From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Oh Bales.....
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:24:10 GMT

>From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
>Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
>Date: 29 Sep 92 18:25:34 GMT
>
>In article <7082@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>}I ask that if Jim is going to continue to call me a liar, that he post the
>}BIGGEST example of what he considers to be a lie, an example big enough that
>}when I disprove it (as I'm confident I can), he will stop calling me a liar.
>}This is a direct challenge: either prove I am a liar or stop accusing me.
>
>OK.  You are a liar.  Examples have been provided.  Your inability to tell
>the difference between a falsehood and truth is itself telling.
>
>Why don't you back up a dozen or so of your assertions that, when challenged,
>you dropped?  Say:
>
>>From: sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen)
>Date: 15 Jul 89 15:49:15 GMT
>
>In article <3215@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM> bobb@tekfdi.FDI.TEK.COM (Robert Bales) writes:
>>In article <14391@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) writes:
>>>  Creationism is valid as a BELIEF... *NOT* as a science. A science MUST
>>> have the ability to question and doubt itself, and Creationism falls sadly
>>> short in that area.
>>Untrue. Creationism (and creationists) are subject to question and doubt.
>>Creationists stand by the theory not because they have not questioned it, but
>>because they *have.*
>...
>>Is it "question and doubt" only if the outcome is rejection?  Some things that
>>I hold to undoubtedly are not true.
>	I would certainly like to see evidence that you have seriously
>considered alternatives to a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis.  I
>have never seen any, from you or from any other Creationist.
>
>>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>>
>>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):
>
>scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
>knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
>collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
>and testing of hypothesis.
>
>So, does creationism use the scientific method?  
>        If no, never mind because I don't think so.
>	(Bales says "yes")
>
>        If yes:
>                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
>                What observations support creationism?
>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
>                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
>                be tested?
>
>
>>Alternatives are refused for lack of evidence that they are correct.
>>
>	OK, show me these observations and deductions.  I have yet to see
>any that actually mean anything, and I have been watching this news group
>for nearly four years.  The *closest* I ever saw to a valid observation
>suggesting a young universe was the Polonium halo stuff.  I was sufficiently
>intrigued by it that I did a literature search on it in the technical journals.
>As a result I found out it was really almost as weak as the other so-called
>evidence for Creationism.  But at least I was willing to *consider* the
>possibility that I was wrong.  In fact I change my opinions all the time.
>
>>> You'll also note that the same theory has been revised countless times to
>>>accomodate new data. Creationism is incapable of doing the same.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>	OK, show me.  In what *substantive* way has the theory of creationism
>been modified in the last ten years?  And I do *not* accept waffling and
>shifting the basis of arguments as evidence of modification in a theory.
>What statements in the basic manifesto are now considered to be incomplete
>or incorrect by the leading practicing creationists?  If you really want
>I will give you a list of statements in "The Origin of the Species" that
>are now considered wrong.  Can you do the equivalent:  say, using the
>original statement of position from the Institute for Creation Research?
>I doubt it, I suspect that that document has never been revised or updated
>other than to make it sound more scientific.


Have I missed Bales, or has the liar performed as expected?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.