Matthew Hunt Demands Answers he Doesn't Like to Give

OP

Matthew Hunt

28 mars, 22:02

Creationists, what do you understand the theory of evolution to be and what would you consider positive evidence for it?

Skipping

some and going to my answer:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"what do you understand the theory of evolution to be"

Twofold : descent with variation, and common descent of all species of for instance Eucaryotes from a proto-Eucaryote and that one from Procaryotes.

"and what would you consider positive evidence for it?"

For descent with variation, you can check that mice have different chromosome numbers on Madeira from on mainland, you can check that lynx and cats produce fertile offspring, as do wolves and dogs.

For common descent of all species ...

• 1) I'd require absence of barriers from infinite variability, and instead I find a barrier in chromosome numbers;
• 2) I'd require all species being rational (alternatively, ourselves not being so, but that is already disproven) OR a mechanism by which irrationality could produce rationality, instead I find that rationality is clearly different from irrationality, there is no trace of a clearly transitional stage, the closest candidates for mimicking raionality coming from irrationaility being computers and these being clearly irrational, as can be verified when you check them on linguistics;
• 3) I'd require a clear trace of sufficient time, which there is to date none, each purported dating method involving Deep Time and purporting to dwarf Biblical chronology being controvertible.

A bonus would be an absence of historic creationist accounts, at least such as have sufficient coherence to be believed, which there is not.

Jonathan Blue

Why Is the Known written history, not bones dug up out of the ground that can't speak, history of human existence only dated no further back than the biblical flood. why has the attempt to exterminate the Jewish people so many times in history failed over and over. why is there a nation of Israel speaking again a language that was dead for nearly 2500 years. just like the scriptures tell us will happen in the last days. could it be that there is a God that watches over his people. I'm not Jewish by the way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jonathan Blue, that would have been a point to take with Matthew Hunt, who asked what you would take as evidence for evolution.

Yes, indeed, if man had been "evolved" 65 million + years ago and had left record of meteor, démise of dinos, and 65 million years after that, that would of course also very well have proven evolution theory.

For my part, if you read all of my answer, I am a Young Earth Creationist and I was just giving an answer to the question he posed.

[And he answered nothing back on it. So far.]

Skipping

some more and going to another thread:

OP

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30 mars, 18:20

Matthew Hunt, fluid dynamics, I saw you mention.

My hypothesis on carbon rise is mathematically perhaps a bit related.

Would you mind looking at the mathematical part of a creationist theory?

If yes, I'll give the links that are relevant.

I

Matthew Hunt

No. I'd rather not waste my time on complete nonsense.

Tim Eakins

Hmm... I think we ought be as dismissive of a rube as you are.

But... Of course, we’re not. We know the literal “end” of theophobes. It isn’t pretty. We wouldn’t want it for you.

Yet, if you’re hell bent on glorifying God that way...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nice cop out.

From the mathematical standpoint, it might be interesting.

Matthew Hunt

No it wouldn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So you know that in advance?

Like you knew in advance I was wrong on Michelson Morley and it turned out I was right?

Matthew Hunt

You were wrong. If your conclusion was that the Earth was stationary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know very well I was right about it being about measuring the aether lag as "earth passes through stationary aether".

In other words, you know that Michelson concluded "either Earth stands still or there is no aether".

Matthew Hunt

There is more than one strand of data which points to a non-stationary Earth. Gravity for example.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is quite another point.

Do you admit you bungled that first one, or shall I take your "there is more than one strand of data" fudge as an indirect admission?

Matthew Hunt

No. That would be incorrect on your part.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, where exactly do you consider you didn't bungle it?

"No, it wasn't due to the annual movement of the Earth, it was to do with light passing through the aether. There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether." Your words.

What slowing down "through the aether"?

Any wiki will say it was the aether wind where a slowing down in one direction and a speeding up in opposite would have been appropriate for earth passing through a stationary aether.

Or would have, in case you get your pals sabotaging wikis after your debacle.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, what don't you understand about the Michaelson-morley experiment? You seem to be fixated on something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You love that word.

Are your security settings on max to be able to hide you are apart from PhD in Mathematical Physics also involved in some way in psychiatry?

As said, I love a good debate.

As a debater you are a disappointment, you are too evasive about anything I go strong on.

Matthew Hunt

As I said. There is no debate on geocentrism, it simply isn't true. The same thing goes for flat Earth which is equally wrong. They key here, is to go back to basics to see where you are confused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt you are very free to come up with any basic you THINK I am confused on.

You are politely requested not to equate geocentrism with flat earth, since there is no Magellan for Heliocentrism.

Matthew Hunt

Obviously they're not the same but they are both equally ludicrous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt ah ... you don't go by argument, but by your subjective sense of comedy ... nice to know ...

Matthew Hunt

The arguments for a moving spinning Earth are simple. Gravity and Foucault's pendulum. That's all you need to know really.

Hans-Georg.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Foucault's pendulum already answered with aether moving around Earth. Hence "fixation" on Michelson, you don't like to give up your arguments, do you?

Gravity is not an argument, it is a topos.

What is your argument about this topos?

[Notice next, he doesn't give one on gravity - unless I get him wrong, see below:]

Matthew Hunt

Aether doesn't the foucault's pendulum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It very much does, provided aether is also the medium for space and provided aether is turning with the universe around earth, as already explained, but you refused to argue it out.

Matthew Hunt

Incorrect.

Try some critical thinking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Try some ARGUING instead of BADGERING

Matthew Hunt

Here is a place to start. Write down a differential equation describing your model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Proposition :

aether is both medium of space and of light waves.

Corrolary :

if aether turns around earth, it explains Coriolis, Foucault etc.

Your answer :

"incorrect"

Your argument :

none.

Differential equations are above my math skills.

Also those that work for vectors in "spinning earth model" work equally for vectors in an aether spinning around Earth.

Matthew Hunt

Write down a mathematical model for your idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I gave a geometric one in a series of links where you refused to look. Application geostationary satellites.

Here is first link in series again, you come back when you have read it all and found the maths:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html

Matthew Hunt

I will indulge you once against my better judgement.

I see absolutely no maths.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt I am not sure whether you admitted to not being able to recognise geometry or to not having read through the links ...

Matthew Hunt

You expect me to trawl through your website to look for the alleged evidence of your model?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, in the link I gave you, the top section of the post gives the links to all six parts of the series.

THAT you can go through. BOTH arguments first AND then the geometry.

Have you even read the opening square?

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

Statement from Tom Trinko:

I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about. As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

Wednesday 21:00 (supposing my profile is set on Paris time) - Saturday 10:30 sth (on Paris time) is the time for these first rounds.

The numbered items are in original blue. Blue means they are links. I put those links in that message, because EACH one of them is part of that series.

On Tom Trinko's Apology:

he argued lots better than Matthew Hunt, supposed to be a specialist.

Matthew Hunt

I will indulge you one more time. Post the link to your mathematical model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It is in the top section of the first post in series.

Plus "I will indulge you" is somewhat overbearing as a tone to take ...

Matthew Hunt

Give me the URL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I gave you the url to a post where you can click the url to the messages (you only have 6 in total) which you think likeliest.

What is wrong with your capacity of checking context?

What is wrong with a normally expected capacity of looking up a reference as in an indexed site?

Matthew Hunt

If you don't want to provide the URL, I will consider that you're not interested in conversation or learning why you're wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you don't look it up where I provided an URL to, I'll have to consider YOU are not interested in learning why or even verifying if possibly you are wrong.

Matthew Hunt

That was your last chance and you blew it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you mean you withdraw ...?

And now, why did you not ask me about the mathematical models on C14, if you were so eager to "indulge me"?

Matthew Hunt

:laugh:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Enjoy, you seem to need it.

Tim Eakins

Mr. Hunt goes down in :fire: :fire::fire::fire:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you ask me about those, I will provide them - since I did not yet do so.

But you asked about one where the exact url is part of a series, where you could preferrably show appreciation of argument first and math then.

You could also have showed at least basic skills of internet use by singling out which one or two links within the link were of mathematical interest.

Matthew Hunt

Tim is the group jester. Everyone laughs at him.

Hans-Georg, look, I know you want to appear edgy with your weird beliefs but you're just the same as the flat Earthers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt - Flat Earth was refuted by Magellan.

Where is the Magellan for Heliocentrism?

First, what you offer is more of an "Eratosthenes", second your "Eratosthenes" for Heliocentrism is challenged and you refuse to look up the details in the challenge and THIRD you deflect from the debate by trying to psychoanalyse the motives behind my belief.

This is total sheer nonsense, you have to prove THAT I am wrong before you try to explain WHY I am wrong.

And you are not a mind reader, a proposition like "I know that you" X or whatever is not very convincing, outside the charmed circle of shrinks who are similar charlatans to yourself.

Matthew Hunt

I love it. A geocentrist calling a credentialed scientist a charlatan!!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, there are more credentialed scientists than you I call charlatans.

Is geocentrist a degree?

Like sophomore?

Matthew Hunt

Thus speaks a conspiracy theorist...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have not provided any specifics on what kind of conspiracy I theorise about.

Tim Eakins

Matthew Hunt “credentialed scientist” is just an arbitrary assignment based in circularity. It means nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm afraid Tim Eakins has a point.

Matthew Hunt

The specific conspiracy is that (I think) all academic physicists and astronomers are somehow hiding the "truth" about the falsehood of heliocentrism.

Matthew Hunt

I'm afraid it's demonstrable truth. I've always fount that Tim Eakins doesn't seem connected with reality at all.

Matthew Hunt - Google Scholar Citations
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=f7RQx6MAAAAJ&hl=en

[After looking, he has been cited 11 times in papers by others - or his co-written papers have.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The specific conspiracy is that (I think) all academic physicists and astronomers are somehow hiding the "truth" about the falsehood of heliocentrism."

