Ok, Dave, wow, that took a long time to get you to answer simple questions. Here are your answers.
- Is the child telling the truth?

Originally posted by afdave

1) No.

- Is the child's behavior ethical?

Originally posted by afdave

2) No.

- What would you say to that child?

Originally posted by afdave

3) Quit lying.

- Do you think it is possible to lie by omitting information?

Originally posted by afdave

4) Yes.

Then Dave asks:

Originally posted by afdave

Now ... how does this relate to me? Please be specific.

First off, I can’t believe that you are so thick as to be unable and incapable of seeing how this relates to you. But be that as it may.

Of the import of your shrimp article, Dave, you withhold information from your readers when using that very old article. In post 202 you wrote:

Originally posted by afdave

2) ONLY 1 METER DEEP? The second assumption is also wrong. Burrowers would not be restricted to the first meter of pre-Flood sediment. As I have shown from just one study (burrowing shrimp ... again, I would ask Glenn to read this highly relevant study), these organisms dug burrows well below 3 meters (!!) under the ocean floor. How many more zillions [there's that word again] of creatures like this are there that we know nothing about?

The math I presented was to show that to account for all the burrows seen in the geologic column would require far too many burrows on a single preflood earth. You then criticized me for using 1 meter depth for the depth of burial. I did this for the very well known fact that very few burrows go deeper than 10 cm.

James Kennett, Marine Geology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982, ,p 619

However, intense bioturbation does not normally penetrate much deeper than about 10 cm in the sediment column.

---

© source where applicable

What you hid from your readers was how anomalous the shrimp is.

[cite=Pemberton et al, “Supershrimp:DeepBioturbation in the Strait of Canso, Nova Scotia,” Science, May 21, 1976, p. 791]”To the best of our knowledge this represents the deepest verified bioturbation ever recorded.”[/quote]

So, when you say it is unethical for a child to hide information from the parent, please explain why you are not a hypocrite when you hide data from your readers that is pertinent to their decision about whether or not to believe you, while you tell the child to quit lying?

When you say the child’s behavior in hiding information is not ethical, you condemn your own highly hypocritical behavior because you are hiding very pertinent information.

It is because of this that your criticisms of my web page are not correct and why I will not correct anything on the page nor refer anyone to your pages. You deserve to be totally ignored; and my web pages will do that for you.



In Post #400 December 13th 2007 , 01:25 PM You hid data when you wrote:

Originally posted by afdave

Moving on, I brought up Polychaeta in order to show you the reasonableness of proposing that Polychaeta could burrow quite easily even if they were being buried by tons and tons of sediment. This article states that "macroinvertebrate burial by sediment has been poorly studied." So until we get a study similar to the one I just linked, but with Polychaeta and great burial depths, we cannot say much more. But you seem quite sure that they could not burrow with all that sediment on top of that. You gave a snow skiier as an example of why they couldn't, but humans are not designed to dig burrows in sediments. Polychaeta (and God knows what all else) are.

My bolding.

Now, you condemn the child and say he is lying if he is withholding information from you. But you do the very same thing, marking you as a major league hypocrite! You asked for specifics? Specifically you hid from your readers that the article you cited was not talking about tons and tons of sediment, in spite of your dishonest claim that it was.

P. J. Wood, et al, “The response of four lotic macroinvertebrate taxa to burial by sediments” Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Volume 163, Number 2, June 2005 , pp. 145-162

Sedimentation is widely acknowledged as a major cause of degradation of instream habitats. However, macroinvertebrate burial by sediment has been poorly studied. Ex situ experiments were undertaken to examine the response of four common and abundant macroinvertebrate taxa (Baetis rhodani, Nemoura cambrica, Hydropsyche pellucidula, and Asellus aquaticus) to burial by six sediment size classes (range = 125 μm – 10 mm in size) and two depths of burial (5 mm and 10 mm). The nymphs of the ephemeropteran, Baetis rhodani, were unable to excavate themselves from any of the sediments. In contrast, the plecopteran nymphs of Nemoura cambrica were able to excavate themselves from all sediment classes and burial depths. Adults of the isopod, Asellus aquaticus, were able to excavate themselves rapidly from finer sediment classes (< 1 mm) but took significantly longer to escape from sediment > 1 mm in size and became trapped in coarser sediments (>4 mm in size at 5 mm burial depth and > 2 mm at 10 mm burial depth). The larvae of the trichopteran, Hydropsyche pellucidula, were able to excavate their heads from all sediment classes and both burial depths, but became trapped in particles < 500 m in size when buried under 10 mm of sediment. The results demonstrate that the response of individual taxa to burial with sediments is highly variable. Consequently, many of the documented changes to benthic macroinvertebrate community composition due to sedimentation probably mask a variety of individual faunal responses.

