saying: "And they accuse us not only being being "anti-science" but lying and misrepresenting them when we say they equivocate "science" with Evolution (which is PRECISELY what they are doing when they call us anti-science)."
Anti-science means that because they are 'biblical creationists' they reject whole swathes of firm science - evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology ... and put forward alternatives that fail the scientific test such as their 'flood geology'. I do NOT 'equivocate' and suggest that "evolution is science" or some such. I DO say young earth creationism is not science. Science is science.
I am now, of necessity, flagging this at the Ham thread (as I cannot do so at the Sorensen thread due to being blocked by that coward).
Will Wolcott correct his words at the Sorensen thread after reading this? Of course not. Unless there is a flying pig on the horizon.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Charlie Wolcott

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:05 am

My new reply reads:
"I was going to let Wolcott have the last word (I still might). However he is now seemingly lying about my words in another place - where I cannot defend myself (as 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen blocks me). So: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3812&p=51472#p51472"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests