They zapped ALL my comments under a previous blog.
(PS in early March - although the previously deleted posts have NOT been restored my more recent posts, added since I started this thread, have been allowed to remain.)
Now there's this one:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... rophe.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6218806730
And my ATTEMPTED comment:
"Your blog title is extremely misleading Steve. As David pointed out under your previous blog (where ALL my comments have been censored): "Parts of uniformitarianism have been rejected (not sure where you get the 1970's date from). The idea that earthquakes, floods, volcanism, etc. occurred at the same rate in the past as they do now has been rejected.
What hasn't been rejected is the idea that the laws of nature are consistent across time and space. For science to be meaningful, this idea can't be rejected.
Maybe a supernatural being really did speed up the rate of radioactive decay by a factor of several hundred million while also supernaturally dissipating the excess heat generated, but there is no way to scientifically come to that conclusion.
Check out the wikipedia article on uniformitarianism, especially the comparison between "Methodological assumptions" and "Substantive hypotheses"."
Whilst Lyell got some things wrong, your claim that 'uniformitarian thinking' has been rejected since the 1970s is simply false. That is why it is still taught. But NOT to the exclusion of ANY past local catastrophes (including ones we have not witnessed in recent centuries eg past events in Iceland). The existence of catastrophes does NOT nullify uniformitarianism ie NO 'catastrophe' has completely destroyed the notion of uniformitarianism. (Some YEC beliefs invoke a form of - incorrect - uniformitarianism as the bible.and.science.forum have pointed out in other discussions I've seen, eg re moon recession.)
"But are these beliefs founded in science? Of course not. We cannot determine such things from science." Yes we can, and have. "Biblical creationists are said to be anti-science ...". They are. You have just demonstrated that. You make dogmatic statements that science 'cannot' determine certain things. That is simply your biased opinion. Expressed without examining any facts or evidence. And science is very good at ruling things OUT concerning the past even when the details of what DID occur may sometimes be hazy.
Do you have any science background, Steve?
I trust Jason will view this discussion as SEPARATE from the previous one - where all my many detailed contributions have been summarily zapped for what I consider trivial and unfair reasons. Either you people believe in free speech, or you don't. Time will tell."
I do not trust these people.
PS at 22.45 pm. No they do NOT believe in free speech by me, even when I am polite and avoid name-calling. They are lying totalitarian bigots and frauds.
PPS at 23.11 pm. PLEASE IGNORE ME. MY POST IS STILL THERE ... MY MISTAKE FOR WHICH I HAVE APOLOGISED.
FURTHER COMMENT EARLY ON 28 FEB UK TIME:
The blogger Steve never addressed my criticisms above but I have been censored nevertheless just now for making them and for refuting false claims by his sidekick Charlie Wolcott.
British Centre for Science Education
Campaigning against the influence of creationism in the UK Science Classroom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?(PS NO)
Moderator: Moderators
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?(PS NO)
by a_haworthroberts » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:55 pm
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
EVIL YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS
by a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:21 am
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... rophe.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6218806730
(also this prevceding Risner thread
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... ology.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 8299573242)
I have just made a post here completely refuting Charlie Wolcott in the above further discussion (second link). But you are not being allowed to see it.
De Zurik - who runs the site and who I have twice naively trusted only for him to act in a nasty totalitarian dishonest manner - had the gall to request: "Could you please attempt to have your post on the science forum in the UK removed ...". I replied "No Way" but said he was free to come on here and criticise the thread.
His response? IMMEDIATELY DELETING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY POSTS IN THIS NEW THREAD WITHOUT ANY WARNING AND FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON.
Can't handle the truth about your disgusting behavior eh 'Worldview Warriors'?
I SUSPECT THESE FRAUDULENT LYING DELUDED ANTI-KNOWLEDGE BIGOTED SPITEFUL PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN A TOTALITARIAN CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP THAN THEY EVER DO IN THE CONCEPT OF 'FREE SPEECH'.
It is a good job they were not converted to Islam is all I can say.
Wide circulation email just sent:
"
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... rophe.html (blog)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6218806730 (discussion of blog)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632&p=50220&sid=7d9417fbc625b7929a5f7ef420ea97d6#p50220 (you will probably not believe your eyes if you read the second post here - this being a forum where no YEC bigot can zap posts at will)
It appears that I was right in my judgment that was causing them immense damage in the second discussion, by simply telling the truth and successfully refuting the false allegations they made about my previous posts in the thread and by highlighting the failures of 'creation science' or 'flood geology' so-called. So they censored all my comments - so that God 'might' not see that they had lost the argument and get annoyed with them. I had to be Silenced! It was the only way!
I will never ever trust these people again. The more Biblical online Christians try to be the nastier and nastier they become.
(The third photo is of the previous thread where I have spitefully been totally censored AGAIN - after again destroying Wolcott (mostly in the early hours of 27 Feb UK time but also in a further post early on 28 Feb).)"
LYING-WISE these people give Hitler, Putin, Islamic State, and Kim Jong-un a run for their money.
They also lack self-awareness and fail to show that they have ANY genuine or realistic idea about how others perceive them ie they will never put themselves in the shoes of their many critics but instead adopt a 'siege' or 'bunker' mentality (any critics are not to be respected and are by definition 'evil liars suppressing the truth and persecuting those who share the 'truth'' ie YEC dogma).
PS The scum have also censored a very good post by another critic named David in the latest thread. What kind of people of these? Are they insane ie they want to pretend to the world that they can refute everybody but nobody must see WHAT they are 'refuting'? Are they mad? [CORRECTION - AS DAVID HAS POINTED OUT TO ME HIS NEW POST WAS IN THE PRECEDING RISNER BLOG THREAD NOT THE LATEST ONE. MY MISTAKE, WHICH I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE BLOG - THE COMMENT IN QUESTION BEING VISIBLE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME AT LEAST].
PPS If you look you will see how Wolcott was continually provoking me with absurd, unsupported and arrogant accusations (whilst behaving in the self-same non-specific manner he alleged was 'found' in 'my' posts). I responded robustly and dealt with all his nonsense. But Das ist Verboten. Apparently. (If my responses were pathetic, ill-argued, off-topic and limp-wristed they could probably cope with my continued presence uncensored.) [SEE NEW POST BELOW.]
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6218806730
(also this prevceding Risner thread
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... ology.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 8299573242)
I have just made a post here completely refuting Charlie Wolcott in the above further discussion (second link). But you are not being allowed to see it.
De Zurik - who runs the site and who I have twice naively trusted only for him to act in a nasty totalitarian dishonest manner - had the gall to request: "Could you please attempt to have your post on the science forum in the UK removed ...". I replied "No Way" but said he was free to come on here and criticise the thread.
His response? IMMEDIATELY DELETING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY POSTS IN THIS NEW THREAD WITHOUT ANY WARNING AND FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON.
Can't handle the truth about your disgusting behavior eh 'Worldview Warriors'?
I SUSPECT THESE FRAUDULENT LYING DELUDED ANTI-KNOWLEDGE BIGOTED SPITEFUL PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN A TOTALITARIAN CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP THAN THEY EVER DO IN THE CONCEPT OF 'FREE SPEECH'.
It is a good job they were not converted to Islam is all I can say.
Wide circulation email just sent:
"
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... rophe.html (blog)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6218806730 (discussion of blog)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632&p=50220&sid=7d9417fbc625b7929a5f7ef420ea97d6#p50220 (you will probably not believe your eyes if you read the second post here - this being a forum where no YEC bigot can zap posts at will)
It appears that I was right in my judgment that was causing them immense damage in the second discussion, by simply telling the truth and successfully refuting the false allegations they made about my previous posts in the thread and by highlighting the failures of 'creation science' or 'flood geology' so-called. So they censored all my comments - so that God 'might' not see that they had lost the argument and get annoyed with them. I had to be Silenced! It was the only way!
I will never ever trust these people again. The more Biblical online Christians try to be the nastier and nastier they become.
(The third photo is of the previous thread where I have spitefully been totally censored AGAIN - after again destroying Wolcott (mostly in the early hours of 27 Feb UK time but also in a further post early on 28 Feb).)"
LYING-WISE these people give Hitler, Putin, Islamic State, and Kim Jong-un a run for their money.
They also lack self-awareness and fail to show that they have ANY genuine or realistic idea about how others perceive them ie they will never put themselves in the shoes of their many critics but instead adopt a 'siege' or 'bunker' mentality (any critics are not to be respected and are by definition 'evil liars suppressing the truth and persecuting those who share the 'truth'' ie YEC dogma).
PS The scum have also censored a very good post by another critic named David in the latest thread. What kind of people of these? Are they insane ie they want to pretend to the world that they can refute everybody but nobody must see WHAT they are 'refuting'? Are they mad? [CORRECTION - AS DAVID HAS POINTED OUT TO ME HIS NEW POST WAS IN THE PRECEDING RISNER BLOG THREAD NOT THE LATEST ONE. MY MISTAKE, WHICH I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE BLOG - THE COMMENT IN QUESTION BEING VISIBLE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME AT LEAST].
PPS If you look you will see how Wolcott was continually provoking me with absurd, unsupported and arrogant accusations (whilst behaving in the self-same non-specific manner he alleged was 'found' in 'my' posts). I responded robustly and dealt with all his nonsense. But Das ist Verboten. Apparently. (If my responses were pathetic, ill-argued, off-topic and limp-wristed they could probably cope with my continued presence uncensored.) [SEE NEW POST BELOW.]
