Group action vs afdave

Statement: We have decided not to participate with afdave in online discussions until he starts to participate honestly.

Explanation:

Examples:

Participants: Black5,

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/28 [day 42: honest days 1, absent days 1]

“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 “I have been asked many times “Why do the curves agree?” and I am investigating this and I am closer to an answer than I was 6 months ago.” and when asked for an approximate ETA on this investigation he says “6 more months? Hopefully less.”

Now considering that many people have asked afdave many times over the last 6 months and longer why do the curves agree and afdave hasn’t provided or even acknowledged the question until now I think these statements count as dishonest. If afdave ever comes back with an answer which he can back with evidence, logic and common sense I will retract this daily dishonest note for afdave.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #2

afdave honesty check: 2008/01/16 [day 30 - honest days so far 1]

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

afave says “While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified — 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio.

Occam’s Aftershave then asks “Please provide a link to the scientific paper or article where this remarkable claim has been experimentally verified. Linking to another E/C board where you made the same claim won’t cut it Dave. I’d like to read the primary scientific literature on the experiment to review it and the protocols used myself. If you can’t provide a direct link, please provide the title of the peer-reviewed paper or article, its authors, and where these experimental results were published.“

Will afdave provide a paper to validate his claim? I doubt it. Until then this remains a dishonest statement.

Failed to be honest today.

Dishonest tactic: afdave law #1, 4, 5

a follow up to the post from 2008/01/13

In the continuing saga to have afdave explain how mammal burrows found throughout the geologic column are consistent with his global flood theory the following took place.

grmorton “Has wee Dave reneged on his promise to explain the mammal burrows? If so, he has shown that his yes does not mean yes. It only means yes, if he finds it convenient and easy to accomplish without any work.“

afdave “No. As you may recall, you gave me 5 book titles to get from the library. With everything else I have going on, it will probably take me a couple of weeks to find them all (Will 1 library have them all? Will I have to request any by ILL?) and read the relevant sections. Of course, if you want to speed all this up, you could do what I do for people–scan the relevant diagrams/pictures and scan or type in the relevant text which supports/explains your position and objections to the YEC view. But I don’t think you’re interested in that, so you’ll just have to wait.“

So we will wait and ask afdave in a few weeks for his explanation. I doubt it will happen and this will just be another example of his dishonesty.

Update January 24th 2008: afdave says “Not abandoning. It’s just that he doesn’t like to go to the effort to extract his material from his books and post it online. He wants me to go to the library and get the books and comment on them. This is much slower, so he will just have to wait.“