Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[oxmixmudd]

Huh?

Are you well? Did you remember to take your meds?

I say these things because your post above sounds like the ramblings of a sick mind.

Here's what I'm going to do (since my curiosity has been stirred): I am going to email Sarfati today on this matter to see what he says. I will ask for his permission to share with you clowns his response to me. That's what I'm going to do.

On YOUR end (all of you), you will form a line and one by one apologize if I'm proven right.

Of course, if I was wrong then I will apologize to all of you. We will soon see who man's up and who turns tail like a sissy.

EDITED TO ADD : I have just sent the email request to Dr. Sarfati (7:48 AM ET USA, June 4, 2014).

Jorge

That is good news. I will be very interested in the reply. Hopefully he will give permission for its technical elements to be made public.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

... shameless demand for an apology if proven right ...

ETA

1 please define 'proven right' The conversation has taken many turns.

2 apologies in the event you are proven right will gladly be given within moments of my awareness of your open apology to Sylas.

[Jorge]

This is the kind of stuff one has to see to believe .......

First, regarding my email to Dr. Sarfati, O-Mudd posts the following: "That is good news. I will be very interested in the reply. Hopefully he will give permission for its technical elements to be made public."

Then, four (4) minutes later, he follows up with this post:

ETA

1 please define 'proven right' The conversation has taken many turns.

2 apologies in the event you are proven right will gladly be given within moments of my awareness of your open apology to Sylas.

Item # 1 obviously relates to O-Mudd's inability to read plain, literal words (Jim does it with the Bible, so why not here?).

Within the context of this thread, it is abundantly clear what "proven right" would mean - only a mental midget would need clarification. Okay, so I guess O-Mudd qualifies ... When Dr. Sarfati responds to my email, he will either confirm or deny the allegation of his misconduct/cheating/lies regarding the posted 'supernova remnants' quotes (by Davies). He will clarify what happened and what he did (or didn't do). Based on that input, what I wrote (it's in this thread for all to see) will either be "proven right" or wrong. Does that clarify it enough for you, Jim?

By the way, do note that I am going 100% on faith here. I mean, I don't know what took place - I will become as informed as the rest of you. My expectation is that Dr. Sarfati did NOT cheat/lie - we'll soon find out. I had stated that I know of no Creationist that willingly/knowingly uses quotes to lie. Mistakes and errors? Yes. Deliberate misquotes and not making corrections? No. THAT is what ol' Jimbo now seems unable to recollect.

Item # 2 nearly knocked me off my chair. It is clearly dishonest / cheating ... it is redefining the rules in midstream ... it is making his apology conditional on something that has nothing to do with what's going on (Jim might as well have said, "I will apologize when you have apologized to the Japanese for having dropped the A-bomb on two of their cities.") ... finally, and not least, it is requiring me to apologize for something that I have not conceded because my recollection differs from what has been posted here.

Succinctly: I 'vaguely' remember (this was like 8-10 years ago, give or take) the posts exchanged between myself and Sylas in which his religious status was a point of the discussion. Unfortunately those posts are gone, but my memories persist.

I've also stated that I could be mistaken. In other words, I would not bet my life that my recollection is '100% error-free'.

With all of that in mind, and without hard evidence to confirm one or the other, the only honest thing for me to do is to let this controversy "sit" - anything more than that I cannot do. I most certainly am not going to take as 'gospel truth' the words of you people - I mean, get real, will ya.

Ergo, Jim asking me to "apologize" on that matter is like, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

This is the kind of stuff one has to see to believe .......

First, regarding my email to Dr. Sarfati, O-Mudd posts the following: "That is good news. I will be very interested in the reply. Hopefully he will give permission for its technical elements to be made public."

Then, four (4) minutes later, he follows up with this post:



Item # 1 obviously relates to O-Mudd's inability to read plain, literal words (Jim does it with the Bible, so why not here?).

Within the context of this thread, it is abundantly clear what "proven right" would mean - only a mental midget would need clarification. Okay, so I guess O-Mudd qualifies ... When Dr. Sarfati responds to my email, he will either confirm or deny the allegation of his misconduct/cheating/lies regarding the posted 'supernova remnants' quotes (by Davies). He will clarify what happened and what he did (or didn't do). Based on that input, what I wrote (it's in this thread for all to see) will either be "proven right" or wrong. Does that clarify it enough for you, Jim?