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'Worldview Warriors' believe in free speech or not?
by a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:36 pm
They now tell me my posts in the latest thread were deleted by mistake. (Though not all of them have been restored yet.)
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Threatened with a ban by a bigot YEC
by a_haworthroberts » Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:37 pm
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 5598572154
Wolcott (post 92):
"'I've seen a couple of your posts there [at this community forum]. You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on. You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing. And you were proven false.
This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am I clear?"
My response (post 94):
""I've seen a couple of your posts there." WHICH ONES? KINDLY BE SPECIFIC.
"You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on." I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON - AN ACT OF BLATANT AND COWARDLY MASS CENSORSHIP.
"You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing." WHERE?
"And you were proven false." WHERE? HOW?
"This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am 'I clear?" PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR RULES ARE AND WHETHER AND HOW I MIGHT HAVE BROKEN ANY OF THEM.
Now DESPERATE Charlie is THREATENING me. Jason - what do you think about this? Are you for or against Charlie? Is his behaviour appropriate?
I also find it highly amusing that Charlie is apparently trying to provoke me to anger - because he has long since run out [typo corrected] of arguments."
Wolcott (post 92):
"'I've seen a couple of your posts there [at this community forum]. You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on. You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing. And you were proven false.
This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am I clear?"
My response (post 94):
""I've seen a couple of your posts there." WHICH ONES? KINDLY BE SPECIFIC.
"You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on." I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON - AN ACT OF BLATANT AND COWARDLY MASS CENSORSHIP.
"You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing." WHERE?
"And you were proven false." WHERE? HOW?
"This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am 'I clear?" PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR RULES ARE AND WHETHER AND HOW I MIGHT HAVE BROKEN ANY OF THEM.
Now DESPERATE Charlie is THREATENING me. Jason - what do you think about this? Are you for or against Charlie? Is his behaviour appropriate?
I also find it highly amusing that Charlie is apparently trying to provoke me to anger - because he has long since run out [typo corrected] of arguments."
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Will the recent free speech continue?
by a_haworthroberts » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:32 pm
Post as just made under the latest Steve Risner blog:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -view.html
"I will suggest that they, in fact, have no idea how old any of these things are. I will also suggest that to “know” their ages means the person with this “knowledge” is not a scientist or, at least in this instance, is not using the scientific method."
I suggest that the people who refuse to use the scientific method are the young earth creationists who want all rocks or fossils to be much less than 10,000 years old. It is science - not fantasy or some kind of religion or religious text - which has gradually provided a framework for approximately dating these pieces of the natural world. Scientists don't look at any fossils or rocks in isolation, rather they assess them within the wider context of what is already known to be plausible - or implausible - regarding how and when they were formed.
By contrast in this example, it is Steve and those at Worldview Warriors who agree with him who are exercising faith in the biblical sense that all results they disagree with from the various different dating methods (including tree rings and ice cores which can be observed in the present) 'must' be wrong. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV.)
I disagree with the implied claim that there is no science and every conclusion about the natural world is a faith-based conclusion based on 'worldview' (though you would say such things on a website entitled Worldview Warriors). So would many practising Christians I am sure. And if evidence cannot 'speak', I rather doubt that it could lie - unless you believe in a creator who allows his creation to mislead scientists (I would agree that even if we assume an honest creator sometimes the most obvious interpretation of evidence eg with the BICEP2 episode over the past year has needed to be revised by the science community due to incomplete understandings, and that indeed is how real science proceeds - whereas young earth creationism must 'rule out' for all time certain interpretations on principle regardless of evidence).
"I have personally asked an entire group of anti-Biblical persons (some old earth creationists, some theistic evolutionists, some atheists) what it is in science that Biblical creationists reject or deny. The responses, which were numerous, were astounding." Why don't you give your readers an example - assuming you have one - rather than simply condemning everyone else? Whenever I read blogs by committed Christians who are old earth creationists they show in great detail why a young earth creationist interpretation does not fit the evidence and does not appear factual. Whereas many young earth creationist bloggers simply attack in a non-specific manner and fail to provide specific examples that demonstrate how those they disagree with 'must' be wrong in the conclusions they reach in the fields of geology, astronomy or biology.
"Many think that the “evidence” that suggests an old earth or universe is very solid—it’s well established and well tested. This is a farce. The number of holes in the procedures used for this is appalling, and if one is unaware of such discrepancies, they should really look into it. Such an outline is beyond the scope of this post but, as I stated, there are several posts on this topic from the Worldview Warriors as well as countless articles online concerning issues with these forms of dating objects." It would have been useful if you had briefly backed up your controversial claims.
Finally young earth creationism is actually an exercise in denial. With very rare exceptions, you deny that it is possible to correctly interpret evidence to learn anything - or rule anything out - regarding the distant past on this planet. You reject the scientific method when it consistently leads to conclusions that you disagree with. As you do not generally have a better scientific interpretation, you instead talk misleadingly about 'worldviews' and treat the Bible as a source of infallible scientific/natural history even when observations and measurements by scientists don't affirm an infallible Genesis historical account eg the fossil record does not match the chaotic pattern that a worldwide flood as described in Genesis would have resulted in (even if you all claim otherwise - as happened in this blog-related discussion where the blogger has chose to silently censor me without even telling me or anyone else why: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13235 viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3618)
PS I realise that this blog is addressed to Christians rather than the population at large. If I was still a practising Christian believer I would still have held the views expressed above.
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -view.html
"I will suggest that they, in fact, have no idea how old any of these things are. I will also suggest that to “know” their ages means the person with this “knowledge” is not a scientist or, at least in this instance, is not using the scientific method."
I suggest that the people who refuse to use the scientific method are the young earth creationists who want all rocks or fossils to be much less than 10,000 years old. It is science - not fantasy or some kind of religion or religious text - which has gradually provided a framework for approximately dating these pieces of the natural world. Scientists don't look at any fossils or rocks in isolation, rather they assess them within the wider context of what is already known to be plausible - or implausible - regarding how and when they were formed.
By contrast in this example, it is Steve and those at Worldview Warriors who agree with him who are exercising faith in the biblical sense that all results they disagree with from the various different dating methods (including tree rings and ice cores which can be observed in the present) 'must' be wrong. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1, NIV.)
I disagree with the implied claim that there is no science and every conclusion about the natural world is a faith-based conclusion based on 'worldview' (though you would say such things on a website entitled Worldview Warriors). So would many practising Christians I am sure. And if evidence cannot 'speak', I rather doubt that it could lie - unless you believe in a creator who allows his creation to mislead scientists (I would agree that even if we assume an honest creator sometimes the most obvious interpretation of evidence eg with the BICEP2 episode over the past year has needed to be revised by the science community due to incomplete understandings, and that indeed is how real science proceeds - whereas young earth creationism must 'rule out' for all time certain interpretations on principle regardless of evidence).
"I have personally asked an entire group of anti-Biblical persons (some old earth creationists, some theistic evolutionists, some atheists) what it is in science that Biblical creationists reject or deny. The responses, which were numerous, were astounding." Why don't you give your readers an example - assuming you have one - rather than simply condemning everyone else? Whenever I read blogs by committed Christians who are old earth creationists they show in great detail why a young earth creationist interpretation does not fit the evidence and does not appear factual. Whereas many young earth creationist bloggers simply attack in a non-specific manner and fail to provide specific examples that demonstrate how those they disagree with 'must' be wrong in the conclusions they reach in the fields of geology, astronomy or biology.
"Many think that the “evidence” that suggests an old earth or universe is very solid—it’s well established and well tested. This is a farce. The number of holes in the procedures used for this is appalling, and if one is unaware of such discrepancies, they should really look into it. Such an outline is beyond the scope of this post but, as I stated, there are several posts on this topic from the Worldview Warriors as well as countless articles online concerning issues with these forms of dating objects." It would have been useful if you had briefly backed up your controversial claims.
Finally young earth creationism is actually an exercise in denial. With very rare exceptions, you deny that it is possible to correctly interpret evidence to learn anything - or rule anything out - regarding the distant past on this planet. You reject the scientific method when it consistently leads to conclusions that you disagree with. As you do not generally have a better scientific interpretation, you instead talk misleadingly about 'worldviews' and treat the Bible as a source of infallible scientific/natural history even when observations and measurements by scientists don't affirm an infallible Genesis historical account eg the fossil record does not match the chaotic pattern that a worldwide flood as described in Genesis would have resulted in (even if you all claim otherwise - as happened in this blog-related discussion where the blogger has chose to silently censor me without even telling me or anyone else why: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13235 viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3618)
PS I realise that this blog is addressed to Christians rather than the population at large. If I was still a practising Christian believer I would still have held the views expressed above.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?(PS NO)
by a_haworthroberts » Thu May 07, 2015 3:11 pm
I have sent the following email to two other non-YECs (the copy recipient is 'Professor Tertius' as well as Worldview Warriors themselves) who have recently submitted comments under some of these blog posts (mainly ones attacking scientific knowledge from a YEC worldview perspective):
"Thomas - thanks.
As of yesterday I have been informed when I log on "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
Yes - I've just noticed that the person who will approve or not is not Jason but the BLOG AUTHOR (for two of my three attempted comments that is STEVE - and like Charlie (and Jason), he threatened me with censorship)! Thus I am now assuming that my post under the 23 April blog exposing the blatant malicious LYING of Sorensen against me WILL be blocked. I have also placed it onto the BCSE community forum as I do not REMOTELY trust ANY of these people. They are de facto banning me I suspect - but don't have the guts to tell me.