---

© source where applicable

Now, Dave, you are dishonest in not telling your readers that the article was not talking about tons and tons of sediment. 125 micrometers to 10 millimeters of burial depth is not ‘tons and tons’ of sediment. At around 2.3 g/cc, 10 mm of sedimentation represents about a half a gram of sedimentation. Dave, that is dishonest not to tell your readers that this article, which you read wasn’t talking about ‘tons and tons of sediment’. Specifically, quote you about what should be said to a child who withholds data, ‘Quit lying’

Originally posted by afdave

And Glenn Morton is doing this right now on his website in addition to allowing outright falsehoods to remain on his website.

Dave, first off, there are no falsehoods on my website. You have utterly failed to show them. As many people on this list will know, I have corrected many things when errors were pointed out to me, and this includes some errors I have acknowledged when Jorge pointed them out to me. But in the case of your criticisms, they don’t find their mark and so you are quite mistaken. . I don’t agree that my website has falsehoods because those whose knowledge I respect have not brought forth errors of fact on that page. You, on the other hand, are not one whose knowledge I respect.

Secondly, this is the teenie-bopper response. It is certainly no justification for your wickedness to point to others as justification for your behavior. Shoot, that is what Adam did. Lord, the woman gave me that fruit and I ate it. You are justifying your wickedness by trying to say in effect, “hey, it is ok for me to be wicked because Glenn Morton is wicked” So, If I rob banks, you will feel justified in robbing banks? What an immature, childish ethical system you have wee boy. Grow up. Be a man. Take your medicine without having to point to the perceived wickedness in others.

The question of whether or not I am wicked is a different question from whether or not you are wicked. There are lots of people in this thread stating quite clearly that it is you who are wicked. You are the only one stating that I am the wicked one here. If we were to count wickedness votes, you would have far more than I do. All I have is your vote for wicked man of the year. But you have to the best of my count, about 20 votes for most wicked man of the year.

But with your wee-boy response above, you are implicitly trying to divert attention from your wicked behavior.

Originally posted by afdave

1) No. 2) No. 3) Quit lying. 4) Yes. And Glenn Morton is doing this right now on his website in addition to allowing outright falsehoods to remain on his website.

Now ... how does this relate to me? Please be specific.

Dave,

Glenn answered your last question, but since you asked for my opinion, and in case you missed the specifics in his long post, Glenn gave several examples:

1 - You said:

As I have shown from just one study (burrowing shrimp ... again, I would ask Glenn to read this highly relevant study), these organisms dug burrows well below 3 meters (!!) under the ocean floor

You attempted to generalize from this, but the actual paper you were citing said:

To the best of our knowledge this represents the deepest verified bioturbation ever recorded

2 - You said

Polychaeta could burrow quite easily even if they were being buried by tons and tons of sediment.

but the paper said the range of the depth of burial was 125 um to 10 mm. Not tons of sediment.


So in both these cases you omitted pertinent information damaging to your argument.

Glenn-- Burrowing habits are poorly studied. I showed you a recent study to prove this. You should also realize this from the fact that you didn't even know about the shrimp study. Why is it so surprising to you that this is the deepest known bioturbation to the authors? Of course it is. This was new information to them because burrowers were so poorly studied up until that time ... and I think they still are. You cannot say that it is anomalous because we don't have enough studies to know if it's anomalous. AFAIK, this is the only shrimp study like this. The word "anomalous" is meaningless unless used in the context of A LOT of data. Which there isn't. As for your burrow math, there are so many faulty assumptions there it's ridiculous. You want to only consider your shallow burrowers and ignore the deep burrowing shrimp I showed you. You wouldn't even acknowledge the study at first. Finally you read it after I badgered you. And you fail to acknowledge the possibility of zillions of other deep burrowers like this that there may have been -- remember -- burrowers are poorly studied. Then, if that weren't enough, you totally ignore the clear statement from professional Ichnologists who say many of those "burrows" of yours are not of biogenic orgin at all. You seem to not have the slightest interest in studying about the response behavior of burrowers to being buried by tons of sediment. You only want to talk about the normal behavior. You play dumb about false information on your website in spite of the fact that I've pointed it out clearly several times. Here's one really obvious one: you say that YECs haven't addressed burrows. False. You even quoted Austin yourself where he addresses them and you were totally unaware of the 2006 Woodmorappe study. I point all this out to you and you reject all of it. Then you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one hiding and ignoring data. Now you want to say I'm wicked because there are more people voting that I am wicked. Incredible. Simply incredible. I've been debating highly credentialed people for almost two years now Glenn. More and more all the time are taking an interest in discussing things with me in a calm, rational manner. I had high hopes for my debate with you. I expected someone with your credentials to be calm and rational. No name calling. No slurs. No rhetoric about how awful YECs are. Just pure science and appeal to the facts. But I was disappointed. There are many, many non-Christians I have debated who conduct themselves far better than you. You should apologize and start over.