By the way, do note that I am going 100% on faith here. I mean, I don't know what took place - I will become as informed as the rest of you. My expectation is that Dr. Sarfati did NOT cheat/lie - we'll soon find out. I had stated that I know of no Creationist that willingly/knowingly uses quotes to lie. Mistakes and errors? Yes. Deliberate misquotes and not making corrections? No. THAT is what ol' Jimbo now seems unable to recollect.

Item # 2 nearly knocked me off my chair. It is clearly dishonest / cheating ... it is redefining the rules in midstream ... it is making his apology conditional on something that has nothing to do with what's going on (Jim might as well have said, "I will apologize when you have apologized to the Japanese for having dropped the A-bomb on two of their cities.") ... finally, and not least, it is requiring me to apologize for something that I have not conceded because my recollection differs from what has been posted here.

Succinctly: I 'vaguely' remember (this was like 8-10 years ago, give or take) the posts exchanged between myself and Sylas in which his religious status was a point of the discussion. Unfortunately those posts are gone, but my memories persist.

I've also stated that I could be mistaken. In other words, I would not bet my life that my recollection is '100% error-free'.

With all of that in mind, and without hard evidence to confirm one or the other, the only honest thing for me to do is to let this controversy "sit" - anything more than that I cannot do. I most certainly am not going to take as 'gospel truth' the words of you people - I mean, get real, will ya.

Ergo, Jim asking me to "apologize" on that matter is like, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

Jorge

It's simple Jorge. You made a request in the form of a demand, but no one else agreed to it. I'm simply giving you my terms for agreeing with your request. Normally you would not even need to ask, I would apologize immediately to any clear example I was wrong.

You owe a lot of people aplogies for a lot of things, but at the same time there is a lot of mud that flies around NS301, so it would be hard to say who started what. But Sylas doesn't fling mud. Ever. And more to the point the issue with Sylas was absurd. You called him a liar about his own past based on your own flawed memory of events. Yet you never apologized. Add to that, you routinely accuse Rogue, myself, whoever of everything from dishonesty to cultism. Yet you almost NEVER apologize - regardless of how many times the evidence is presented that you are WRONG in those assessments.

Thus, for you to expect that those whom you routinely abuse in said fashion will simply politely apologize if some element of what you have been saying about this particular issue is true is yet another example of how you have no capacity to empathize or otherwise objectively 'treat others as you would LIKE to be treated'. You should not expect of others that which you are not willing to give. Now to demand you own up to your sins as regards myself is not particularly important to me, except that YOU need to do it for your own internal well being.

But I am greatly offended at how you dealt with the situation with Sylas. You were shown multiple samples from the old TWEB that proved your memory was wrong - yet you still think you have some right to hold out. You STILL entertain that Sylas was lying about his own past. And if you are so low as to be unable to own up to YOUR mistake and humble yourself in that regard, then I will indeed withhold any apologies. You simply do not deserve them until you have made that right.

As to why I need you to define what constitutes you being correct: it is necessary Jorge. It puzzles me you can't see that, but then again, you see things as black and white/false or true only. That kind of on/off assessment may not be possible here. I am sure you have in mind to some extent your belief that Sarfati would not misquote another scientist on purpose. But the evidence would indicate he did just that. How then can you be correct? It depends a lot on Sarfati's answer and how it squares with the facts. I was just looking for what it was that YOU would consider to be 'showing you were right'. See, you might think Sarfati saying "Oh no, of course I didn't do that" is sufficient to 'prove you correct". But that would not 'prove you correct' from where I sit. The evidence this was a purposed misuse of the quote is too strong. One has to actually plan to drop that final phrase "is also solved".

Jim

[Jorge]

EDITED TO ADD: I have just sent the email request to Dr. Sarfati (7:48 AM ET USA, June 4, 2014).

Dr. Sarfati replied. First, two comments from me ...

1. See how easy that was? Why can't / don't you people do the same instead of
constantly attacking a position and the people that advocate that position, most
especially given the obvious fact that you don't understand it in the first place?
ANSWER : because that would not serve your true agenda, that's why.

2. Since Dr. Sarfati is responding to your claims, I presume it's okay for me to post
his response here but do not take any of this material outside without permission.
If you have any doubts or further questions or wish to verify the authenticity of what I'm
posting here then feel free to go to the CMI (US) website and address an email to him.
I've just shown you how easy it is - you have no excuse.
.
.
.
Okay, so the first thing Dr. Sarfati did was to address the Atheists amongst you making these accusations.