Steve has written a NEW blog which basically parrots Ken Ham and co re 'facts'. I have submitted the following comment for approval:
"So a literally global flood less than 5,000 years ago is not a fact since nobody alive today witnessed such a thing."
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -maam.html
There are NOW three of my comments apparently awaiting approval by the blog author - NONE of which breaks the rule "This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities".
I suspect David is also being treated the same way as both of us. (Perhaps he might find his way to the BCSE community forum as I think I mentioned it previously.)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50351#p50351
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632
I wonder why it is that young earth creationism attracts dishonest bigots who do not hesitate to indulge in fraud and censorship of opposing viewpoints? Honest Christians tend to avoid it.
Christian Liars. Christian Frauds. (As bad as Atheist Liars or Atheist Frauds.)
"You won't convince us because we are going to hide all your new posts.""
The other two posts of mine that I suspect Worldview Warriors will DISHONESTLY censor can be read at the 'Sorensen' thread.
"Thomas - thanks.
As of yesterday I have been informed when I log on "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
Yes - I've just noticed that the person who will approve or not is not Jason but the BLOG AUTHOR (for two of my three attempted comments that is STEVE - and like Charlie (and Jason), he threatened me with censorship)! Thus I am now assuming that my post under the 23 April blog exposing the blatant malicious LYING of Sorensen against me WILL be blocked. I have also placed it onto the BCSE community forum as I do not REMOTELY trust ANY of these people. They are de facto banning me I suspect - but don't have the guts to tell me.
Steve has written a NEW blog which basically parrots Ken Ham and co re 'facts'. I have submitted the following comment for approval:
"So a literally global flood less than 5,000 years ago is not a fact since nobody alive today witnessed such a thing."
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -maam.html
There are NOW three of my comments apparently awaiting approval by the blog author - NONE of which breaks the rule "This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities".
I suspect David is also being treated the same way as both of us. (Perhaps he might find his way to the BCSE community forum as I think I mentioned it previously.)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50351#p50351
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632
I wonder why it is that young earth creationism attracts dishonest bigots who do not hesitate to indulge in fraud and censorship of opposing viewpoints? Honest Christians tend to avoid it.
Christian Liars. Christian Frauds. (As bad as Atheist Liars or Atheist Frauds.)
"You won't convince us because we are going to hide all your new posts.""
The other two posts of mine that I suspect Worldview Warriors will DISHONESTLY censor can be read at the 'Sorensen' thread.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not? (NO.)
by a_haworthroberts » Fri May 08, 2015 9:45 am
Well here's a surprise to add to all the political ones this morning. I jumped the gun slightly and Risner has belatedly approved my post here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 8061856525
My draft reply to his comments reads "Like I said nobody alive TODAY saw such a thing.
I have misunderstood nothing.
When this is the case with natural events/claimed events in the distant past, what counts is the physical evidence as much as any claimed anecdotal experiences in ancient literature."
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7394590794
Where I have attempted THIS comment:
"Steve
I'm grateful that my new post here was approved. However, you have blocked by further reply to Bob Sorensen at the blog dated 23 April.
I'm sorry but it is a proven fact that Sorensen IS a liar (in a way that virtually no other YEC is eg he doctors his own propaganda blogs after first posting them to try and make other people look like liars, and is also highly selective about which comments - if ANY - he allows to appear, even from the person/people that he has libelled).
As I have set out in full in this link which he is refusing to allow his followers to look at (because he simply cannot deal with it):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355
You have refused my further post at the 23 April blog which FACTUALLY showed how Sorensen was FALSELY accusing me THERE.
I have re-drafted parts of it and will re-submit it shortly. If you refuse to allow it you will be protecting a proven liar. Is that what you want?
I appeal to you to allow it in the interests of truth and free speech.
(This post is being shown at the BCSE community forum, in the Worldview Warriors thread.)
Ashley"
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1075975444
But as mentioned above my attempted comment 203 HERE was failed:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1078265382
I have resubmitted the comment as follows:
"Steve
Sorensen has CHANGED his blog since first posting it and SINCE my comments about it in these threads (some of you probably looked at the original and will remember it):
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.blogspot.co.uk/
PREVIOUSLY where Sorensen used the phrase "misotheist bullies" he provided a link to a couple of MY past comments at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (and he annotated the comments with attacks of his own against them). He has now REMOVED the link that was about ME. And is falsely and deliberately stating above: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him".
The link in question (not the whole article) WAS an attack against me as a 'misotheist bully' (I am not a bully I am simply seek to expose online lies).
Sorensen has also launched a new highly personal attack here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Despite what he claims, he completely fails to show 'defamation' on my part. Because his blog post ignores my refutations of his falsehoods at my post 202 above and also in my attempted post 203 which Worldview Warriors failed but which can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355 (post dated 6 May)
In the blog dated 7 May Sorensen is falsely and furiously libelling me in a place where he denies me the full right of reply (he allowed one comment only, that omitted the BCSE link, and then tried to exploit it).
Rather than doing so on some blog where censorship is applied, I tell the truth about Sorensen at the BCSE community forum (open to ALL) or by email - where he DOES have the right of reply (but instead he BLOCKS my emails and avoids the BCSE forum like the plague).
ALSO, the libel against me that he DISHONESTLY removed from his blog dated 3 May has now been ADDED BACK at his new blog dated 7 May. Note how he annotates my past comments to try and turn them against me.
Sorensen has not begun to prove me 'illogical' or a 'liar' as he claims on 7 May. I am neither of those things. He however is BOTH of those things. I am sorry but that is the reality here.
Ashley"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 8061856525
My draft reply to his comments reads "Like I said nobody alive TODAY saw such a thing.
I have misunderstood nothing.
When this is the case with natural events/claimed events in the distant past, what counts is the physical evidence as much as any claimed anecdotal experiences in ancient literature."
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7394590794
Where I have attempted THIS comment:
"Steve
I'm grateful that my new post here was approved. However, you have blocked by further reply to Bob Sorensen at the blog dated 23 April.
I'm sorry but it is a proven fact that Sorensen IS a liar (in a way that virtually no other YEC is eg he doctors his own propaganda blogs after first posting them to try and make other people look like liars, and is also highly selective about which comments - if ANY - he allows to appear, even from the person/people that he has libelled).
As I have set out in full in this link which he is refusing to allow his followers to look at (because he simply cannot deal with it):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355
You have refused my further post at the 23 April blog which FACTUALLY showed how Sorensen was FALSELY accusing me THERE.
I have re-drafted parts of it and will re-submit it shortly. If you refuse to allow it you will be protecting a proven liar. Is that what you want?
I appeal to you to allow it in the interests of truth and free speech.
(This post is being shown at the BCSE community forum, in the Worldview Warriors thread.)
Ashley"
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1075975444
But as mentioned above my attempted comment 203 HERE was failed:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1078265382
I have resubmitted the comment as follows:
"Steve
Sorensen has CHANGED his blog since first posting it and SINCE my comments about it in these threads (some of you probably looked at the original and will remember it):
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.blogspot.co.uk/
PREVIOUSLY where Sorensen used the phrase "misotheist bullies" he provided a link to a couple of MY past comments at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (and he annotated the comments with attacks of his own against them). He has now REMOVED the link that was about ME. And is falsely and deliberately stating above: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him".
The link in question (not the whole article) WAS an attack against me as a 'misotheist bully' (I am not a bully I am simply seek to expose online lies).
Sorensen has also launched a new highly personal attack here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Despite what he claims, he completely fails to show 'defamation' on my part. Because his blog post ignores my refutations of his falsehoods at my post 202 above and also in my attempted post 203 which Worldview Warriors failed but which can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355 (post dated 6 May)
In the blog dated 7 May Sorensen is falsely and furiously libelling me in a place where he denies me the full right of reply (he allowed one comment only, that omitted the BCSE link, and then tried to exploit it).
Rather than doing so on some blog where censorship is applied, I tell the truth about Sorensen at the BCSE community forum (open to ALL) or by email - where he DOES have the right of reply (but instead he BLOCKS my emails and avoids the BCSE forum like the plague).
ALSO, the libel against me that he DISHONESTLY removed from his blog dated 3 May has now been ADDED BACK at his new blog dated 7 May. Note how he annotates my past comments to try and turn them against me.
Sorensen has not begun to prove me 'illogical' or a 'liar' as he claims on 7 May. I am neither of those things. He however is BOTH of those things. I am sorry but that is the reality here.
Ashley"
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
More Christian fundamentalist frauds
by a_haworthroberts » Sat May 09, 2015 7:55 pm
Email as sent:
"
Worldview Warriors hypocrites are protecting a pathological liar from being exposed as such.
Further to my email of 7 May about Bob Sorensen.
If you look at this thread you will see (new post 170) that Worldview Warriors have carried out an act of mass censorship. This is because Sorensen at (former) post 201, which they have deleted despite me saying 'let it stand', falsely accused me of being a 'liar' - and my post 202 (also now deleted for no valid reason) proved that his allegations against me were FALSE.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1198768560 (discussion re blog dated 23 April)
I also attempted some further posts (one at the same thread and then several at another WW's thread, under their blog dated 5 May, where the question of censorship was raised by THEM) further dealing with the lies at post 201 and also in a subsequent propagandist blog post by Sorensen where he once again falsely libelled me (and then deleted a link to the BCSE community forum that I sent to him and which would have shown his readers precisely HOW he was lying about me).
The attempted posts of mine that Worldview Warriors NEVER approved (because they suddenly put me on pre-moderation and then blocked them) can be read below my name at the end of this message.
