Comments on: Mudstone: Geologists Should Have Read Morris and Whitcomb First

By: porzitski

porzitski — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:07:00 +0000

Quoted …
“VoxRat found over two dozen posts worth of errors, conjecture and plain stupidity which reflects poorly on W&M as a creditable source. ”
Here we go again – stupidity, ridiculous, better things to do, no evidence (when there is actually much that looks like evidence to the non-dogmatic) (un-dogmatic?), ignorant catastrophism, and so forth and so on.
Then the subject changes to “you should apologize …”
THIS is science?!?

By: lordkalvan

lordkalvan — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:13:24 +0000

I must say I tend to agree with black5. Your statement regarding the removal of your comments is clearly qualified with the opinion that you think those comments were really entirely justified. If this is the case, you should be prepared to defend them and saying that you ‘prefer not to argue with him’ only suggests that you find his response to your accusations tiresome. If you no longer believe your comments justified, you should do as black5 suggests and delete similar comments elsewhere and apologize.

By: black5

black5 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:29:12 +0000

If I say something about someone and take it back because I refuse to defend it then I apologize as well. Maybe you should do the same it’s only polite.

Additionally, while you have deleted the comment here you have not done so on TalkRat where you have made similar comments in more then a few places. If you were honest you would delete or defend all of these comments.

By: dhawkinsmo

dhawkinsmo — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:20:16 +0000

OK. I’m deleting my comment about Voxrat above. He thinks I’m libeling him and I prefer not to argue with him.

By: ninewands

ninewands — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:51:00 +0000

Hi Dave,

You wrote:
“Voxrat’s critique is not worth reading. Voxrat has proven himself to be a very dishonest, low content poster who spins pretty much everything to try to make Creationism look bad while paying very little attention to what the Creationist authors are actually saying.”

We’ve known each other for a couple of years now, and I don’t think I agree with your take on VoxRat. It appears to me that the one who is doing everything he can to make creationism look bad is you.

Let that soak in for a while, Dave.

By: black5

black5 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:27:48 +0000

It’s dishonest to dismiss anyone as ‘not worth reading’ without refuting what they have said. I don’t believe you have refuted any of what he has said or even responded to the vast majority of it. Provide links to prove otherwise.

Along the same lines, even though you have stated that he ‘has proven himself to be a very dishonest’ I don’t think you can provide an example of this as proven anywhere.

In fact, isn’t your entire last reply an assertion without proof? Isn’t this something you have done repeatedly in your online discussions at TalkRat and previous forums? Isn’t this dishonest?

I applaud the fact that you approved my last comment. You’ve said that your blog won’t be censored and you kept your word. I’m hoping you continue to do so but just in case I am posting a copy of this comment at http://talkrational.org/member.php?u=217

By: black5

black5 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:40:37 +0000

Dave, since you use Whitcomb & Morris’s “The Genesis Flood” as a reference I’m surprised you haven’t refuted VoxRat’s review of it (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=2146) at TalkRational. VoxRat found over two dozen posts worth of errors, conjecture and plain stupidity which reflects poorly on W&M as a creditable source. None of which you have bothered to defend. Additionally, you haven’t updated the post above to reflect these errors even though we both know you are aware of VoxRat’s thread. You claim to be after the truth but don’t seem to act in a honest manner.

Additionally you claim that this blog is free of censorship. Time and your actions will determine if this is true or not. Prove me wrong but just in case my suspicion is correct I am posting a copy of this message at http://talkrational.org/member.php?u=217

By: lordkalvan

lordkalvan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:37:19 +0000

Again you make the mistake of assuming that there is an either/or choice between catastrophism and uniformitarianism (or gradualism, or whatever you wish to call it). This is a false dichotomy, at least as far as contemporary understanding of the processes that shaped the face of the Earth is concerned. The catastrophism that you reference here is the same catastrophism that was posited as the only logical explanation for the way in which the Earth could have been shaped in the few thousand years available in the mythical timescale provided by the efforts of eccentrics to calculate the age of the Universe from a collection of ancient legends.

This ignorant catastrophism was supplanted by the rational conclusions of serious geologists like James Hutton and Charles Lyell who, through fieldwork and careful observation came to the inevitable conclusion, based on the evidence before them, that geological processes consumed millions of years. The modern concept of catastrophism incorporates into that gradualism the understanding that long-term processes are punctuated by short-term events of some violence, such as impacts from large extraterrestrial bodies (e.g. Chicxulub) and massive outflowings of basaltic lava (e.g. the Deccan Traps). Again, this understanding is based on observation and evidence and not on the requirement to conform to a theological interpretation of natural processes.

By: jukia

jukia — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:44:13 +0000

Nope, got better things to do than read Morris. There is no evidence for a young earth or a global flood, don’t need to read about something that did not really happen unless the writer means it to be fiction and I take it Morris and Whitcomb do not.

By: dhawkinsmo

dhawkinsmo — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:56 +0000

The paper of course does not say that. But it says that mud beds don’t require still water to form. They can (and probably were) deposited by moving water … just as Morris and Whitcomb asserted 46 years ago. Don’t worry, Jukia, I’m not saying the Global Flood is proven because of this paper. Just saying that people should read Morris and Whitcomb. Have you?