He wrote, "... ask them why, under an evolutionary worldview, should they care about dishonesty. Their view entails that it's just bags of chemicals operating in different ways under the same fixed chemical laws.

So no wonder one evolutionist is on record saying that it's OK to deceive young people as long as they end up believing in evolution." http://creation.com/evolutionist-its...ieve-evolution

I will second his words with a caveat: what one (or several) Atheist Evolutionists say does not necessarily reflect what the majority believes / practices. That said, his point remains: since Atheist Evolutionists do not believe in any absolute moral standards, they stand on a vacuum when they demand "honesty". But that would be another topic.

So let me repeat what I've said several times already: I know of not a single Biblical Creationist that would knowingly and deliberately lie / cheat / misquote. Errors have undoubtedly been made but once the errors were pointed out and recognized to be genuine, they were corrected. That recognition is crucial since there are accusations that aren't factual.
.
.
.
He then continues,

"... if it's what I think it was, I addressed that a decade ago as follows:

My short article from 1997 was clearly stated to be based on a paper by Keith Davies, with the expectation that if readers wanted more detail, they should check that.

Conversely, this skeptic charge seems to come from an attack by a non-astronomer called Moore on an atheopathic website. He rails against the way Davies uses some of the unusual phrases found in journals that indicated surprise at the shortfall of galactic SNRs. Moore makes the point that several of these phrases were written in the context of explanations of the problem and that Davies should have made that clear.

He [Moore]Refuting CompromiseassumeIt is, however, necessary to postulate

*****************************************

Final three comments from me:

(1) I noticed that some of the characters did not 'translate' properly from link to link. That's okay because the matter in question here has been resolved regardless.

(2) If anyone here is unsatisfied with this, simply go to the CMI (US) site and post your grievances directed at Dr. Sarfati. He will answer as soon as he's able - in this case the same day. DO NOT ask me to do your work. Also, I kindly ask (and also advise) that you not waste his time.

(3) The 'apologizing queue' starts right here ---> _________________

Jorge

[Wally]

No wonder you like this guy Jorge, he's as honest and ethical as you are.

[klaus54]

Jorge,

I'll let Jim handle this one. It appears Sofarti is weaseling out of his claim by referring to Davies.

Questions: 1) What is a Young-Earth cosmological model? I've never seen one. 2) If the Cosmos WERE less than 10,000 years old, why would there be ANY SNRs at all?

SNRs are NOT a problem for real astronomers. Sofarti is straining at gnats to fit his idiotic metaphysics into reality. Shameful really. You should be ashamed as well.

K54

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3732

P.S. Now that we've determined that you and Sofarti are weaselers, how about discussing the mountains of evidence for deep time?

[Roy]

So Sarfati is fully aware that Clark and Caswell wrote that "the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved", yet continues to propagate the highly misleading truncated version at creation.com. If Sarfati's use of the truncated quote was an error, it has not been corrected.

There are a few other points worth noting:

1) Sarfati excuses Davies' use of the truncated quote by pointing out Davies said the quotes were "in the context of trying to find solutions". This does nothing to justify Sarfati's use of the truncated quote since Sarfati includes no such disclaimer.

2) Davies's disclaimer is insufficient. Clark and Caswell were not "trying to find solutions", they thought they had found one. Sarfati's claim that Davies "introduced those phrases clearly and unambiguously" is untrue.

3) Sarfati dismisses Dave Moore as being a non-astronomer - but neither he nor Davies is an astronomer either.

4) Even if Sarfati is considered exonerated, Davies is still guilty. There's no way that Davies can escape the responsibility for removing "is also solved".

Finally, I've noticed that not one of Sarfati's 'quotes' from, Clark and Caswell is correct. They all differ from the original text in wording and/or punctuation. Either Sarfati is incredibly careless, or he is still not checking the original source.

Roy

[Jorge]

Jorge,

I'll let Jim handle this one. It appears Sofarti is weaseling out of his claim by referring to Davies.

Questions: 1) What is a Young-Earth cosmological model? I've never seen one. 2) If the Cosmos WERE less than 10,000 years old, why would there be ANY SNRs at all?

SNRs are NOT a problem for real astronomers. Sofarti is straining at gnats to fit his idiotic metaphysics into reality. Shameful really. You should be ashamed as well.