I have NEVER EVER asked them for ANY censorship. NONE. By contrast Sorensen regularly requested censorship of all posts by myself and others disagreeing with and/or disproving young earth creationism. They have paid more attention to HIM! Even though he is a pathological liar. Surprise Surprise.
These people are protecting a LYING FRAUD. One has to ask WHY.
Ashley Haworth-Roberts
"Steve
Sorensen has CHANGED his blog since first posting it and SINCE my comments about it in these threads (some of you probably looked at the original and will remember it):
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.blogspot.co.uk/
PREVIOUSLY where Sorensen used the phrase "misotheist bullies" he provided a link to a couple of MY past comments at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (and he annotated the comments with attacks of his own against them). He has now REMOVED the link that was about ME. And is falsely and deliberately stating above: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him".
The link in question (not the whole article) WAS an attack against me as a 'misotheist bully' (I am not a bully I am simply seek to expose online lies).
Sorensen has also launched a new highly personal attack here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Despite what he claims, he completely fails to show 'defamation' on my part. Because his blog post ignores my refutations of his falsehoods at my post 202 above and also in my attempted post 203 which Worldview Warriors failed but which can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355 (post dated 6 May)
In the blog dated 7 May Sorensen is falsely and furiously libelling me in a place where he denies me the full right of reply (he allowed one comment only, that omitted the BCSE link, and then tried to exploit it).
Rather than doing so on some blog where censorship is applied, I tell the truth about Sorensen at the BCSE community forum (open to ALL) or by email - where he DOES have the right of reply (but instead he BLOCKS my emails and avoids the BCSE forum like the plague).
ALSO, the libel against me that he DISHONESTLY removed from his blog dated 3 May has now been ADDED BACK at his new blog dated 7 May. Note how he annotates my past comments to try and turn them against me.
Sorensen has not begun to prove me 'illogical' or a 'liar' as he claims on 7 May. I am neither of those things. He however is BOTH of those things. I am sorry but that is the reality here.
Ashley"
"Charlie
However you might describe the thread in question, it is a fact that at the time I made my comment you had stopped posting there.
"Any posts attacking Bob with no relevance to the topics on hand will not be published. What he says on his blogs is his business and we don't need to deal with that here".
At Steve's blog dated 23 April - where Bob called me a liar (post 201) - I have submitted a few hours ago a post demonstrating - again - that Bob's claim was utterly false. One reason was that he DOCTORED his own blog days after first posting it so as to REMOVE under the words 'misotheist bullies' a link to historic comments made by ME at the BCSE community forum. He did that so as to be able to pretend that the post was NOT about me and I was WRONG or LYING. I was not. His words were: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him". The remarks (Sorensen annotation of my past BCSE comments which have now been added to ANOTHER blog post of his) WERE about me ie calling me a 'bully'. The reason I did not spell this out here was because it was OBVIOUS. Except that I did not anticipate Sorensen's deviousness in removing the link AFTER THE EVENT so as to pretend that I was being paranoid ie his words at post 201 "Everything is not about him, in case he did not know" (I have never made such a claim).
I do not think those who lie should be protected from proper scrutiny (and he has the right of reply though is claiming to have run away because you were not censoring us enough for his liking).
Therefore my post WAS completely relevant to the discussion - and I very much hope that Steve will approve it in the interests of truth and fairness. (As far as I am aware, NO post by Bob has ever been censored in these recent threads - and I have NEVER requested that he be censored.)"
"Charlie (and Bill and Steve)
Here is yet further proof of Sorensen LYING.
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
"I linked to that forum myself."
NO, he did NOT. HE CENSORED MY LINK TO THIS:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=615
Both on his Facebook page AND here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Do you wish to protect a pathological liar from exposure?
I am sorry to inform you that Bob Sorensen is a pathological liar. Check it out if you do not believe me!
He calls my link 'spam' - because it refuted his false claims and it had to be deleted to 'save' his reputation. (And then he pretends he did not censor the link to the BCSE.)
This is all relevant to the 23 April thread and Charlie's comment in THIS thread."
"Sorensen quoted some of my words from the 'forum' but he CENSORED my LINK to the BCSE community forum so people could not read ALL my words about him IN CONTEXT.
Another cynical deception for the benefit of his gullible Facebook followers.""
PS
I told Sorensen on 8 May that I had submitted posts to Worldview Warriors exposing his lies (without quoting my text). Now ALL his lies AND ALL my refutations of them have been removed or blocked in the first place. Allegedly these posts/attempted posts were just "demeaning, have insults, rude, or are in response such posts" (new post 170).
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A COINCIDENCE.
Worldview Warriors have shown themselves to be dishonest and protecting a lying fraud from exposure (or incredibly naïve and stupid - possibly).
"
Worldview Warriors hypocrites are protecting a pathological liar from being exposed as such.
Further to my email of 7 May about Bob Sorensen.
If you look at this thread you will see (new post 170) that Worldview Warriors have carried out an act of mass censorship. This is because Sorensen at (former) post 201, which they have deleted despite me saying 'let it stand', falsely accused me of being a 'liar' - and my post 202 (also now deleted for no valid reason) proved that his allegations against me were FALSE.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 1198768560 (discussion re blog dated 23 April)
I also attempted some further posts (one at the same thread and then several at another WW's thread, under their blog dated 5 May, where the question of censorship was raised by THEM) further dealing with the lies at post 201 and also in a subsequent propagandist blog post by Sorensen where he once again falsely libelled me (and then deleted a link to the BCSE community forum that I sent to him and which would have shown his readers precisely HOW he was lying about me).
The attempted posts of mine that Worldview Warriors NEVER approved (because they suddenly put me on pre-moderation and then blocked them) can be read below my name at the end of this message.
I have NEVER EVER asked them for ANY censorship. NONE. By contrast Sorensen regularly requested censorship of all posts by myself and others disagreeing with and/or disproving young earth creationism. They have paid more attention to HIM! Even though he is a pathological liar. Surprise Surprise.
These people are protecting a LYING FRAUD. One has to ask WHY.
Ashley Haworth-Roberts
"Steve
Sorensen has CHANGED his blog since first posting it and SINCE my comments about it in these threads (some of you probably looked at the original and will remember it):
http://biblicalcreationandevangelism.blogspot.co.uk/
PREVIOUSLY where Sorensen used the phrase "misotheist bullies" he provided a link to a couple of MY past comments at the British Centre for Science Education community forum (and he annotated the comments with attacks of his own against them). He has now REMOVED the link that was about ME. And is falsely and deliberately stating above: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him".
The link in question (not the whole article) WAS an attack against me as a 'misotheist bully' (I am not a bully I am simply seek to expose online lies).
Sorensen has also launched a new highly personal attack here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Despite what he claims, he completely fails to show 'defamation' on my part. Because his blog post ignores my refutations of his falsehoods at my post 202 above and also in my attempted post 203 which Worldview Warriors failed but which can be read here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50355#p50355 (post dated 6 May)
In the blog dated 7 May Sorensen is falsely and furiously libelling me in a place where he denies me the full right of reply (he allowed one comment only, that omitted the BCSE link, and then tried to exploit it).
Rather than doing so on some blog where censorship is applied, I tell the truth about Sorensen at the BCSE community forum (open to ALL) or by email - where he DOES have the right of reply (but instead he BLOCKS my emails and avoids the BCSE forum like the plague).
ALSO, the libel against me that he DISHONESTLY removed from his blog dated 3 May has now been ADDED BACK at his new blog dated 7 May. Note how he annotates my past comments to try and turn them against me.
Sorensen has not begun to prove me 'illogical' or a 'liar' as he claims on 7 May. I am neither of those things. He however is BOTH of those things. I am sorry but that is the reality here.
Ashley"
"Charlie
However you might describe the thread in question, it is a fact that at the time I made my comment you had stopped posting there.
"Any posts attacking Bob with no relevance to the topics on hand will not be published. What he says on his blogs is his business and we don't need to deal with that here".
At Steve's blog dated 23 April - where Bob called me a liar (post 201) - I have submitted a few hours ago a post demonstrating - again - that Bob's claim was utterly false. One reason was that he DOCTORED his own blog days after first posting it so as to REMOVE under the words 'misotheist bullies' a link to historic comments made by ME at the BCSE community forum. He did that so as to be able to pretend that the post was NOT about me and I was WRONG or LYING. I was not. His words were: "there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him". The remarks (Sorensen annotation of my past BCSE comments which have now been added to ANOTHER blog post of his) WERE about me ie calling me a 'bully'. The reason I did not spell this out here was because it was OBVIOUS. Except that I did not anticipate Sorensen's deviousness in removing the link AFTER THE EVENT so as to pretend that I was being paranoid ie his words at post 201 "Everything is not about him, in case he did not know" (I have never made such a claim).
I do not think those who lie should be protected from proper scrutiny (and he has the right of reply though is claiming to have run away because you were not censoring us enough for his liking).
Therefore my post WAS completely relevant to the discussion - and I very much hope that Steve will approve it in the interests of truth and fairness. (As far as I am aware, NO post by Bob has ever been censored in these recent threads - and I have NEVER requested that he be censored.)"
"Charlie (and Bill and Steve)
Here is yet further proof of Sorensen LYING.
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
"I linked to that forum myself."
NO, he did NOT. HE CENSORED MY LINK TO THIS:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=615
Both on his Facebook page AND here:
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eason.html
Do you wish to protect a pathological liar from exposure?
I am sorry to inform you that Bob Sorensen is a pathological liar. Check it out if you do not believe me!