No, I do not believe that conspiracy at all and I do not theorise about that conspiracy.

It is a straw man.

I do believe a more limited conspiracy, namely bringing up that strawman instead of dealing fairly and squarely with geocentrists.

It is a more recent one, since 80's or 90's according to David Berlinski : in other words a conspiracy to avoid debate.

However, I do not attribute this to knowingly being wrong, I attribute it to knowing you aren't winning debates.

Which some times should tell you you are wrong, but sometimes doesn't.

Tim Eakins

Matthew Hunt who, exactly, confers the title “scientist?”

And how is it it a circular “degree?”

I mean, even the word “degree” belies the circularity. There is no necessary objectivity in conferred degrees.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, if you truly believe geocentrism is correct then it follows that you think professional physicists and astronomers are wrong and are somehow hiding it. That is a conspiracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Considering they hide it from themselves too effectively to feel a need to hide it from others, except by - exchanging debates on arguments for "you are a conspiracy theorist" + its variations.

No, it is in the major a culture and only very minor matters a conspiracy - on their part.

Matthew Hunt

The argument for geocentrism are fraught with complications. The whole Foucault's pendulum thing for a start requires a complete new law of gravity to begin with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aren't you confusing gravity with Coriolis?

Matthew Hunt

No. The Coriolis force is due to shifting to a rotating reference frame. This brings in the component of acceleration needed to change the plane of oscillation for the pendulum.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well - the plane of oscillation stays the same in reference to the rotating aether.

It only changes locally because the aether changes by rotating.

Matthew Hunt

Assertion after assertion. Prove it.

You need a law of gravity which includes the effects of the aether.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I need an aether which is the true inertial frame for motion as well as for light.

Hence my interested in also luminiferous aether.

Matthew Hunt

You're talking nonsense. You NEED a model of gravity which includes the effects of the aether.

What's a "the true inertial frame" when it's at home? More assumptions without evidence on your part.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First of all, I don't have a fixed model of gravity in the first place.

Second, whether we take Einstein's or Newton's it can be adapted to rotating aether.

Third, Einstein's basically involved a "lociferous" aether.

Fourth, a true inertial frame is a frame in relation to which the true vectors are there.

Matthew Hunt

Regarding you model of gravity, you're wrong. Taking Einsten's relativity does away with the aether to begin with, and so you've immediately shot yourself in the foot.

More assumptions on top of other assumptions. You really wonder why I consider you a cretin?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Regarding you model of gravity, you're wrong."

Bald assertion.

"Taking Einsten's relativity"

I'm not.

"does away with the aether to begin with,"

At least an unmoving or inert aether.

"and so you've immediately shot yourself in the foot."

Not really, since I was taking his view of how space (=aether) and gravity interact.

"You really wonder why I consider you a cretin?"

Not at all if you are a shrink and used to talking to patients that way.

I did not ask you why (as I recall a few days ago), I mentioned (as I recall) calling me cretin and proving me wrong are two different things.

Matthew Hunt

I don't think even you understand what you're talking about. Your assertion about the aether and Einstein is wrong. If it were true you would get a positive result with the MM experiment but you don't. The MM experiment demonstrates that the speed of light has the same numerical value in ANY inertial reference frame.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If it were true you would get a positive result with the MM experiment but you don't."

There is a positive outcome for rotation.

It is only for orbit that there is no positive outcome at all.

You are forgetting this point, which makes an ouverture for another interpretation : Earth not moving.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, you're now lying about a positive outcome for the MM experiment. The result is that there is no time differential for the laser going around the loop. This showing that the speed of light is the same numerical value for all inertial frames.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation, and thus tests the theories of special relativity and luminiferous ether along the rotating frame of Earth."

Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment on wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment

The positive outcome is the one for rotation.

If you had recalled the translation from German wiki, they were arguing (the wikipedians or likely one of them) that rotation can be detected positively.

Matthew Hunt

Once again, the time taken was the same around both paths...

I think that you're blustering because you don't fully understand what you're talking about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Who said it, did it. Bluster.

The orbital speed would have made for a much greater difference than the rotational, and the result was negative for orbital.

Matthew Hunt

Once more in English?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The fastness at which earth would have been moving around the sun would have been faster than the fastness at which earth would have been moving around itself.

The fastness at which earth would have been moving around the sun gave no difference in the fastness by which a light beam would have been going faster than another.

II

Matthew Hunt

I don't want to encourage people thinking creationism is real.

Cathy Treat

Richard Dawkins uses that excuse to get out of debating some creationists.

Imad Basha

Creationism is real. Look around you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, I would be a hopeless case anyway, I'm even Geocentric ... or do you mean a mathematical look on my work would encourage our (my blogs) readers to think I'm right?

Matthew Hunt

I can help you to think about physics critically if you like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am here for discussion, not for remedials.