Dave, phooey.

If in a cube you have more than 50% air, and then you try to cram the contents of the cube into say a cube 1/10 smaller by volume, you've got to have to choose - 1) the second cube is going to have to be empty with the remaining contents left out or 2) maybe some non-air content but all the air left out or 3) or some mixture of non-air content and air but still lots of air left out. If you can't understand that and how that relates to Glenn's reasoning, you're definitely retarded.

Originally posted by afdave

(snip big self-aggrandizing fact free bluster by Dave)

Dave, when are you going to tell us how the shrimp avoided the HYDRODYNAMIC SORTING?

- T

Originally posted by afdave

Glenn-- Burrowing habits are poorly studied. I showed you a recent study to prove this. You should also realize this from the fact that you didn't even know about the shrimp study. Why is it so surprising to you that this is the deepest known bioturbation to the authors? Of course it is. This was new information to them because burrowers were so poorly studied up until that time ... and I think they still are. You cannot say that it is anomalous because we don't have enough studies to know if it's anomalous. AFAIK, this is the only shrimp study like this. The word "anomalous" is meaningless unless used in the context of A LOT of data. Which there isn't. As for your burrow math, there are so many faulty assumptions there it's ridiculous. You want to only consider your shallow burrowers and ignore the deep burrowing shrimp I showed you. You wouldn't even acknowledge the study at first. Finally you read it after I badgered you. And you fail to acknowledge the possibility of zillions of other deep burrowers like this that there may have been -- remember -- burrowers are poorly studied. Then, if that weren't enough, you totally ignore the clear statement from professional Ichnologists who say many of those "burrows" of yours are not of biogenic orgin at all. You seem to not have the slightest interest in studying about the response behavior of burrowers to being buried by tons of sediment. You only want to talk about the normal behavior. You play dumb about false information on your website in spite of the fact that I've pointed it out clearly several times. Here's one really obvious one: you say that YECs haven't addressed burrows. False. You even quoted Austin yourself where he addresses them and you were totally unaware of the 2006 Woodmorappe study. I point all this out to you and you reject all of it. Then you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one hiding and ignoring data. Now you want to say I'm wicked because there are more people voting that I am wicked. Incredible. Simply incredible. I've been debating highly credentialed people for almost two years now Glenn. More and more all the time are taking an interest in discussing things with me in a calm, rational manner. I had high hopes for my debate with you. I expected someone with your credentials to be calm and rational. No name calling. No slurs. No rhetoric about how awful YECs are. Just pure science and appeal to the facts. But I was disappointed. There are many, many non-Christians I have debated who conduct themselves far better than you. You should apologize and start over.

WOW. A one-paragraph post by dave, without using bolds or caps! He must really be desperate.