He calls my link 'spam' - because it refuted his false claims and it had to be deleted to 'save' his reputation. (And then he pretends he did not censor the link to the BCSE.)
This is all relevant to the 23 April thread and Charlie's comment in THIS thread."
"Sorensen quoted some of my words from the 'forum' but he CENSORED my LINK to the BCSE community forum so people could not read ALL my words about him IN CONTEXT.
Another cynical deception for the benefit of his gullible Facebook followers.""
PS
I told Sorensen on 8 May that I had submitted posts to Worldview Warriors exposing his lies (without quoting my text). Now ALL his lies AND ALL my refutations of them have been removed or blocked in the first place. Allegedly these posts/attempted posts were just "demeaning, have insults, rude, or are in response such posts" (new post 170).
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A COINCIDENCE.
Worldview Warriors have shown themselves to be dishonest and protecting a lying fraud from exposure (or incredibly naïve and stupid - possibly).
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?
by a_haworthroberts » Thu May 28, 2015 10:28 pm
Comment as submitted in response to the Risner blog dated 28 May:
"
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -park.html
Are you going to ban me even from making factual corrections, Steve (btw if you do, that is if my post - which I am saving and also posting at the BCSE thread about Worldview Warriors - does not appear by 11 pm UK [time] on Sunday 31 May and I hear nothing about moderation, I will send a wider circulation email letting people know that you are censoring facts in favour of error)?
"Evolution from a single common ancestor is a religious proposition. But evolution happens all the time. You see, when I say “evolution” I mean two different things. Yes, antibiotic resistance is evolution in action. However, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with molecules to man evolution. The two are not actually connected at all. But the evolutionist will tell you one is proof of the other. You’re a science denier if you don’t believe this. This, of course, is far from true. The famous Lenski experiment is another “triumph of evolution in action,” but it’s really not supportive of pond scum to people evolution at all. In these two particular cases, we have degenerative changes that allow for a change in function. What that means is the organisms in question actually lost some sort of function and, as a result, they work differently. Keep in mind that both of these examples are artificially created by man."
A key finding from the ongoing Lenski experiment was that in one strain of E. coli bacteria (one known not to be able to use citrate as an energy source in an aerobic environment) developed a way to transport citrate for use as an energy source in an environment that was not devoid of oxygen. By what definition is that change 'degenerative' or a 'loss of function', and even if it was how does that falsify evolution (in the molecules to Man sense)? (I am aware that some creationists and ID proponents have suggested that some mutations affecting bacteria involve loss of function or 'information' but in these cases the E. coli bacteria were able to carry out a new function and other bacteria were sometimes able to adapt to and resist antibiotics used against them by humans.)
And antibiotic resistance does not involve degeneration or loss of function for bacteria either. And neither is antibiotic resistance 'artificially created by man' - yes, Man has developed antibiotics from nature but that does not make antibiotic resistance 'artificial'.
"Darwinian evolution allows for three different kinds of mutational changes—what we will term upward (increased information), neutral, and downward or degenerative (loss of information). Creationists believe two of the three actually happen—the two that we have seen happen in the real world. That is neutral and degenerative changes. For Darwinism to be correct, the first type of mutation (never before seen) is necessary and the last two are allowed for. Interesting how the creationist, whose ideas are based on reality, are called science deniers when the evolutionist hangs his hat on something we’ve never observed."
That is simplistic and misleading. For starters you ought to use the phrase 'beneficial mutation' rather than 'upward mutation'. And you are ignoring the reality of beneficial mutations (including some where a normally harmful effect can sometimes confer selective benefit for some individuals who may pass on the mutation to the next generation). Such as the gradual development of lactose tolerance - via lactase persistence - in adult humans when cattle were first domesticated.
I suggest that you should properly check your facts and your sources before suggesting that the ideas of 'evolutionists' are not based on 'reality'.
You appear more concerned about opinions than facts. The implied suggestion that because creationism is not consensus science therefore it must in fact be true and the consensus 'must' be false is simply wishful thinking."
PS Instead of behaving like an adult Risner has deleted my post and replied: "Ashley, we saw your post for submission, and I am going to make this very clear. You will not tell us when to act upon your posts. You will not give us deadlines on when we need to respond on OUR forums. We will not cater our lives to your whims. Your post will be deleted because of this. You may resubmit it WITHOUT any whining about censoring and we will give it more consideration. You know what we expect and you constantly try to push our patience. This post will be up long enough for you to see it and then we will delete it as well."
Email being sent as PROMISED.
PPS I'm not resubmitting the post because his reply does not promise that he would approve it if I did.
"
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -park.html
Are you going to ban me even from making factual corrections, Steve (btw if you do, that is if my post - which I am saving and also posting at the BCSE thread about Worldview Warriors - does not appear by 11 pm UK [time] on Sunday 31 May and I hear nothing about moderation, I will send a wider circulation email letting people know that you are censoring facts in favour of error)?
"Evolution from a single common ancestor is a religious proposition. But evolution happens all the time. You see, when I say “evolution” I mean two different things. Yes, antibiotic resistance is evolution in action. However, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with molecules to man evolution. The two are not actually connected at all. But the evolutionist will tell you one is proof of the other. You’re a science denier if you don’t believe this. This, of course, is far from true. The famous Lenski experiment is another “triumph of evolution in action,” but it’s really not supportive of pond scum to people evolution at all. In these two particular cases, we have degenerative changes that allow for a change in function. What that means is the organisms in question actually lost some sort of function and, as a result, they work differently. Keep in mind that both of these examples are artificially created by man."
A key finding from the ongoing Lenski experiment was that in one strain of E. coli bacteria (one known not to be able to use citrate as an energy source in an aerobic environment) developed a way to transport citrate for use as an energy source in an environment that was not devoid of oxygen. By what definition is that change 'degenerative' or a 'loss of function', and even if it was how does that falsify evolution (in the molecules to Man sense)? (I am aware that some creationists and ID proponents have suggested that some mutations affecting bacteria involve loss of function or 'information' but in these cases the E. coli bacteria were able to carry out a new function and other bacteria were sometimes able to adapt to and resist antibiotics used against them by humans.)
And antibiotic resistance does not involve degeneration or loss of function for bacteria either. And neither is antibiotic resistance 'artificially created by man' - yes, Man has developed antibiotics from nature but that does not make antibiotic resistance 'artificial'.
"Darwinian evolution allows for three different kinds of mutational changes—what we will term upward (increased information), neutral, and downward or degenerative (loss of information). Creationists believe two of the three actually happen—the two that we have seen happen in the real world. That is neutral and degenerative changes. For Darwinism to be correct, the first type of mutation (never before seen) is necessary and the last two are allowed for. Interesting how the creationist, whose ideas are based on reality, are called science deniers when the evolutionist hangs his hat on something we’ve never observed."
That is simplistic and misleading. For starters you ought to use the phrase 'beneficial mutation' rather than 'upward mutation'. And you are ignoring the reality of beneficial mutations (including some where a normally harmful effect can sometimes confer selective benefit for some individuals who may pass on the mutation to the next generation). Such as the gradual development of lactose tolerance - via lactase persistence - in adult humans when cattle were first domesticated.
I suggest that you should properly check your facts and your sources before suggesting that the ideas of 'evolutionists' are not based on 'reality'.
You appear more concerned about opinions than facts. The implied suggestion that because creationism is not consensus science therefore it must in fact be true and the consensus 'must' be false is simply wishful thinking."
PS Instead of behaving like an adult Risner has deleted my post and replied: "Ashley, we saw your post for submission, and I am going to make this very clear. You will not tell us when to act upon your posts. You will not give us deadlines on when we need to respond on OUR forums. We will not cater our lives to your whims. Your post will be deleted because of this. You may resubmit it WITHOUT any whining about censoring and we will give it more consideration. You know what we expect and you constantly try to push our patience. This post will be up long enough for you to see it and then we will delete it as well."
Email being sent as PROMISED.
PPS I'm not resubmitting the post because his reply does not promise that he would approve it if I did.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
More silent censorship by YECs at Worldview Warriors
by a_haworthroberts » Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:30 am
At this thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 2602829962
My latest attempted comment, submitted on 9 June UK time and responding to the latest Wolcott comment directed towards me and dated 7 June, reads as follows:
""If this is really the case, then you should have made no comment on it." I have every right to comment on an article that Steve quoted directly from (without acknowledging that he had done so). Did you not actually notice that Steve quoted directly from this article and realise that that was the sole reason why I posted the link?
"Because stating you didn't read the article actually made your case look even worse." "But I do have a problem with making claims about articles you haven't read." You are trying to imply dishonesty on my part. There was NO dishonesty. I did not make a claim about what an article I had not read in full SAID. Re-read what I wrote: "Criswell's article is not about the YEC 'no new genetic information' but 'net loss of genetic information' claims at all I don't think." The article was about antibiotic resistance.
Your claim that I cannot understand what I read means nothing in a case where I informed you that (at the time) I had NOT read the article in question.
I have already said that "I did not read the Criswell article, Charlie (perhaps I should have spelt that out). I simply skimmed it after identifying that Steve was quoting a section from it in his last reply to me" and "Having now looked more closely at it, I accept what you say about the paragraph".
But you are attempting to EXPLOIT the situation to try and make me look bad. Because your position is an extreme one. "You talk a big game, your hand shows to be empty, and you clearly don't like being told you as the emperor have no clothes on." Propagandist garbage. I AM well read on young earth creationist claims whether you like it or not (if I was not I certainly would not make the claim).
As for the real issues.