You want to speak to me, you do so as a debater, and no more "I set the scene, you are too dumb".

Matthew Hunt

You need remedial education in science though.

Cathy Treat

Another dodge?

Matthew Hunt

Unfortunately it isn't. Much of what creationists believe is based upon incorrect ideas of actual science. So I think it's more useful to get to grips with what they understand before actually debating.

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Right! You haven't had plenty of time to get a grasp of creationist's beliefs. Dodge!

Matthew Hunt

I understand the arguments which creationists use and I understand why they're wrong. That's the difference.

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Then you can take Hans up on his offer to debate. Show us all why we're wrong.

Matthew Hunt

As I have been explaining. There simply is no debate on the matter. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things which are up for debate in science but some things are settled. Heliocentrism is one of them. What is required of me is to educate Hans-Georg on why it's true.

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Dodge

Matthew Hunt

Not at all. After tomorrow I will put up an OP explaining why geocentrism is false.

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Why not debate? If you really have the knowledge to show Hans is wrong, you could debate him any time. Anyone can copy and paste or read up on the subject to produce an OP.

Matthew Hunt

As I keep explaining, there simply is no debate.

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Of course there is. Two opposing views can be debated. It's done all the time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt WHEN you explain why geocentrism is false, you are in a debate.

Matthew Hunt "Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things which are up for debate in science but some things are settled."

I am not in that sense "in science", so, you are in for a debate with an outsider.

"What is required of me is to educate Hans-Georg on why it's true."

Argue is fine - and that means to debate. Because, I am not abandoning my arguments, you see ...

Matthew Hunt

I will explain why it's wrong, and you can question the explanation but this is most certainly NOT a debate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will not limit myself to "questioning" and you are not Daniel Quinones, so you cannot moderate the debate out - except by blocking me.

III

David Wolcott*

Yes, because, clearly, actually investigating alternative theories is so anti-scientific....

Taylor Ringelstein

It’s not an individuals responsibility to investigate every single theory ever put forth.

David Wolcott

That's fair. But Matthew's excuse wasn't that he doesn't have time to investigate everything, but instead that he declares results before investigation.

Michelle Rose

Yet he has plenty of time to run God on the Slide for hours on end and argue with Christians on multiple pages and groups.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Taylor Ringelstein Nor is it a community's responsibility to tell each individual scientist in it what theories should be investigated.

Seriously, there are individual's who do think it their duty to investigate theories noted for having been put forth, and they are called philosophers.

I'm kind of one of them.

IV

Cathy Treat

I'm repeating myself. Matthew Hunt has a PHD? "That's so hard to believe that I don't." :)

Tim Eakins

A PhD only means someone put in time and effort. It doesn’t mean they are smarter, better or right.

Cathy Treat

Tim Eakins So true! Let me add: It doesn't make them intimidating either, which seems to be the reason to claim you have a PhD.

Taylor Ringelstein

Tim Eakins a PhD does mean someone put time and effort in. Something neither yourself, Cathy or mike have done. It deserves a little respect

Mike'n Tabea Warrak** no one made me the referee? But as you just jumped in on this thread so did I. So back off on that point, we are in an open forum so my putting my two cents in is just as valid as yours without you calling me a referee. You may have put time and efffort into other things. But a PhD is a recognised form of that. Unless you have a recognised form of your hard work and time, then I can dismiss your claim of having put time and effort into something. I’m not telling you to be respectful of what Matt is saying. I’m telling you to be respectful of his PhD which is earned through time and effort. As for you mike, if we want to listen to a clueless imbecile comment on someone else’s hard work, well I suppose that’s what Facebook is made for hahah

Tim Eakins

Taylor Ringelstein you have no clue.

Taylor Ringelstein

Mike'n Tabea Warrak check what I said. You don’t have to respect what he does. But the PhD deserves respect. You don’t have to give it. It still deserves it. Tim you can shut up you are the one with no clue.

David Wolcott

Taylor Ringelstein, it should also be noted that, in the last almost ten years of debating, I have never seen Hunt debate in the subject of his PhD (or any of his degrees) nor have I heard rumors of the same.

So as far as every subject Hunt chooses to engage in, he has the same or less education than anyone else.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott you are an admin. You should be able to read and understand what I said. Where did I say you should listen to what Hunt has to say? Where did I say his degree allows him to speak on any topic? All I have said is a PhD is a recognised form of time and effort and it deserves respect. I didn’t say it lets the recipient of the PhD say whatever they like and demand respect. I said the degree itself is what demands respect.

David Wolcott

I do understand what you say. And I respect PhD's. Hunt has taken great pains to not be worthy of any respect. They aren't arguing whether he has an academic record. They are arguing how someone could have such a record and present such anti-science nonsense.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott mm I don’t think they are but whatever you say boss

Tim Eakins

A PhD (the person holding such) doesn’t deserve anymore respect than one would give another human when opining on things.