Dave. The fact that burrowers are "poorly studied" has nothing to do with anything. You presented an article that speaks of an exception among burrowers, to pretend this is normal burrowing behavior. Glenn quoted yuor post. It's there. You omited the fact that it was an exception. And the authors know it's an exception, therefore they have studied burrowers. Certainly more than you. Speculations on whether all burrowers would dig as deep when covered in tons of sediment are just that- speculations. Not evidence. Especially when all data points to the fact that burrowers are only able to dig down to a few cm as a rule. You presented an article claiming that it shows how it is possible for burrowers to burrow under "tons of sediment". Those were your words. Glenn quoted them. They were false. The article spoke only of a few cm. You withheld that info. You omitted data. Glen has omited nothing. He has presented valid calculations that show the impossibility of all those burrowers existing together. You respond by pointing to an article that says some burrows, in some strata, in some (non-marine) enviroments, might not be burrows. Big deal: Glenn describes and explains the characteristics that show those burrows to be burrows. Remember spiral tunnelling? Lining with feces? In the meantime, you don't even have the guts to clearly state whether you think those burrows are escape burrows, or normal habitat ones. You switch back and forth on that, whenever it suits you. You don't even have the guts to address how your ridiculous explanation of "redeposition" stands along with your (and all YECs') proposed mechanism of Hydrodynamic sorting. You don't even have the guts to explain how those magick burrowers survived the tremendous upheaval that shook their habitat and grinded it with huge rocks and debris, to redeposit it again and again. You don't have the guts to address anything. Just like your mentors. They don't say anything meaningful either, and Glenn accurately says that they don't address the actual issue. Just like you, dave. Glenn ows you nothing. You are in no position to claim the moral high ground. Your actions have made all those comments that you resent quite deserving. You are just an insignificant person, trying to feed his delusions of grandeur by pretending he can debate with the big boys. If someone owes an apology, it's you. But not to Glenn or any of us; to your God.

There- did that compute, dave?

Originally posted by afdave

Glenn-- Burrowing habits are poorly studied. I showed you a recent study to prove this. You should also realize this from the fact that you didn't even know about the shrimp study. Why is it so surprising to you that this is the deepest known bioturbation to the authors? Of course it is. This was new information to them because burrowers were so poorly studied up until that time ... and I think they still are.

First off, Merry Christmas, Dave. Our Lord came for truth and we should follow Him in honesty. Do you know what the test of your honesty is? it isn't when you don't steal money when there are guards around it and lots of accountants to checking the books to know that no one stole money. The test of a person's honesty comes when one is in the presence of money without any guards or accountants. Then you will know if you are honest.

With intellectual data, the test of your honesty is not when you find something which supports your position, but when you find data which contradicts your position. What one does with the data in those circumstances is what shows whether or not the person is honest. What you are showing is that you don't seem to realize that by hiding data relevant to the issue which contradicts your assertions, you are showing your level of trustworthiness, which isn't very high in my opinion.

Now to the shrimp data. All I can say to the charge that I hadn't read (or don't remember reading) a 1972 article on shrimp burrowing is (to paraphrase Steve Martin on Saturday Night Live, EXCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSE MEEEE! No one can read all the articles in the world and for you to hold such a standard for others when you can't live up to it yourself is another sign of your utter hypocrisy. You, sir, are an A-grade hypocrite. You claim I should have known about an irrelevant 1972 article on shrimp, but you didn't have the foggiest notion that rocks could come down a mountainside as shown in that video. You didn't know that rocks bounced along the bottom of a river. Mr. grade-A hypocrite, hold yourself to the same standard you are wanting to hold me to. Take the beam out of your eye before you try to take the speck out of mine. (Maybe you should actually read the Bible)

Secondly, I would note that the words 'poorly studied,' do not appear in the shrimp article. You are, once again, shown to be entirely unknowledgeable, completely incapable of reading an article correctly.

You cannot say that it is anomalous because we don't have enough studies to know if it's anomalous. AFAIK, this is the only shrimp study like this. The word "anomalous" is meaningless unless used in the context of A LOT of data.

Dave, from 10 years later, you keep ignoring the depth of burrowing I have cited from a Marine Geology textbook which I own. It says, once again:

James Kennett, Marine Geology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982, ,p 619

However, intense bioturbation does not normally penetrate much deeper than about 10 cm in the sediment column.

---

© source where applicable

Why do you keep ignoring this, Dave? Is it honest to act as if I am not posting this over and over? To behave as you do is unbecoming a Christian who claims to value truth. Remember, the test of your honesty is what you do with data when it contradicts your position, not when you think it supports your position.

Which there isn't. As for your burrow math, there are so many faulty assumptions there it's ridiculous.

Only in your imagination. Why is it Dave that you are the only one who thinks I have a flawed assumption???? Ever ask yourself this? Why is it DAve that other YECs don't come to your aid? Ever wonder that? I think it is because they are a slightly bit more rational than you and thus know how idiotic what you are saying is. I think it is utterly funny that you are the substitute for Baumgardner. Hey, John, don't you just love being represented by the likes of afdave?

You want to only consider your shallow burrowers and ignore the deep burrowing shrimp I showed you. You wouldn't even acknowledge the study at first. Finally you read it after I badgered you.