Nit-picking possibly, but I feel I should point out that your response confuses citrate with 'citrus'. I did not spell this out but the Wikipedia link on nylon-eating bacteria states: "Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. KI72, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase". These enzymes were not previously seen in nature.
Just saying in effect as a retort "this does not refute 'the Biblical model'" is certainly NOT any refutation of this event being part of evolutionary change over time. Evolutionary theory does not claim any acts of ex nihilo creation along the way.
Your final paragraph does not directly address my final paragraph. Which of course is fine by me because the points I made still stand."
I'll leave readers to guess WHY they are not keen on approving my post.
I have just submitted the following informing them of an email message I've just sent:
"It's now early on 15 June and I have waited long enough - and reminded you TWICE - about my reply to Charlie made on 9 June UK time (in the time since then Steve has made a new post AND allowed/approved a comment underneath it, please don't tell me he is 'too busy' to review my one new attempted comment on a generally quiet site). But there is still SILENCE from you - and STILL my reply to Charlie's allegations, which complied with your rules for posting, is not visible in the thread. Leaving people with the impression that I had 'no response' or agreed with what he said.
I am now emailing some anti-YECs (not YECs this time apart from the Worldview Warriors email address) pointing out your latest act of UNWARRANTED silent and cowardly censorship of disagreement.
Is Steve censoring me because he has been asked by Charlie to do so because Charlie does not like being questioned or shown up as confused? Or is it that Charlie has not seen my attempted reply and Steve wishes to shield him from it because neither of them likes to publish criticisms that they cannot easily dismiss?
(Due to the utter incompetence of O2 and Sky I STILL cannot access my O2 email - but I also gave you my OTHER email address and you have not made use of it.)
Perhaps you hope that if you censor me often enough I will go away (even if more posts are made misrepresenting science or falsely elevating young earth creationist claims)?"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 2602829962
My latest attempted comment, submitted on 9 June UK time and responding to the latest Wolcott comment directed towards me and dated 7 June, reads as follows:
""If this is really the case, then you should have made no comment on it." I have every right to comment on an article that Steve quoted directly from (without acknowledging that he had done so). Did you not actually notice that Steve quoted directly from this article and realise that that was the sole reason why I posted the link?
"Because stating you didn't read the article actually made your case look even worse." "But I do have a problem with making claims about articles you haven't read." You are trying to imply dishonesty on my part. There was NO dishonesty. I did not make a claim about what an article I had not read in full SAID. Re-read what I wrote: "Criswell's article is not about the YEC 'no new genetic information' but 'net loss of genetic information' claims at all I don't think." The article was about antibiotic resistance.
Your claim that I cannot understand what I read means nothing in a case where I informed you that (at the time) I had NOT read the article in question.
I have already said that "I did not read the Criswell article, Charlie (perhaps I should have spelt that out). I simply skimmed it after identifying that Steve was quoting a section from it in his last reply to me" and "Having now looked more closely at it, I accept what you say about the paragraph".
But you are attempting to EXPLOIT the situation to try and make me look bad. Because your position is an extreme one. "You talk a big game, your hand shows to be empty, and you clearly don't like being told you as the emperor have no clothes on." Propagandist garbage. I AM well read on young earth creationist claims whether you like it or not (if I was not I certainly would not make the claim).
As for the real issues.
Nit-picking possibly, but I feel I should point out that your response confuses citrate with 'citrus'. I did not spell this out but the Wikipedia link on nylon-eating bacteria states: "Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. KI72, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase". These enzymes were not previously seen in nature.
Just saying in effect as a retort "this does not refute 'the Biblical model'" is certainly NOT any refutation of this event being part of evolutionary change over time. Evolutionary theory does not claim any acts of ex nihilo creation along the way.
Your final paragraph does not directly address my final paragraph. Which of course is fine by me because the points I made still stand."
I'll leave readers to guess WHY they are not keen on approving my post.
I have just submitted the following informing them of an email message I've just sent:
"It's now early on 15 June and I have waited long enough - and reminded you TWICE - about my reply to Charlie made on 9 June UK time (in the time since then Steve has made a new post AND allowed/approved a comment underneath it, please don't tell me he is 'too busy' to review my one new attempted comment on a generally quiet site). But there is still SILENCE from you - and STILL my reply to Charlie's allegations, which complied with your rules for posting, is not visible in the thread. Leaving people with the impression that I had 'no response' or agreed with what he said.
I am now emailing some anti-YECs (not YECs this time apart from the Worldview Warriors email address) pointing out your latest act of UNWARRANTED silent and cowardly censorship of disagreement.
Is Steve censoring me because he has been asked by Charlie to do so because Charlie does not like being questioned or shown up as confused? Or is it that Charlie has not seen my attempted reply and Steve wishes to shield him from it because neither of them likes to publish criticisms that they cannot easily dismiss?
(Due to the utter incompetence of O2 and Sky I STILL cannot access my O2 email - but I also gave you my OTHER email address and you have not made use of it.)
Perhaps you hope that if you censor me often enough I will go away (even if more posts are made misrepresenting science or falsely elevating young earth creationist claims)?"
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'Worldview Warriors' believe in free speech or not?
by a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:14 pm
My post (and two by another contributor who is critical of YECs) has now belatedly appeared here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4481849565
My attempted response:
"Well, instead of directly addressing my latest post here dated 8 June I see that Charlie is trying to lecture me and belatedly trying to claim that previous arguments I won were 'not' won at all (without referring readers to the precise exchanges in question). Charlie is now falsely accusing me of deliberately not understanding what is written by him and Steve and of 'misrepresenting' them. I have NEVER deliberately misrepresented EITHER of them and he has no examples of me doing so.
I guess Charlie would have preferred that Steve continued to hide my post since this is all he can come up with by way of a reply.
Charlie is also misquoting me from a previous thread. Although that IS my opinion, I did NOT say "Ken Ham is not worth following" as alleged now by Charlie. I said I was glad Charlie did not follow him. But Charlie is now falsely accusing me of saying the former and is whinging "I did not say that he is not worth following" (I never said that you DID so what are you complaining about). But he now alleges that I was wrong or was 'mispresenting' him (I was not and my original comments never said anything about gurus or about cults). How typical.
The above is written from memory. I then searched for the posts (the posts by myself) in question but was unsuccessful (a whole series of posts by me under the blog dated 23 April were deleted by the site administrator). If however Charlie can show that my memory is faulty, let him do so.
New comments from myself and David are taking a week to appear, whereas replies by Charlie appear immediately. How long does it take to moderate three comments that don't contravene any of the rules of the site?
I am posting this at the thread about Worldview Warriors at the British Centre for Science Education community forum, making clear that my preceding post HAS now appeared.
My post 'whining' about censorship was only made because of APPARENT censorship. I have NO problem with such posts being censored - IF the original posts EVENTUALLY appear. (And I thought these exchanges were being moderated by Steve not by Charlie.) Unless he is expressing himself unclearly and/or I am unintentionally reading too much into his words, Charlie also appears to think that David is part of or is somehow speaking for the bible.and.science.forum - that's certainly news to me and I suspect it is news to both David and 'Professor Tertius' as well."
PS at 2.13 am on 17 June.
A second attempted post:
"Charlie
I have now found the exchange regarding Ken Ham, at this thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 0415865024 (posts dated 1 May)
Charlie's words:
"And, Ashley, listen to this and listen to this good. Never accuse me of following Ken Ham or others like him, like some guru. I don't". My authority is the Word of God".
My reply:
""Never accuse me of following Ken Ham". Glad that you don't think him worth following. And I never said that you DID follow him."
Although my recollection of the exchange was not 100% accurate, it WAS clear from YOUR words that you did not think it worth following Ken Ham or anyone else as a 'guru' and that your authority instead was 'the Word of God'. Thus I hardly 'misrepresented' you - and, as you acknowledge, you did not say at the time that I had 'misrepresented' you (I was simply trying to summarise your stated position and welcoming the fact that you said you did not follow Ham as any kind of guru).
Yet now, six weeks later, you protest: "I let this slide in an earlier thread but I made a comment how I do not follow Ken Ham like a guru and you said that I said he is not worth following. That is reading comprehension problems at best, and outright dishonesty at worst. I did not say that he is not worth following. I said I don't follow him like cult followers do as we are often accused of being." If you follow Ham's blogs purely out of interest and not as any kind of guru, fine, but you also now appear to be saying that my claim that you think him 'not worth following' was false. No - it was simply an attempt to summarise your very firmly stated position, and one which you are only arguing with a month and a half after the event. It appears that in some sense - despite your comments of 1 May - you DO follow Ham (but not as a guru - and I never ever suggested that you regarded him as a guru).
Ashley"
PPS at 2.30 am.
Third attempted post:
"Correction to my first attempted comment replying to Charlie.
He wrote: "you said that I said he is not worth following". I mistakenly - not deliberately - reproduced that as "I did NOT say "Ken Ham is not worth following"". But I now see that I did say on 1 May "Glad that you don't think him worth following" as alleged - a statement Charlie now disputes the accuracy of.
But I hold up my hand and admit I made an error on 16 June (one which cannot purely be blamed on me not having rediscovered the exchange dated 1 May) and I now wish to correct my error."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4481849565
My attempted response:
"Well, instead of directly addressing my latest post here dated 8 June I see that Charlie is trying to lecture me and belatedly trying to claim that previous arguments I won were 'not' won at all (without referring readers to the precise exchanges in question). Charlie is now falsely accusing me of deliberately not understanding what is written by him and Steve and of 'misrepresenting' them. I have NEVER deliberately misrepresented EITHER of them and he has no examples of me doing so.