Taylor Ringelstein

Tim Eakins thanks for your input. That has been said numerous times already. Please read thoroughly before commenting next time.

David Wolcott

If it's been said so often Taylor, why do you still have think they aren't saying it?

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott no idea what you tried to say there

David Wolcott

Then you should read more thoroughly next time.

Taylor Ringelstein

“Why do you still have think they aren’t saying it” makes no sense no matter how many times I read it

David Wolcott

//David Wolcott mm I don’t think they are but whatever you say boss//

......

Tim Eakins

//That has been said numerous times already. Please read thoroughly before commenting next time.//

Why?

Taylor Ringelstein

Tim Eakins so you don’t repeat things that have already been said.

David Wolcott

You obviously missed it the first few times, Taylor....

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott you can quote me all you like.

“If it’s been said so often Taylor, why do you still have think they aren’t saying it”

That sentence makes no sense.

David Wolcott I’m saying it as well. I don’t think the person deserves respect. The PhD deserves respect. I have never said that hunt deserves respect when he speaks on anything. You and Tim seem to have trouble comprehending what I’m saying.

David Wolcott

Well, you're right on the quote. When you put the whole thing, I realized I added an extra word.

Nonetheless, why do you keep saying what others have said? The whole argument made by Tim and Cathy is that the PhD equates to time and effort, but otherwise grants nothing extra to the bearer unless they are talking in the field of their degree.

Tim Eakins

I think Taylor likes to read his own prattling...

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott except the part where they tried to belittle the PhD itself (the post hole digger comment). It’s obvious they don’t respect the degree. I put my two cents in. After that this whole discussion has been pointless.

Tim Eakins hush now the grown ups are talking.

Cathy Treat

Taylor Ringelstein You tagged me: You said, " Tim Eakins a PhD does mean someone put time and effort in. Something neither yourself, Cathy or mike have done. It deserves a little respect"//// .

First of all, you don't know what Tim Eakins, or Mike'n Tabea Warrak or I have done with our lives thus far. Second, I haven't seen any evidence at all, not even a smidgen, to indicate that he's telling the truth. He sounds like a typical atheist activist: Totally typical, making claims that he can't back up. We've all seen a lot of those. So, IMO, if he was who he says he is, he would have no problem with discussing Hans' paper.

Taylor Ringelstein

Cathy Treat do you have a PhD? If you don’t then I’m right in assuming you havent put the time and effort in. He might not be telling the truth. Have I said that because he claims to have a PhD then it must be true? Again this whole discussion remains pointless.

Cathy Treat

Taylor Ringelstein You tagged me. I just responded.

Taylor Ringelstein

Cathy Treat I’ll take that as a no, you don’t have a PhD and my assumption was correct.

Cathy Treat

Taylor Ringelstein I"m not embarrassed, or ashamed of the time and effort that I've put into things other than a PhD. I"m also not impressed that someone else does have one. You said the discussion remains pointless, so, I was just trying to close said discussion.

Tim Eakins

Who is “they?”

Taylor Ringelstein

Tim Eakins if you can’t keep up then stay out of it

David Wolcott

Taylor, you realize that the post hole digger comment was self depreciation, right?

Please try to keep up or stay out of it.

Taylor Ringelstein

Cathy Treat I’m not trying to embarrass you or make you feel ashamed. I assumed you didn’t put the time and effort into a PhD. You called me out for that assumption. I was right in my assumption.

Tim Eakins

//Again this whole discussion remains pointless.//

Yet you prattle on. Prove it is pointless, please.

I don’t think you possess the self-control. I could be wrong...

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott please learn to use the correct words when trying to belittle me. Deprecation is not depreciation.

Cathy Treat

Tim Eakins Another typical AA.

Taylor Ringelstein

Tim Eakins when it comes to you I’ll always have something to say

Cathy Treat AA meaning?

David Wolcott

Taylor, you are right, I added an extra letter. And you are the one belittling everyone. Quit whining if you can't eat off your own plate.

Cathy Treat

Taylor Ringelstein atheist activist

Taylor Ringelstein

Cathy Treat unlucky you aren’t correct I’m not an atheist.

David Wolcott I am belittling everyone now. I didn’t start the thread this way

David Wolcott

At least you admit your abusive conduct, Taylor.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott and you have also engaged in it. Do you admit the same?

David Wolcott

I admit to serving you the plate you cooked.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott mm I’d say you attempted to serve me the plate I cooked. Unfortunately you weren’t very good at it

David Wolcott

Really? Because you sure threw a fit when you saw it...

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott ok you win. You are better at belittling people than I am.

George Zornes

Taylor Ringelstein I’m just going to weigh in a sec for what it’s worth. And no I do not have a PHD. In fact I’m certain lab rats have more exposure to facilities of higher learning than I do and in the world of million miles per hour messages to the b...Voir plus

David Wolcott

Taylor Ringelstein, should I be surprised that you left the other thread where you tried to back up Hunt's claim and provided less evidence than he did, in light of your misconduct here?