I read it before I started discussing it with you Dave. It was irrelevant so I didn't see any point in discussing it until you badgered me.

And you fail to acknowledge the possibility of zillions of other deep burrowers like this that there may have been -- remember -- burrowers are poorly studied.

bolding mine. I am supposed to consider unobserved possibilities? Am I supposed to entertain the idea that leprechauns run your thought processes? (actually, that might be a good explanation for your behavior, I should re-think what I was about to say )

Secondly today, burrowing is not at all poorly studied.

Then, if that weren't enough, you totally ignore the clear statement from professional Ichnologists who say many of those "burrows" of yours are not of biogenic orgin at all.

Sorry buddy, the books I got those pictures out of were written by professional ichnologists. They said they were. Besides, I haven't shown a single skolithus burrow in all of those I have shown. The article you cited was about skolithus. Once again, you are hopelessly befuddled and being totally idiotic in your logic.

Let me illlustrate your illogic. You find one article talking about skolithus The article is totally contrary to 99% of the articles on the subject, but you latch on to it and act like it is the one and only authoritative article on skolithus. According to your illogical method, if anyone anywhere publishes an article which might be interpreted to agree with your position, it is the one and only believable article--all others are false. Then you claim that I must bow to your supposed superior wisdom--wisdom you gained after only about 3 days of work. Would you let me do brain surgery on your child after only studying neurosurgery for 3 days? If you say 'no' you are showing once again that you are an utter, contemptable hypocrite who holds one standard for others and another for himself. Read the Bible afdave. It says

Matthew 7:2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Let me do the next surgery on a family member of yours. I promise to spend 3 days learning the appropriate subject area! If you don't offer this, you are a contemptable hypocrite.

And let's hold you to your standard again, Mr. Grade A Hypocrite. I have an article which says you are wrong, that skolithus is a burrow. Why don't you acknowledge that you are wrong and bow to that article???? Why? Because you are a hypocrite. Listen afdave to the words of our Lord:

Matthew 7:4-5 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

You seem to not have the slightest interest in studying about the response behavior of burrowers to being buried by tons of sediment. You only want to talk about the normal behavior. You play dumb about false information on your website in spite of the fact that I've pointed it out clearly several times.

You dave, are a prevaricator. You claimed that the article you cited showed that animals could escape being buried by "tons and tons of sediments". Now that I have shown that the article in question is only talking about at most about a gram of sediment (which, by the way traps some of the animals studied), you now try to hypocritically change the topic.

No one else here agrees with you Dave that the information on my web page is false. No one. Why is that Dave? Everyone else here keeps telling you that you are wrong. Why do you ignore them? You play dumb by not answering questions like those Tiggy keeps asking. How do you explain how the burrowers escaped hydrodynamic sorting when all other animals are subject to it? Hypocritically, you claim I am playing dumb. Once again, you show yourself to be a contemptable hypocrite. I think God doesn't like hypocrites, Dave.

dave this should be of some interest to you.

Job 20:5 That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?

Your joy will only be for the moment, Dave. You clearly hold a double standard, one for yourself, and one for others. That is the classical definition of a hypocrite, Dave. Look deep into your heart and see the worm of hypocrisy eating its way through your soul.

Might also want to look at Job 13:16 "...for an hypocrite shall not come before him." That sounds like it is a wee bit dangerous to be a hypocrite Dave.

Jesus tells us where the hypocrties end up in the parable of the servants

Matthew 24:50-51 "The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Dave, you are a hypocrite. If I were you, I would worry.

Here's one really obvious one: you say that YECs haven't addressed burrows. False.

As was explained to you at the beginning of this thread, 'addressing' something doesn't mean merely mentioning it. It means explaining it. That is what the scientist means by the word 'addressing'. You haven't done that; Jan Peckzis hasn't done that either. Both of you have MENTIONED burrows, but that isn't the same thing.

You even quoted Austin yourself where he addresses them and you were totally unaware of the 2006 Woodmorappe study. I point all this out to you and you reject all of it.

They don't explain anything. They don't explain why so many burrows which are now buried, have dirt piles at their mouths on the former ocean floors. Kurt Wise pointed this out when he agreed with me at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism.

Then you have the audacity to claim that I'm the one hiding and ignoring data.

Yes, because you are. Dave, do you believe the Bible? I don't think you do. You are the only one claiming that I am hiding data. But the Bible says this about how to correct a person.

2 Cor. 13:1 "1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. "

I would also point you to another verse you don't believe.