I guess Charlie would have preferred that Steve continued to hide my post since this is all he can come up with by way of a reply.
Charlie is also misquoting me from a previous thread. Although that IS my opinion, I did NOT say "Ken Ham is not worth following" as alleged now by Charlie. I said I was glad Charlie did not follow him. But Charlie is now falsely accusing me of saying the former and is whinging "I did not say that he is not worth following" (I never said that you DID so what are you complaining about). But he now alleges that I was wrong or was 'mispresenting' him (I was not and my original comments never said anything about gurus or about cults). How typical.
The above is written from memory. I then searched for the posts (the posts by myself) in question but was unsuccessful (a whole series of posts by me under the blog dated 23 April were deleted by the site administrator). If however Charlie can show that my memory is faulty, let him do so.
New comments from myself and David are taking a week to appear, whereas replies by Charlie appear immediately. How long does it take to moderate three comments that don't contravene any of the rules of the site?
I am posting this at the thread about Worldview Warriors at the British Centre for Science Education community forum, making clear that my preceding post HAS now appeared.
My post 'whining' about censorship was only made because of APPARENT censorship. I have NO problem with such posts being censored - IF the original posts EVENTUALLY appear. (And I thought these exchanges were being moderated by Steve not by Charlie.) Unless he is expressing himself unclearly and/or I am unintentionally reading too much into his words, Charlie also appears to think that David is part of or is somehow speaking for the bible.and.science.forum - that's certainly news to me and I suspect it is news to both David and 'Professor Tertius' as well."
PS at 2.13 am on 17 June.
A second attempted post:
"Charlie
I have now found the exchange regarding Ken Ham, at this thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 0415865024 (posts dated 1 May)
Charlie's words:
"And, Ashley, listen to this and listen to this good. Never accuse me of following Ken Ham or others like him, like some guru. I don't". My authority is the Word of God".
My reply:
""Never accuse me of following Ken Ham". Glad that you don't think him worth following. And I never said that you DID follow him."
Although my recollection of the exchange was not 100% accurate, it WAS clear from YOUR words that you did not think it worth following Ken Ham or anyone else as a 'guru' and that your authority instead was 'the Word of God'. Thus I hardly 'misrepresented' you - and, as you acknowledge, you did not say at the time that I had 'misrepresented' you (I was simply trying to summarise your stated position and welcoming the fact that you said you did not follow Ham as any kind of guru).
Yet now, six weeks later, you protest: "I let this slide in an earlier thread but I made a comment how I do not follow Ken Ham like a guru and you said that I said he is not worth following. That is reading comprehension problems at best, and outright dishonesty at worst. I did not say that he is not worth following. I said I don't follow him like cult followers do as we are often accused of being." If you follow Ham's blogs purely out of interest and not as any kind of guru, fine, but you also now appear to be saying that my claim that you think him 'not worth following' was false. No - it was simply an attempt to summarise your very firmly stated position, and one which you are only arguing with a month and a half after the event. It appears that in some sense - despite your comments of 1 May - you DO follow Ham (but not as a guru - and I never ever suggested that you regarded him as a guru).
Ashley"
PPS at 2.30 am.
Third attempted post:
"Correction to my first attempted comment replying to Charlie.
He wrote: "you said that I said he is not worth following". I mistakenly - not deliberately - reproduced that as "I did NOT say "Ken Ham is not worth following"". But I now see that I did say on 1 May "Glad that you don't think him worth following" as alleged - a statement Charlie now disputes the accuracy of.
But I hold up my hand and admit I made an error on 16 June (one which cannot purely be blamed on me not having rediscovered the exchange dated 1 May) and I now wish to correct my error."
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?
by a_haworthroberts » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:16 pm
I rather expect that the following attempted posts (two made over the last couple of days and the last one submitted just now) will be censored at this thread:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 2602829962
"I called you a liar because you lied at the time in question. In threads under some of YOUR blogs several months ago.
I have always accepted the fact that you do not follow Ken Ham like a guru so I don't really know why you got upset (weeks after my original response to a post where you brought Mr Ham into the conversation)."
"PS I was referring to discussions under some of Charlie's posts from late last summer on topics such as young Earth creation. However, because you cowards have at some point (after the event and without informing me) deleted all my posts in the threads concerned, you have thus made it difficult for me to back up my preceding comment. You YECs always know how to stack the deck in your favour."
"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3666016049
WHY are you people afraid to let anyone read my posts in this thread - the contents of which I did not save and cannot now readily recall (but only read your counter-arguments)?!
All people can read are the attacks against my posts made by Charlie (and not just him) dated 13 July, 14 July, 15 July, 16 July and 17 July.
But that's how YECs like it. Where opposing viewpoints are 'concealed' and where YEC readers only get to read the rebuttals. They are not allowed to make up their OWN mind as to whether you falsely accused me of misrepresentation etc. What has Charlie got to hide?"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 2602829962
"I called you a liar because you lied at the time in question. In threads under some of YOUR blogs several months ago.
I have always accepted the fact that you do not follow Ken Ham like a guru so I don't really know why you got upset (weeks after my original response to a post where you brought Mr Ham into the conversation)."
"PS I was referring to discussions under some of Charlie's posts from late last summer on topics such as young Earth creation. However, because you cowards have at some point (after the event and without informing me) deleted all my posts in the threads concerned, you have thus made it difficult for me to back up my preceding comment. You YECs always know how to stack the deck in your favour."
"
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3666016049
WHY are you people afraid to let anyone read my posts in this thread - the contents of which I did not save and cannot now readily recall (but only read your counter-arguments)?!
All people can read are the attacks against my posts made by Charlie (and not just him) dated 13 July, 14 July, 15 July, 16 July and 17 July.
But that's how YECs like it. Where opposing viewpoints are 'concealed' and where YEC readers only get to read the rebuttals. They are not allowed to make up their OWN mind as to whether you falsely accused me of misrepresentation etc. What has Charlie got to hide?"
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech?
by a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:39 pm
More unjustified censorship, here:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... eptic.html
On 2 July I attempted to comment as follows on this piece (as I've since reminded them - the response has been silence):
""Few atheists realize that while they’re berating creationists for being anti-science, they are actually insulting the founders of nearly every branch of science in existence today, including biology." Speaking personally I do NOT (whether I am now an atheist is a separate question - I don't know that God doesn't exist so maybe not).
There is a difference between DENYING scientific discoveries as modern YECs routinely do, and NOT KNOWING about discoveries that were made after one's lifetime. You CANNOT know that eg Newton would be a YEC - or even a Christian - if he was a practising scientist today.
I'm sorry but people like you seek to impose artificial boundaries on what science can discover (because you don't like the findings - that is the only reason I suspect). If science confirmed a 'young Earth' would you STILL say "the naturalist has hijacked honest investigation and inquiry"?
(I have saved this comment. If it is failed I will I am afraid conclude that you at WW's are 'ideologues' who wish to silence opposing viewpoints from this page - as has sometimes happened to me and others previously.)
I too am a sceptic. But not the same kind as you."
None of this contravenes the STATED rules for commenting on the Worldview Warriors blogs.
Just days before I submitted this comment, the blog author Steve Risner insisted:
"ONLY comments with name calling, character attacks, or that are just nasty are censored. NOTHING has been or will be unapproved because of the actual content beyond those things. Does that make sense? You've been asked repeatedly to recomment without using name calling because the rest of the comment was at least worth reading. You've generally refused to do so. So the tired and childish claim of "censorship" is actually disingenuous."
See post 35 here: http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -park.html
It would appear that 'name calling' is not the real problem for Risner. So I guess that their definition of 'nasty' must mean that they cannot yet think of a convincing looking response.
(Should the comment belatedly appear I will record the fact.)
PS Early on 14 July UK time. My post has belatedly appeared. Around 11 days after it was submitted. Whether because I complained here or for some other reason I do not know. (Chances are that if they wait 10 DAYS to more to publish any unrefuted criticisms, LESS people will READ the criticisms.)
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... eptic.html
On 2 July I attempted to comment as follows on this piece (as I've since reminded them - the response has been silence):
""Few atheists realize that while they’re berating creationists for being anti-science, they are actually insulting the founders of nearly every branch of science in existence today, including biology." Speaking personally I do NOT (whether I am now an atheist is a separate question - I don't know that God doesn't exist so maybe not).
There is a difference between DENYING scientific discoveries as modern YECs routinely do, and NOT KNOWING about discoveries that were made after one's lifetime. You CANNOT know that eg Newton would be a YEC - or even a Christian - if he was a practising scientist today.
I'm sorry but people like you seek to impose artificial boundaries on what science can discover (because you don't like the findings - that is the only reason I suspect). If science confirmed a 'young Earth' would you STILL say "the naturalist has hijacked honest investigation and inquiry"?
(I have saved this comment. If it is failed I will I am afraid conclude that you at WW's are 'ideologues' who wish to silence opposing viewpoints from this page - as has sometimes happened to me and others previously.)
I too am a sceptic. But not the same kind as you."
None of this contravenes the STATED rules for commenting on the Worldview Warriors blogs.
Just days before I submitted this comment, the blog author Steve Risner insisted:
"ONLY comments with name calling, character attacks, or that are just nasty are censored. NOTHING has been or will be unapproved because of the actual content beyond those things. Does that make sense? You've been asked repeatedly to recomment without using name calling because the rest of the comment was at least worth reading. You've generally refused to do so. So the tired and childish claim of "censorship" is actually disingenuous."
