afdave honesty check: 2007/12/31 [day 14 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

As part of a long discussion with afdave Febble asks him (multiple times) to watch a video which she says “is a beautiful illustration of how a machine can be built using only Darwinian processes (replication with modification plus natural selection).“

• Does afdave watch the video? No
• Does afdave acknowledge the video the first few times Febble suggests it? No
• When afdave finally responds what reason does he give for not watching the video? “I don’t like wasting time on wild goose chases.“

Dave is ending this year in the same form I have witnessed for the 8 or 9 months – DISHONESTY.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + arbitrary dismissal of another person’s argument

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/30 [day 13 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

In “Baumgardner’s needs to explain burrows” thread afdave has this response to oximudd/jim:
“Hi Jim– Links from Faid don’t cut it. If you are going to disagree with a 2005 study that says that burrowers are poorly studied, you need to demonstrate that they are NOT poorly studied. A good starting point would be a single study about deep sea burrowers and their burrowing habits. Let’s take 1 at a time, OK? Over to you.“

• Does afdave admit to ignoring links Faid provided as evidence? Yes
• Does afdave give a good (or any) reason why these links are not valid evidence? No
• Does afdave answer any of the following points raised by oximudd/jim? No
  • Need for YEC proponents to explain how animal burrows exist throughout the geological column when YEC propose that the column was deposited in the great flood at hundreds of feet per day.
  • Why afdave believes it is ok to disregard Glenn Morton’s identification of burrows even though Glenn is a professional geologist and afdave has no practical experience in geology.
  • Why afdave continues to ignore links provided by Faid.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + ignoring evidence he doesn’t like

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/29 [day 12 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “Ok, Flipper. I’ll take a look at your posts also. As for Faid, I’ve had a long history with him and he also does not seem interested in honest dialog either. It really only makes sense to me to focus on 1 or 2 posters on any given topic, so I’ll see what I can do with yours and Jim’s (O’mudd).“

Another example of afdave deciding to ignore someone rather then respond to their criticisms and while doing so he insinuates that Faid isn’t “interested in honest dialog” and is being ignored for that reason. Faid’s previous post on this thread for reference.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/28 [day 11 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “Darwin did not do this. Darwin proposed a non-ID hypothesis for the Origin of Species. I don’t think even evolutionary biologists pretend to assert that Darwin came up with a mechanism for how this actually occurred.“

However Febble pointed out in the very next post that “This is Darwin’s proposed mechanism for the Origin of Species: Organisms are replicated with modification; those modifications that happen to be able to replicate more are replicated more.“

• Does afdave retract his statement? No
• Does afdave try to validate his statement? Yes.
• Does he fail horribly and then avoid responding to those criticisms even though they point out an error in his YEC theory? Yes

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #4

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/27 [day 10 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave’s last post (at this time it is 3 days later and he hasn’t responded) to the thread he started titled ”Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation” is …

“Mike– I am becoming more convinced than ever that the Suigetsu varves are not indicative of annual deposition. The explanations for the “flocculent” layer in this thread are very unconvincing. No one seems to agree. Some think that it was laid during the earthquake. Some realize that that is not what the Suigetsu papers said. They said that the turbidite layer under the flocculence was laid by the earthquake. Some think the flocculence represents normal deposition and if we come back in 150 years we’ll see 150 more nice neat layers. So no, I’m not even close to believing Suigetsu proves an old earth. Moving the other direction actually.“

So instead of responding to others participating in his thread he instead states that he is even more convinced he is right and then promptly abandons the thread.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/26 [day 9 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “Now … back to the regularly scheduled ‘Voxrat Goes Hunting for Minutia’ program.“

To put this enormous dishonesty in context realize that afdave is making this quote in the “Error-free Creationist Literature?” thread VoxRat created in part due to afdave’s previous claims that there are hundreds of such articles. Additionally afdave is trivializing the large number of errors VoxRat is finding in an article by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. titled “Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?” Additionally afdave has a previous blog post on the same article by Bergman and has used him as an authority on the subject of viruses previously.

• Does afdave clarify any of the errors VoxRat finds in the article? No
• Does afdave retract his claim or otherwise indicate Bergman’s errors on his blog. No
• Does afdave trivialize VoxRat’s error finding results without responding to them? Yes
• Does afdave say “I think I’m about done with this thread having proven my point” even though he has convinced anyone including ck1 who is a virologist by profession. Yes

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: ignoring what he doesn’t want to see + afdave law #4

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/25 [day 8 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave responding to a post by grmorton says a number of things including “The truth is, many of my detractors are proven liars” and “I could respond (again) to your objections in your last post, but it’s no use. You don’t listen.“

The first quote is just an out and out lie and afdave does not provide evidence or any other validation for it.

The second quote is another lie because throughout this thread afdave has avoided responding (once let alone “again”) specifically to objections by grmorton and others.

afdave can’t even be honest on Christmas day.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: lying + afdave law #5

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/24 [day 7 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says “And science is actually bolstered if we believe that “Goddidit” because then we are operating under a paradigm which is not contradictory to known observation.“

afdave says “LIFE BEARS ALL THE HALLMARKS OF BEING A “MANUFACTURED PRODUCT. Yes, a highly sophisticated manufactured product. A product that can self-replicate. And fuel itself. And repair itself. And “evolve” (which is nothing more than programmed ability to adapt). But it bears evidence of being a manufactured product all the same. Unless methodological naturalists such as yourself can come up with some mechanism for how these “manufactured products” can manufacture themselves, contrary to everything we know about engineering and manufacturing, then Methodological Naturalism will continue to be a poor paradigm under which to conduct scientific investigation.“

First he infers that natural selection is contradictory to known observations. Then he ignores natural selection as the mechanism for how life “appears” to be manufactured. Does he then respond to the many questions and comments brought up by other users? No

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: afdave law #1

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/23 [day 6 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave deliberately misrepresents a thread summary and is exposed by Faid.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: misrepresenting a thread summary

afdave honesty check: 2007/12/22 [day 5 - honest days so far 0]

“Well the truth is that I am honest and I continue to demonstrate my honesty every day in writing on the web“, afdave.

afdave says that he leaves forums due to “impoliteness” and not to avoid unanswered questions.

He also says “I guess I’ll have to look into the possibility of creating a forum myself … one that’s truly free to all viewpoints“. I’ll keep an eye out to see if this happens and if it is truly free to all viewpoints.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: complain about forum censorship