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott I left both threads to because I knew my conduct wasn’t good. But if you want to start it again we can. Very Christ like of you to be this petty

David Wolcott

There was a few hour difference between your last claim there and your last attempts at insults here.

I'm not convinced.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott so you do want to start up a petty argument that has no meaning? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it, but I just want you to know I was happy to leave this unfinished but you brought this back up. Not me.

David Wolcott

I brought up that you made claims you haven't justified because you spent all your time being petty. You are free to provide evidence for your claims whenever you want.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott I wasn’t being petty on my lonesome. Had some wonderful companionship in yourself. You’re free to let this conversation end whenever you want. Just seems like you really want the last word here.

David Wolcott

So.... Still no evidence for your claims.... Unsurprising, really.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott this thread I have made no claims. This has been one big petty argument. Which as I have said now numerous times, I’m happy to finish. But can you let me say something without you getting the last word in? That’s the real question here

David Wolcott

I haven't stopped you from saying anything, Taylor. And, since you obviously missed my comments, I identified very clearly that it was on the other thread. But just like Hunt, it seems you just want to blame others for your lack of evidence.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott I never said you stopped me from saying anything. But you can’t let me say the last word can you? Have to reply no matter what. This isn’t a thread to get involved in serious discussion. This is the petty argument comment section. Now I’ll post this and wait to see if you will let me finish this thread

MR

David Wolcott I am blown away by the incredibly bad manners of atheist PhDs who roam Facebook.

Taylor Ringelstein so we should bow down to his PhD in philosophy of science in fluid mechanics or whatever his PHD is in?

David Wolcott

Given that I've seen two year olds with better math skills than Hunt has demonstrated, I still can't figure how he got a PhD in applied mathematics.

Taylor Ringelstein

MR I don’t know if you’ve read this whole thread but it’s not the best. Did I say anywhere that we should bow down to his PhD? don’t put words into my mouth

MR

David Wolcott its because nothing is not nothing. I should unblock him. I've had home blocked for two years.

MR

Taylor Ringelstein respect the PhD, not the holder.

Taylor Ringelstein as Christians, we don't worship worldly knowledge.

Taylor Ringelstein

MR does respect = worship?

MR

Taylor Ringelstein well, as Christians we are called to be respectful. So if we are respectful to a person, and you think we should respect the PhD more, that borders on idolatry.

Taylor Ringelstein

Also I’m not even saying to respect the subject that the PhD was in. I’m saying the act of getting a PhD is worthy of respect. It shows you’ve put time and effort into something.

Michelle Rose

Taylor Ringelstein most of us have put in a lot of time and effort into something. But we don't all get degrees for it.

Taylor Ringelstein

MR that’s true. A PhD shows commitment as well. It’s just a form of recognition for committing time and effort. I’m not saying a PhD is the only proof of hard work that should be respected.

MR

Taylor Ringelstein so for how long do we need to bow down to someone who doesn't think creationists should hold science degrees? Or medical degrees?

Taylor Ringelstein

MR when have I said to bow down? When have I said that a PhD means every idea you ever have should be followed?

MR

Taylor Ringelstein ok. Please explain "respect" and what that would look like on FB in regards to an abstraction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Taylor Ringelstein - even if you are not an atheist, you may be an "atheist collaborator" or syncretist (as in evolution believer, heliocentrism believer etc)

George Zornes "I personally don’t know if Mr. Hunt has a PHD or not but after an amount of observation of his posts he simply does not articulate himself to the level one would expect from anyone having achieved his degree of education."

I was kind of suspecting sth like that ... especially after seeing his initial bungle on Michelson Morley.

Cathy Treat

Hans-Georg Lundahl IMO, If he really was a mathematician/physicist, he should be able to prove it by conversing with you in regard to your OP. I"m seeing a lot of dodges. I have also come to my conclusions based on his comments.

MR

Cathy Treat he does actually have the degrees he claims to have. The page he helps to admin also has at least one other science PhD as an admin. You would NEVER know it by the illogic of the postings there.

Tim Eakins

MR a PhD isn’t proof of deductive reasoning. It is only proof one can do enough to earn the accolades of another with the conferred title. In the scheme of things it means nothing.

MR

Tim Eakins true, that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked his page up.

He has 14 papers, seven of which have been cited 11 times.

Cathy Treat

MR Seriously? Are you sure? Cause! Dang! He sounds like he's living on a troll farm or in his parents basement.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And one of his papers only is his sole work.

Cathy Treat

Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you sure he's the one who wrote them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is another question.

Of 14 papers, exactly one has him as sole author.

If he were for instance a shrink on the side, the participation in 14 papers since 2015 with 13 co-written by others would leave him lots of time to be for instance a shrink as well.

David Wolcott

That's his biggest problem, though: he presumably works well in his field. Which is great.

Then he completely abandons all of the principles learned there and practices nothing intellectual here or on Facebook.