1 Tim 5:19 "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."

DAve, there are many more than 3 witnesses against you. All are saying the same thing. If I were you, I would start believing the Bible and what it says. Many more than 3 witnesses have told you that you are hiding data. Only one has claimed that of me and it is you. Therefore, you have no one to support your charge. The Bible tells us to believe a charge against an elder if 2 or 3 people verify the accusation. Where does that put you, dear boy?

Now you want to say I'm wicked because there are more people voting that I am wicked. Incredible. Simply incredible.

So should I take this to mean that you don't believe the bible? Do you know what Jesus himself said about this?

Matthew 18:15-17 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

I think you are a publican Dave. You don't listen to people when they try to correct you. From here on, you are to me but a heathen publican. I believe the Bible, Dave. So should you.

I've been debating highly credentialed people for almost two years now Glenn. More and more all the time are taking an interest in discussing things with me in a calm, rational manner.

I am not impressed. from what I hear you have been bothering highly credentialed people, not debating them. There is a difference you know.

I had high hopes for my debate with you.

No you didn't. You merely wanted another notch on your belt and another link to your blog. That is all you are after.

I expected someone with your credentials to be calm and rational. No name calling. No slurs. No rhetoric about how awful YECs are. Just pure science and appeal to the facts. But I was disappointed. There are many, many non-Christians I have debated who conduct themselves far better than you. You should apologize and start over.

Mr. Heathen Publican (for that is what Jesus tells me to call you), I think you should reconsider your position and the precariousness of your spiritual life.

Originally posted by Faid

If someone owes an apology, it's you. But not to Glenn or any of us; to your God.

There- did that compute, dave?

I want to yell "Amen!" to this. It is to God that Dave owes his apology. And I must say, when God has to use the mouths of atheists to preach ethics, honesty and morality to the likes of Dave, God is really, really trying to get his attention.

Dave, you better listen. I think a study of Habakkuk might be in order. Habakkuk thought it was wrong for God to use the godless Chaldeans to 'correct' the sinning Israelites; God set him straight. God used the Chaldeans in spite of Habakkuk's protestations. God is now using a liberal atheist to try to get your attention. Better listen; better understand!

Just popping in to wish you a Merry Christmas, Glenn.

Originally posted by taoist

Just popping in to wish you a Merry Christmas, Glenn.

Thanks Jesse, Merry Christmas, happy holidays to you too. My family doesn't come until tomorrow, so tonight, after Church service, is a night to spend on the computer.

edited to add: What is a radical strawberry?

Originally posted by grmorton

Thanks Jesse, Merry Christmas, happy holidays to you too. My family doesn't come until tomorrow, so tonight, after Church service, is a night to spend on the computer.

edited to add: What is a radical strawberry?

Thank you, Glenn.

The first forum I ever posted was called "Its Happening," run by a since-deceased Maryland pornographer with a hobby of hijacking Jihadi websites and redirecting them to his discussion board. The "radical strawberry" custom user title originated there. I've used it consistently ever since as a way to be easily recognized.

It's a combination of "radical" from a political assessment poll I was talked into filling out there and "strawberry" from the ever-filled fruit basket that came with a hot tub thread there as well. Between how those strawberries were put to use in the hot tub and how the "radical" taoist would take down the death-threat spewing jihadis lies a double-entendre I couldn't resist.

As ever, Jesse

A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE FOR GLENN MORTON

Hi Glenn--

I've been thinking a lot about Christ at this time of year and something you said recently struck me. You said ...

The question of whether or not I am wicked is a different question from whether or not you are wicked. There are lots of people in this thread stating quite clearly that it is you who are wicked. You are the only one stating that I am the wicked one here. If we were to count wickedness votes, you would have far more than I do. All I have is your vote for wicked man of the year. But you have to the best of my count, about 20 votes for most wicked man of the year.

Now let me ask you something ... was Christ wicked? I am sure you don't think so because you claim to be a Christian. Yet have you ever thought about how many "votes" he got for "wicked man of the year"? I think it would have been far greater than 20 to 1, at least in his last year of ministry. Certainly in his last week.

And it occurred to me that you think I'm wicked--not from your own observation--but from the testimony of others, whose character you don't even know. The truth is, many of my detractors are proven liars, just as Jesus' accusers were. I could spend a long time proving this to you, but you don't seem interested. Instead, you've started lying to yourself and to others, about me and about animal burrows--saying that YECs haven't addressed the burrows issue, ignoring data contrary to your beliefs, refusing to link to YEC studies even after being shown that they do exist, refusing to link to my critique of your article even after being told that others (who don't even claim to be Christians AFAIK) do so. I could respond (again) to your objections in your last post, but it's no use. You don't listen. Your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it.