See post 35 here: http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... -park.html
It would appear that 'name calling' is not the real problem for Risner. So I guess that their definition of 'nasty' must mean that they cannot yet think of a convincing looking response.
(Should the comment belatedly appear I will record the fact.)
PS Early on 14 July UK time. My post has belatedly appeared. Around 11 days after it was submitted. Whether because I complained here or for some other reason I do not know. (Chances are that if they wait 10 DAYS to more to publish any unrefuted criticisms, LESS people will READ the criticisms.)
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Bigoted arrogant extremists won't publish criticism promptly
by a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:28 pm
Just the latest examples:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3831870202
"Charlie
You are just ranting intemperately and falsely accusing.
My point was that many YECs falsely claim that radiometric dates for rocks are vastly 'wrong' because the flood 'distorted' ie vastly accelerated radioactive decay rates making rocks or (in the case of carbon 14) organic materials look much older than they really are. That is the made-up claim I was referring to and which your words seemed to imply.
I am living in the real world. And I do understand 'my' position. You have not shown otherwise.
The existence of fossils does NOT 'confirm' Noah's 'worldwide' and 'recent' flood. That is simply a matter of FAITH."
(comment as submitted around 24 HOURS ago but still not approved even though they say they don't do censorship)
"I have ANSWERED Charlie's post (before Steve commented). You say you don't do censorship. When are you going to publish my reply (which I have saved - as I always do)?
All I ever get from you two is blanket claims alleging that I don't understand what you believe and am 'ignorant' or misusing terms. You ARE a fundamentalist. And 4,400 years ago IS recent relatively speaking.
You are both presenting articles of faith as 'facts' despite the lack of supporting evidence and in spite of contrary evidence and alternative more plausible explanations (eg of the fossil record).
So who is really doing the hand-waving?"
(comment submitted just now as a reminder - and more importantly by way of a reply to a MORE RECENT post by Steve Risner which HAS appeared promptly)
THANKS TO THE ANTICS OF RISNER AND WOLCOTT, ANYBODY READING THIS CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW WILL GET A TOTALLY FALSE IMPRESSION OF HOW THE CONVERSATION IS PROCEEDING. BECAUSE MY LATEST - PROMPT - RESPONSE IS STILL MISSING FROM THE PAGE, AND IS LIKELY IF IT APPEARS AT ALL TO APPEAR AFTER A DELAY OF A FEW MORE DAYS BASED UPON MY RECENT EXPERIENCE OF THESE FUNDAMENTALISTS. CLEARLY THEY WANT AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY READ MY RESPONSES.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4064182988
"Thanks for the lecture but I'm sorry your reply is pathetic. My comment which you claim 'misrepresented' your words never mentioned 'worldviews' (and was NOT summarising anything you said either but making an observation in response). But you appear to NOW be falsely suggesting that I do not know the difference between 'science' and a 'worldview'. But you CANNOT prove this from my words above - otherwise you would have already done so. The reason being that I DO know the difference, and thus have NOT confused or 'equivocated' the two. And I did NOT misrepresent you, even accidentally. And am still retracting nothing.
I rather suspect you are trying to annoy me in order to get rid of me.
You HAVE said that Biologos have "demonstrated a total lack of true understanding of both science [and Scripture]". And you HAVE said of Biologos that "I've read a number of their things. It's pretty bad on both aspects. When you try to please both crowds of opposing worldviews, you will get both sides painfully wrong." The 'aspects' in question being their positions on science and doctrine.
As I have already explained in this thread. The two worldviews being whether you start with scripture when doing science (or theology) or whether you start with the evidence and naturalism when doing science (or perhaps when interpreting parts of the Bible such as the opening chapters of Genesis)."
(submitted around 24 hours ago; I have just sent them a reminder which I've said they are free to delete without me complaining IF they clear my FIRST response)
ANYBODY READING THIS CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW MIGHT ASSUME THAT 24 HOURS LATER I HAVE STILL NOT RESPONDED AND THUS CHARLIE'S 'MUD' HAD REALLY STUCK. UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM THAT IS NOT THE CASE. BUT THEY WANT THEIR OTHERS READERS TO ASSUME OTHERWISE.
You might note also the angry judgemental tone frequently used by Charlie Wolcott and the accusatory tone used constantly by both him and Steve Risner. That is why my tone is highly assertive in response. They are very dogmatic, and very dishonest, and like to try and play with words to point-score - especially Wolcott.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3831870202
"Charlie
You are just ranting intemperately and falsely accusing.
My point was that many YECs falsely claim that radiometric dates for rocks are vastly 'wrong' because the flood 'distorted' ie vastly accelerated radioactive decay rates making rocks or (in the case of carbon 14) organic materials look much older than they really are. That is the made-up claim I was referring to and which your words seemed to imply.
I am living in the real world. And I do understand 'my' position. You have not shown otherwise.
The existence of fossils does NOT 'confirm' Noah's 'worldwide' and 'recent' flood. That is simply a matter of FAITH."
(comment as submitted around 24 HOURS ago but still not approved even though they say they don't do censorship)
"I have ANSWERED Charlie's post (before Steve commented). You say you don't do censorship. When are you going to publish my reply (which I have saved - as I always do)?
All I ever get from you two is blanket claims alleging that I don't understand what you believe and am 'ignorant' or misusing terms. You ARE a fundamentalist. And 4,400 years ago IS recent relatively speaking.
You are both presenting articles of faith as 'facts' despite the lack of supporting evidence and in spite of contrary evidence and alternative more plausible explanations (eg of the fossil record).
So who is really doing the hand-waving?"
(comment submitted just now as a reminder - and more importantly by way of a reply to a MORE RECENT post by Steve Risner which HAS appeared promptly)
THANKS TO THE ANTICS OF RISNER AND WOLCOTT, ANYBODY READING THIS CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW WILL GET A TOTALLY FALSE IMPRESSION OF HOW THE CONVERSATION IS PROCEEDING. BECAUSE MY LATEST - PROMPT - RESPONSE IS STILL MISSING FROM THE PAGE, AND IS LIKELY IF IT APPEARS AT ALL TO APPEAR AFTER A DELAY OF A FEW MORE DAYS BASED UPON MY RECENT EXPERIENCE OF THESE FUNDAMENTALISTS. CLEARLY THEY WANT AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY READ MY RESPONSES.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4064182988
"Thanks for the lecture but I'm sorry your reply is pathetic. My comment which you claim 'misrepresented' your words never mentioned 'worldviews' (and was NOT summarising anything you said either but making an observation in response). But you appear to NOW be falsely suggesting that I do not know the difference between 'science' and a 'worldview'. But you CANNOT prove this from my words above - otherwise you would have already done so. The reason being that I DO know the difference, and thus have NOT confused or 'equivocated' the two. And I did NOT misrepresent you, even accidentally. And am still retracting nothing.
I rather suspect you are trying to annoy me in order to get rid of me.
You HAVE said that Biologos have "demonstrated a total lack of true understanding of both science [and Scripture]". And you HAVE said of Biologos that "I've read a number of their things. It's pretty bad on both aspects. When you try to please both crowds of opposing worldviews, you will get both sides painfully wrong." The 'aspects' in question being their positions on science and doctrine.
As I have already explained in this thread. The two worldviews being whether you start with scripture when doing science (or theology) or whether you start with the evidence and naturalism when doing science (or perhaps when interpreting parts of the Bible such as the opening chapters of Genesis)."
(submitted around 24 hours ago; I have just sent them a reminder which I've said they are free to delete without me complaining IF they clear my FIRST response)
ANYBODY READING THIS CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW MIGHT ASSUME THAT 24 HOURS LATER I HAVE STILL NOT RESPONDED AND THUS CHARLIE'S 'MUD' HAD REALLY STUCK. UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM THAT IS NOT THE CASE. BUT THEY WANT THEIR OTHERS READERS TO ASSUME OTHERWISE.
You might note also the angry judgemental tone frequently used by Charlie Wolcott and the accusatory tone used constantly by both him and Steve Risner. That is why my tone is highly assertive in response. They are very dogmatic, and very dishonest, and like to try and play with words to point-score - especially Wolcott.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
Do 'WorldviewWarriors' believe in free speech or not?(PS NO)
by a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:49 am
My latest comment (which you will not get to read) here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7442879447
"I will expose your dishonest censorship, or deliberate delaying of clearing my posts, whichever it is. By email. YECs are always so manipulative. And dishonest. And they cheat in order to 'win' arguments'. That is why I refuse to go away from your site when you post highly misleading and questionable claims."
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7443317028
"You are arrogant. By your words but more importantly by your conflicting and untrustworthy behaviour. And I am sending an email - copied to info@worldviewwarriors.org."
E mail about to be sent, linking recipients to this thread. The ONLY people hand-waving are these people who manipulative conversations in their own favour - Wolcott and Risner.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7442879447
"I will expose your dishonest censorship, or deliberate delaying of clearing my posts, whichever it is. By email. YECs are always so manipulative. And dishonest. And they cheat in order to 'win' arguments'. That is why I refuse to go away from your site when you post highly misleading and questionable claims."
And here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7443317028
"You are arrogant. By your words but more importantly by your conflicting and untrustworthy behaviour. And I am sending an email - copied to info@worldviewwarriors.org."
E mail about to be sent, linking recipients to this thread. The ONLY people hand-waving are these people who manipulative conversations in their own favour - Wolcott and Risner.
- a_haworthroberts
- Posts: 8708
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
- Location: United Kingdom
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Conversations with Creationists
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests