Faid says “But how about addressing those 9.8 centimeters while we wait for your enlightening knowledge on termites, Coward dave?“
afdave says “I did long ago. And you ignored it.“
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: afdave law #3
Comments Off | 
afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | 
Permalink
Posted by black5
Today in the ‘Lake Suigetsu’ thread afdave dodges data. Far too much to list but it starts here.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: afdave law #1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
Comments Off | 
afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | 
Permalink
Posted by black5
afdave says “Ever heard of the British Isles? It wasn’t uninhabited, but we “fundiforms” took it over and built it into one of the best nations on the planet. Ever wonder why so many nations on earth teach their schoolchildren English? And from this island, we “fundiforms” also built modern science. Read about that here.“
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: afdave law #1
Comments Off | 
afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | 
Permalink
Posted by black5
Lake Suigetsu Thread:
VoxRat says “Apparently – and this is quite amazing in its own right – I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today’s Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.“
afdave says “Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I’m looking for a bit more.“
Followed by:
Faid “It DEMONSTRATES non-annual by SHOWING it to be DIFFERENT than annual, genius. Why is the description of an annual layer an ‘ASSERTION’, but the description of a non-annual one a ‘DEMONSTRATION’?“
Occam’s Aftershave “Dave, where is your DEMONSTRATION that thousands of varves in Suigetsu were deposited in a single year by a massive Flood?“
Feeble “Dave, scientific papers do not make assertions. They either provide evidence in support of an inference, or they reference a paper that provides evidence in support of an inference. Please link to the paper that you claim ‘ASSERTS annual’. I call your bluff.”
RAFH “Indeed, davey, what you are doing is INFERRING from the study done on a different lake (with entirely different circumstances, most notably involving substantial human interference) that Suigetsu is similar. INFERRING, davey, not DEMONSTRATING.“
Does afdave counter or respond to these statements or retract/modify his original claim? No.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #1, 4 & 5
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | Permalink
Posted by black5
In the Lake Suigetsu thread afdave says “My theory for Lake Suigetsu is looking better and better to me every day. Just like what happened with Unicorns and Nested Hierarchies and C14 in Coal and Burrows and Kondrashov and Portuguese and other stuff“.
Of course afdave’s idea of a good theory and whether he won the discussion on it is far different from everyone else’s and reality as you can see from the following threads. I’ve linked afdave’s last relative participation in each thread and you can determine if he convinced anyone, answered questions that were pending or fled:
In addition, in the same post afdave says “Lots more posts, but no answers to my questions about Lake Baikal.” But afdave is lying because the preceding post does answer those questions as does this post.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: afdave law #5
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | Permalink
Posted by black5
afdave continues to ignore Feeble’s questions. Feeble hasn’t been rude or any of the other reasons afdave gives when he decides to ignore people. She just asks pointed questions afdave doesn’t or cannot address. So he ignores her. This is intellectual dishonesty.
For reference, in the Lake Suigetsu thread:
Does afdave respond to Feeble’s questions despite participating in the thread? No.
Can afdave claim to have not seen Feeble because he has her on ignore?
No, both VoxRat and Pappy Jack asked afdave to respond to Feeble and afdave can see their posts as witnessed by his responses to them throughout the day.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #4
Leave a Comment » | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | Permalink
Posted by black5
In the “Young Earth Radiocarbon” thread on TheologyWeb afdave fails to make his claim so instead uses the old tactic of accusing scientists of deliberate dishonesty which of course is noted by Faid and KBertsche.
Additionally, in the “Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation” on Rants ‘n Raves afdave says that “KBertsche’s objections to Baumgardner completely failed” referring to the above Young Earth Radio carbon thread except anyone reading that thread will note afdave’s absolute failure to make his case and a list of questions afdave has failed to answer.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: great global atheist scientist conspiracy + afdave law #5
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | Permalink
Posted by black5
As Faid points out afdave is less then honest regarding data and papers used to support his claims versus the same used to counter his claims.
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: cowardly avoidance + afdave law #1 & #5
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution | Permalink
Posted by black5
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
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution, reminder | Permalink
Posted by black5
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.“
Comments Off | afdave, creationism, dishonesty, evolution, reminder | Permalink
Posted by black5