Maybe some reflection upon the Life of Christ on this Christmas Day will make you see what you are doing. Maybe it won't. I don't know. One can certainly hope!

Originally posted by afdave

A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE FOR GLENN MORTON

Hi Glenn--

I've been thinking a lot about Christ at this time of year and something you said recently struck me. You said ... Now let me ask you something ... was Christ wicked? I am sure you don't think so because you claim to be a Christian. Yet have you ever thought about how many "votes" he got for "wicked man of the year"? I think it would have been far greater than 20 to 1, at least in his last year of ministry. Certainly in his last week.

And it occurred to me that you think I'm wicked--not from your own observation--but from the testimony of others, whose character you don't even know. The truth is, many of my detractors are proven liars, just as Jesus' accusers were. I could spend a long time proving this to you, but you don't seem interested. Instead, you've started lying to yourself and to others, about me and about animal burrows--saying that YECs haven't addressed the burrows issue, ignoring data contrary to your beliefs, refusing to link to YEC studies even after being shown that they do exist, refusing to link to my critique of your article even after being told that others (who don't even claim to be Christians AFAIK) do so. I could respond (again) to your objections in your last post, but it's no use. You don't listen. Your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it.

Maybe some reflection upon the Life of Christ on this Christmas Day will make you see what you are doing. Maybe it won't. I don't know. One can certainly hope!

Dave, now that I have displayed your utter, contemptable hypocrisy (which you don't refute here in this note but merely tried the wee-boy, teenie bopper approach of pointing at other people to divert attention from your own faults), I am through using you as YEC chew toy. You may go away now wee ladd. Come back when you grow up

Originally posted by afdave

A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE FOR GLENN MORTON

Hi Glenn--

I've been thinking a lot about Christ at this time of year and something you said recently struck me. You said ... Now let me ask you something ... was Christ wicked? I am sure you don't think so because you claim to be a Christian. Yet have you ever thought about how many "votes" he got for "wicked man of the year"? I think it would have been far greater than 20 to 1, at least in his last year of ministry. Certainly in his last week.

And it occurred to me that you think I'm wicked--not from your own observation--but from the testimony of others, whose character you don't even know. The truth is, many of my detractors are proven liars, just as Jesus' accusers were. I could spend a long time proving this to you, but you don't seem interested. Instead, you've started lying to yourself and to others, about me and about animal burrows--saying that YECs haven't addressed the burrows issue, ignoring data contrary to your beliefs, refusing to link to YEC studies even after being shown that they do exist, refusing to link to my critique of your article even after being told that others (who don't even claim to be Christians AFAIK) do so. I could respond (again) to your objections in your last post, but it's no use. You don't listen. Your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it.

Maybe some reflection upon the Life of Christ on this Christmas Day will make you see what you are doing. Maybe it won't. I don't know. One can certainly hope!

Hello afdave,

Very well stated! My personal experience with grmorton has revealed to me that gr has indeed made up his mind and does not consider even
remotely possible that he could be wrong. As such, he is engaged in a rabid, fanatical, fire-n-brimstone anti-YEC jihad with few equals.

I've been mostly watching from the sidelines here since I consider gr to be beyond the reach of reason. You do have my prayers (as does he,
but in a different way). If it's any consolation, if you're 20-to-1 'wicked' then (as per gr) I'm probably 50-to-1 'wicked'. Oh well ...

EDITED TO ADD : One of my 'favorites' from these people is when they say, "Now you're comparing yourself to Jesus Christ." LORD have mercy!

Jorge

This is a joyous season for people of many different beliefs and worldviews... But I couldn't help not to comment on dave's pathetic display here.

Originally posted by afdave

A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE FOR GLENN MORTON

Hi Glenn--

I've been thinking a lot about Christ at this time of year and something you said recently struck me. You said ... Now let me ask you something ... was Christ wicked? I am sure you don't think so because you claim to be a Christian.

"Claim" to be a christian. Nice, dave. Starting of with something that can only be considered an insult to christians. But then again, you think that only YECs are TRUE christians, right? Be honest now.

Yet have you ever thought about how many "votes" he got for "wicked man of the year"? I think it would have been far greater than 20 to 1, at least in his last year of ministry. Certainly in his last week.

Nice Hubris, dave. Comparing yourself to Jesus. Forgetting that Jesus (in his human nature) was judged by his actions and choices, not his words, and was without sin. SO should every christian aspire to be judged, iirc: From his actions. To be like Christ.
Your actions betray you, and nullify your pompous words, dave.
(And it's funny watching you trying to win in a theological argument over Glenn. Did you read his previous post? Apparenty this person who "claims to be" a christian knows more about Scripture than you will ever learn. Sad, really.)

And it occurred to me that you think I'm wicked--not from your own observation--but from the testimony of others, whose character you don't even know.

And neither did he know yours. But he found out firsthand, reading your dishonest posts (like this one). Like I've told you many, many times before, from back when we first crossed paths at AtBC: A man is judged by his actions.

The truth is, many of my detractors are proven liars, just as Jesus' accusers were. I could spend a long time proving this to you, but you don't seem interested.

And heeere comes the libel. Which of your accusers are "proven liars", dave? I am interested to know, since you pre-assume Glenn is not (conveniently avoiding to actually PROVE it to him). Surely you would not spread LIES on such a day? WHO are the liars?
...
Libel comes naturally to you, don't it?

Instead, you've started lying to yourself and to others, about me and about animal burrows--saying that YECs haven't addressed the burrows issue,

Accusing Glenn of lying? Glenn explained this a dozen times to you. See his previous post? Are you refusing to aknoiwledge his response? Then YOU are lying, dave.

ignoring data contrary to your beliefs,

Glenn addressed ALL the data you presented. ALL of it. See his previous post. If you can find ONE, show it. And I'll point you to a quote by Glenn.
And that is much, MUCH more than YOU can claim to have done. Remember your cowardly avoidance of Hydrodynamic sorting?

refusing to link to YEC studies even after being shown that they do exist,

False. Glenn HAS linked to YEC studies, as he SHOWED you. He has not linked to any YEC studies on this issue, because NONE actually address the real issues with burrowing traces. Just like your posts.

refusing to link to my critique of your article even after being told that others (who don't even claim to be Christians AFAIK) do so.

Biiiiig Deal. Why would Glenn care about what others do? He has formed a well-justified opinion about you. And he did that by debating you.
Dave, face the truth. You are a scientific nobody. You have no credentials in science, no experience or backround in the subjects you try to overthrow, and no original ideas except AiG copy/pasting. In the rare occasion that you DO come up with something yourself, it is utterly laughable- like your claim that scientists did not know about Lysogeny before 1998, or your Portuguese trainwreck... Or your famous glass-shaking experiment.
Is it dishonest of Glenn to refuse to feed your bloated ego? I think not. I think that's actually for your own good.

I could respond (again) to your objections in your last post, but it's no use. You don't listen. Your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it.

Projection, and outright dishonesty. "Again"? WHERE did you reply to Glenn's points in the first place? SHOW US, dave. Link and QUOTE for each of Glenn's points, please. Or kindly shut it. This is not a good day for a christian to speak falsehoods.

Maybe some reflection upon the Life of Christ on this Christmas Day will make you see what you are doing. Maybe it won't. I don't know. One can certainly hope!

There you have it. Libel, Hybris, Arrogance, Hypocrisy, False Witness and Projection- and now a final touch of "I'm rubber, you're glue" to wrap it up. Oh well.

Merry Christmas, dave. I have no hopes that you'll be visited by any ghosts this year.
And maybe it's for the best. Because you have your beliefs and your ego so intertwhined, that there's no telling what would happen if you even had a single shred of doubt for your infallibility.
It's not belief in your God that would collapse: It's the belief in your OWN righteousness and superiority; that your God has some special role for Almighty YOU.
My guess is, you would be absolutely horrified.

So keep it up! After all, whether you realize it or not (and no, you don't, thankfully), your behavior and tactics all over the net are the best weapon we could hope for, in our fight to display YEC's bankcrupt claims and dishonest tricks for all to see.

Merry Christmas!

Originally posted by Jorge

Hello afdave,

Very well stated! My personal experience with grmorton has revealed to me that gr has indeed made up his mind and does not consider even
remotely possible that he could be wrong. As such, he is engaged in a rabid, fanatical, fire-n-brimstone anti-YEC jihad with few equals.

Heh, heh! Another good one, Jorge! I've never seen an irony meter go thermonuclear before!