Cathy Treat

Hans-Georg Lundahl I guess it's the internet thing. People can pretend to be "whatever", or impersonate someone else. So when there's no reason to believe someone, I don't. I guess I just don't have a good track record for trusting. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Wolcott - seeing he has co-written 13 of his 14 papers, and seeing that this is since 2013, I wonder if he's a shrink. As his MAIN interest.

He would be in fact doing just great on that side of his interests - since they are bullies and not scientists.

Cathy Treat Don't worry, his trackrecord of trust is even worse.

I give him a link.

It includes six links in the top section, one to itself.

I tell him one of the six links is to mathematics, which he doesn't trust.

You are less paranoid than he.

David Wolcott

I feel sorry for anyone he tries to counsel.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Or who is captive in the hospital he runs!

David Wolcott

Given his narcissism I would be shocked to find anyone working under him.

Cathy Treat

Does he work?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think so.

MR

Cathy Treat when I first encountered him on FB, I accused him of living in his mom's basement. One thing is, that he has consistently been well mannered in his discussions with me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl who has time to write papers when you're addicted to FB?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I combine the pleasures:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-defending-carbon-and.html

Cathy Treat

MR Well, I"m glad I'm not the only that thought he was living in his parents basement! LOL! Nice to know he can be well mannered.

MR

Hans-Georg Lundahl that paper he said he authored. He said he lifted the content out of a textbook. I don't know if he referenced it yet

Cathy Treat

MR Hmmmm!

MR

Nope. Not referenced.

Cathy Treat

MR Surprise!!!

V

David Wolcott

Surprisingly, he does. In mathematics.

Which really begs the question why his last argument against me was that one person in prison in numerically more numerous than millions murdered under Stalin....

Ahh, the joys of irrational anti-science...

Cathy Treat

I"m not convinced.

VI

Matthew Hunt

You can search for my PhD online.

Cathy Treat

I can search a Mat Hunt's PhD online. You brought up "lawsuit" to Hans-Georg Lundahl in a recent post. Impersonating a PhD and passing off his papers as your own could be considered grounds for a lawsuit, don't you think?

Matthew Hunt

You realise you're an idiot right?

Cathy Treat

Matthew Hunt Wow! Great comeback!

VII

Vaughn Lowe

Does any one know the difference between knowledge, intelligence and wisdom? And yes, there is a difference.
.
This is how I like to think of it. Please forgive my analogy. I am ex-military.
.
Knowledge is like ammunition. There are different types and some people have more than others.
.
Intelligence is all about the size of the gun. Some people obviously have bigger guns than others. That's just the way it is.
.
And then there's wisdom. My personal favourite. Wisdom is knowing what to aim at. Wisdom is also knowing when to pull the trigger and, sometimes more importantly, when not to.
.
A bit clumsy perhaps. But the central point is that you can have a combination of these. Most people have one of these and some have two. But if you can, why not go for the trifecta.
Well it's something to aim at, right? (bad joke, sorry) 😎

Cathy Treat

I didn't think it was a bad joke at all. Made me chuckle!

George Zornes

I just love that analogy. So in your terms I am a 22 with 2 rounds of rat shot and I usually waste them by shooting at rocks. But to my credit I do have a mind like lightning. An occasional millisecond flash of brilliance then it’s gone forever. But God pulled me out of the muck and mire anyway. And that’s why I’ll defend him to the end!

Albert White

Perhaps it's not that we have one, two or all of these, Maybe everyone has all three but just in different strengths and degrees making it more like analogue (0 to 100) rather than digital (0 or 1). Like the RPG's where characters all have the same attributes but some have higher than others. And of course there are things we can do to increase these attributes.

George Zornes

Albert White not entirely sure but I think that’s what Vaughn was alluding to?

Vaughn Lowe

Yeah, I think we all get the idea.

VIII

David Wolcott

Matthew Hunt has been muted for 24 hours for blatantly insulting other members.

[see VI]

George Zornes

I have noticed we get a lot of “you wouldn’t understand” or “I won’t waste my time” or your a “insult”. Or will leave the topic unfinished when it gets a bit hard. Makes me wonder. There are some wonderful debates and arguments on this thread where neither side resorts to such things. I wish everyone would conduct themselves “adultly”.

David Wolcott

I will exercise great patience if the individual is meaningfully contributing, but when it's just blatantly not even trying to discuss..... Yeah, no.

Chris James

Mat Hunt was the one who was insulted, by being told he he didn't really have a PhD and was impersonating someone who did. When he lost his temper at that, HE was the one subject to the ban. Ridiculous.

David Wolcott

Chris, someone being incredulous of one's claim is a different thing from calling someone an idiot.

Especially given the fact that Matthew has spent quite some time deliberately refusing to actually debate anything, instead just coming in and nay saying or mocking without any attempt at substance.

Had he made the decision to build a reputation of someone who actually discusses and engages, I probably would have ignored it entirely, as I implied in the above comment.