K54

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3732

P.S. Now that we've determined that you and Sofarti are weaselers, how about discussing the mountains of evidence for deep time?

What SYLLABLE did you not understand?

"(2) If anyone here is unsatisfied with this, simply go to the CMI (US) site and post your grievances directed at Dr. Sarfati. He will answer as soon as he's able - in this case the same day. DO NOT ask me to do your work. Also, I kindly ask (and also advise) that you not waste his time."

Jorge

[Jorge]

So Sarfati is fully aware that Clark and Caswell wrote that "the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved", yet continues to propagate the highly misleading truncated version at creation.com. If Sarfati's use of the truncated quote was an error, it has not been corrected.

There are a few other points worth noting:

1) Sarfati excuses Davies' use of the truncated quote by pointing out Davies said the quotes were "in the context of trying to find solutions". This does nothing to justify Sarfati's use of the truncated quote since Sarfati includes no such disclaimer.

2) Davies's disclaimer is insufficient. Clark and Caswell were not "trying to find solutions", they thought they had found one. Sarfati's claim that Davies "introduced those phrases clearly and unambiguously" is untrue.

3) Even if Sarfati is considered exonerated, Davies is still guilty. There's no way that Davies can escape the responsibility for removing "is also solved".

Finally, I've noticed that not one of Sarfati's 'quotes' from, Clark and Caswell is correct. They all differ from the original text in wording and/or punctuation. Either Sarfati is incredibly careless, or he is still not checking the original source.

Roy

Check out my last post to Santa Klaus54 - apply to yourself.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Dr. Sarfati replied. First, two comments from me ...

1. See how easy that was? Why can't / don't you people do the same instead of
constantly attacking a position and the people that advocate that position, most
especially given the obvious fact that you don't understand it in the first place?
ANSWER : because that would not serve your true agenda, that's why.

Or possibly because he recognizes you as a fellow traveler and is willing to answer?

Right after the discovery of Tiktaalik was announced AnswersinGenesis (AiG) ran an article that among other things described its pelvis and/or hind limbs. I and several other folks found that extremely interesting in that this portion of Tiktaalik had not been discovered (this was rectified several years later) so rjw, TheGreenMan and I all separately wrote AiG asking where they got their information from.

Never got a response. At least the other two got replies saying that they would shortly get an answer though that never came either.

[Roy]

Incidentally, Sarfati's response to Jorge is just a cut-n-paste rehash of something he not only wrote a long time ago, but which was answered a long time ago.

Does anyone else remember that the 'supernova' illustration that Davies attached to his original article was actually a picture of the horsehead nebula? And that Sarfati apparently didn't notice?

Roy

[Jorge]

Or possibly because he recognizes you as a fellow traveler and is willing to answer?

Right after the discovery of Tiktaalik was announced AnswersinGenesis (AiG) ran an article that among other things described its pelvis and/or hind limbs. I and several other folks found that extremely interesting in that this portion of Tiktaalik had not been discovered (this was rectified several years later) so rjw, TheGreenMan and I all separately wrote AiG asking where they got their information from.

Never got a response. At least the other two got replies saying that they would shortly get an answer though that never came either.

Sniff ... sniff ... sniff ......... I'm getting a whiff of scent that no one is going
to be lining up at the 'apology queue'. Oh well, precisely as expected.

Jorge

[Jorge]

No wonder you like this guy, Jorge, he's as honest and ethical as you are.

Fixed your punctuation.

Aside from that, you finally got one thing right.
Yes, I do very much like people that are honest and ethical - just as I am.
Just as I am quick and not shy to criticize those that aren't.

P.S. I know you were being sarcastic but I'm being serious.

Jorge

[klaus54]

What SYLLABLE did you not understand?

"(2) If anyone here is unsatisfied with this, simply go to the CMI (US) site and post your grievances directed at Dr. Sarfati. He will answer as soon as he's able - in this case the same day. DO NOT ask me to do your work. Also, I kindly ask (and also advise) that you not waste his time."

Jorge

Did you kindly ask Sofarti to take down the Creation.com article?

Did you tell him he's a weasel for passing the buck to Davies?

Did you apologize to Sylas yet?

Did you give your unambiguous, simple, plain, direct, literal reading of Ge 1-2:3?

Did you tell us what a "Young Earth Creation Model" is?

K54