From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:20:36 GMT


Reality check III:

In previous postings, Jim Meritt has implied that he would view agreement with
as providing evidence for my side.  But his subject here implies that anyone
who agrees with me is wrongly convinced.  Which is it?

Jim Meritt writes:

>The first on the list is a question that has been asked in talk.origins
>MANY times other than just as part of this list.  I have never seen
>an answer.  Has anyone?

The first on the list is the contention that creation is scientific.  This
is what Jim recently made his "one case" about.  I responded to this with
two articles, the second of which contained answers to the questions from
previous postings.  I know that Jim saw them because he responded to them.

For instance, the first question is:

               What observations support creationism?

I said that observations of the fossil record support creationism.  This is an
answer.  Similarly, I gave specific answers to the other questions.

When Jim uses "answer," he apparently means "an answer that Jim agrees with."
This, of course, is a bogus definition.  In terms of whether I have answered
the above question, "answer" means "observations which Bob thinks support
creationism."  It is a matter of open record in this group that I have given
such observations in a posting -- one to which Jim responded.  Thus, his
statement thathe has seen no answers to the questions, while it may be true
according to his strange definition of "answer." is objectively false.

>I'll  be glad to delete things from the list that someone OTHER than Bales
>claims (with justification/specifics) that he has accidently answered
>something listed.

Whether or not I'm answered the questions depends not on what anyone else
claims, but on what I've posted.  I have said main times that I have not
answered all questions (due to lack of time and the quick-changing nature
of discussions).  But I have answered some on his list.  *Therefore, the
inclusion of such questions is factually inaccurate.*  A good example is the
following.

>He hasn't covered a LOT of recent items (like "how do 5 isochrons give the
>same date", "how does argon get INTO an object in vacuum", "what is the
>evidence for an old universe that you keep mentioning" and more.

On about Septeber 24, I posted a refutation of a number of items in Jim's
list, including *specifically* the above.  If Jim responded, I didn't see
the response.  He may not have seen my ~Sept. 24 article.  If he didn't, I
will be glad to repost it.  In any case, the assertion above is flat wrong.

>(Like "How do things diffuse INTO a rock FROM a vacuum?")

And repeating this is silly, especially if Jim did see my article mentioned
above.  I explained there that I did not say this, stated what I did say,
and provided evidence -- including a statement from someone else on the net,
as Jim seems to value -- that what I said was correct. (Even if Jim did not
see this particular article, I have shown this before in articles I know --
based on his response -- he has seen.)

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.