Chris James

David Wolcott. It was basically accusing Hunt of lying about not only his degree, but who he his. Hunt can easily be found online, even those who disagree with him have known him around these pages for years. No wonder he lost his the temper, with someone goading him continuously that not only did he not have a PhD, but that he was basically guilty of identity theft.

David Wolcott

Chris, I've known Hunt for many years. The last argument we had was him claiming that more people died under theism than atheism. Do you want to know what evidence he finally brought in to challenge the millions of people murdered under Stalin? One article about one woman being imprisoned in the Middle East.

That was the ONLY piece of evidence he brought into the entire argument.

His PhD is in applied mathematics, and he tried to argue that one is numerically greater than 20 million.

When he makes himself look like someone who has never taken algebra, don't complain when people question how he could have gotten any degree, let alone a PhD.

Taylor Ringelstein

David Wolcott I’ll just jump in in this. Yes Stalin killed a lot of people. But the majority of human history has been under theistic control. To claim one dictator has killed more than all theistic rulers is outrageous.

David Wolcott

It's not just outrageous, it's right....

Professor R.J. Rummel is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii and talks on how "free thinkers"/atheists have caused the most harm in all history of any ideology (doing the math from the research on his site shows that atheism has been involved in killing ~30 times more than all religions in all history, even counting ALL the most absurd and falsest ones, COMBINED).
----
Q: Haven’t established religions been the greatest killers?*
A: Most contemporary democide, far greater than any historical cases, has been by free thinkers, i.e., those who believe that the established religions are superstitions, and one should be scientific, objective, rational, etc. Communism is a case in point, where out of the 174,000,000 murder 1900 to 1999, about 110,000,000 were by communists, who are professed atheists.

Q: Do you feel that countries with a secular government generally have a better way of life compared to countries ruled by religion?
A: Historically, secular governments have also been very repressive and murderous. All communist and fascist governments (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc) have been secular, and also murderous. The worst of all such governments have been atheistic and communist, and murdered overall around 110,000,000 people in the 20th Century.

Democratic Peace Q&A
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/QA.V2.HTML

Now, Matthew made excuses that he doesn't have evidence for his counter claim, the same as yours, because the records were lost.

Can you find any evidence for the counter claim, Taylor? All you need is two people, and you'll have doubled the evidence that Hunt presented.

MR

Chris James Chris, Matt has to be used to being challenged after he pulls out his PhD and wields it like a great hammer in theological discussions. I have seen his PhD paper and I know he has those degrees, but like Dawkins, a science degree is kinda useless in theological discussions. However, it is a good idea to discuss theological matters without trying to be high and mighty with a science degree.

Chris James

MR.i agree that his qualifications aren't always relevant, and trust me, me and Hunt have had our run ins, he is is much more into scientism than I am. My point was that I thought his loss of temper was understandable, and if he got a ban for it, the person accusing him of not being who he said he was should also have got a ban. otherwise, it looks like Christians judging others by harsher standards, which is unchristian.

MR

Chris James true, true. But I think it's just a suspension.

David Wolcott

Chris, Matthew has no excuse. He has been pushing his irrational myths for years, and the longer he goes the less he contributes.

As I said at the beginning, he burned any bridge that patience would have given.

Not to mention the fact that his very presence is an act of grace, since he refuses to unblock myself, an admin.

MR

He does try our patience, for sure.

Chris James

David Wolcott. Mate, but that's the game. you think he's pushing a myth, he thinks you are. Otherwise there would be no point for this page, there wouldn't be a debate, it just would be a dawn chorus.

David Wolcott

Chris, Hunt actually believes that the number 1 is mathematically greater than the number 20,000,000.

That was why he blocked me.

George Zornes

David Wolcott how’s that supposed to work?

David Wolcott

George, I really have no idea. I would love for him to explain, but he can't without admitting he's wrong, for probably the first time in his life.

George Zornes

David Wolcott Sounds kinda like “I am my own grandpa” sort of equations.

David Wolcott

Kind of, yeah.

IX

David Wolcott

Daniel Quinones

Cathy Treat

Thank you David! <3

Paul Insana

Matthew, why not accommodate Hans-georg? Whats the harm? And allow us, on the sideline, to be illuminated.....

Matthew Hunt

If I indulged Hans, then it would give him the false impression that it's a valid alternative when it isn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt - that is supposing that my theory is mathematically coherent.

If it is not, you would be very easy off proving it.

Paul Insana

FYI Matthew.. God ever responds to the least of us, to the babes if you will, thereby lifting the whole of us...doesn’t your faith have this characteristic?

X

Sara Taylor

MR

Logic from the PhDs on Matt's page.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ouch

David Wolcott

That doesn't surprise me at all that he fell for that.

*

David et 2 autres personnes gèrent les adhésions, les modérateurs, les paramètres et les publications sur The Biblical Worldview Defended!

**

It seems Mike'n Tabea Warrak blocked me? Since I don't see his comment.