Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive1

side by side
I'll run some regex's over the original and get it into the side-by-side format. 08:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right; now that that's done, we can get to debunking it. 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See, secular science has no responses! --GTac 11:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that's cos Pi got rid of my lame, sunday-moring-style attempts at rebuttal. And this afternoon I have to mow the lawn. With a fucking scythe. But i digress. I'll try to add "stuff" later. Totnesmartin 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With a motherfucking SCYTHE? Now that's going old-school on that grass! --GTac 11:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can I just add some answers to it? I'm no expert on the matter and if other people already have material planned for it I'm sure it will be much better, but if not it could help a bit. --GTac 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * feel free. i put a link in the dinosaur soft tissues one about it possibly being a bacterial deposit, so you may want to add that. Totnesmartin 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

has anyone noticed...
Has anybody noticed that more than half their points are saying that since something can happen quickly, the earth is young? -- 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anybody else slightly disappointed that we seem to be focusing on that logical fallacy rather than refuting the actual evidence? -- 20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * if it's a logical fallacy, then we should adress that. where their evidence is flawed, as much of the geology section is, then we should address the evidence. Totnesmartin 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True- but sometimes we address only one when there are both. -- 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I look forward to your factual edits refuting the errors. It's good of you to volunteer.--Bobbing up 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tea break
Just stopping now we've done half of them to say how nice it is to really ahve something to tear into. Almost every entry here justifies its own article, some of which (polonium halos or mitochondrial Eve) we already have. Totnesmartin 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the final of The Apprentice is on. 20:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what we should be doing, not mucking about with CP. 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is. I'll start on Age of the oceans. -- 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind me bypassing that redirect, A. Totnesmartin 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Course I don't. -- 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Earth Article
My timezone is sending me to bed but I've just been looking at Evidence against a recent creation. I suspect that there is some good investigation already there which could be incorporated into/explicitly referenced in this article.--Bobbing up 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking that shit in where appropriate. You should too. It's well researched and well written stuff. 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

End tea break
Right, let's get back to work. 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You get back to work, I'm gardening. 06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Points that still need work
--Tweenk (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 (needs example of beneficial human mutation, e.g. lactose tolerance)
 * 11 (it should be enough to point out that dendrochronology exceeds YEC timescales)
 * 13 (refute sand grain argument)
 * 18 (refute their theory of coal formation)
 * 19 (the mentioned method is nothing like natural conditions)
 * 21 (refute the "flat gap" argument)
 * 24 (logic fail, creationists do not say there should be bioturbation)
 * 25 (why paleosols were soils and creationists are just in denial)
 * 26 (refute the argument instead of pointing to unrelated flaws)
 * 27 (obtain the original article). The paper is also referenced here, which may prove useful.
 * 29 (why this is nothing like natural conditions)
 * 32 (point out conflict with 31) - there is no obvious conflict, an island can form by erosion alone.
 * 37 (focus on Niagara Falls)
 * 39 (find out what Dury was really writing about)
 * 44 (ideally, find what "Petukhov, 2004" refers to)
 * 47 (argument from assertion, we can really do better)
 * 50 (unnecessary ad hominem, confusing)
 * 58 (more detail or ref needed)
 * 60 (include calculation from Essay:Question Creationism!)
 * 62 (provide a summary of refutation and refs)
 * 64 (find out what is wrong with the lava intrusion claim)
 * 66 (too small discrepancy for GIGO)
 * 67 (point out that using a linear equation is bogus, give real estimate of day length)
 * 68 (instead of focusing on affirming the consequent, link to evidence on timeline of volcanism, link to 65)
 * 69 (mention tidal heating as another hypothesis, shorten)
 * 70 (confusing)
 * 72 (how long Io has been a satellite of Jupiter?)
 * 75 (needs more detail and a refutation of the linked document)
 * 76 (it is 2012 already, where is the result?)
 * 77 (clarify)
 * 78 (if this is a real uncertainty in science, remove unnecessary philosophizing)
 * 79 (add information from this talk page) added to 75
 * 85 (provide evidence for Oort's cloud)
 * 86 (this is not how the Mars/Jupiter asteroid belt works and would be more relevant to Jupiter Trojan asteroids)
 * 90 (why is this ironic?)
 * 93 Fine, 100s of millions of years is more than 6k, but what current theories exist to explain the supposed discrepancy? Do we now think that all spiral galaxies are actually only a just over 100 million years old, or do we have reason to believe that a spiral galaxy can be billions of years old? A creationist would say, "you have no theory, so goddidit"142.68.13.130 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC) (--Tweenk (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
 * 97
 * 98 (shorten)
 * 99 (refutation does not engage the argument)
 * 100 (too long)
 * Removed Arguments (The claim, this religious declaration is dubious in terms of Biblical scholarship. John 1:1-3, although introducing a Gospel, does not mention Jesus, and has its origins in the ancient Greek philosophical term Logos.[wp] is simply incorrect. Biblical scholarship widely accepts that Logos refers to Jesus within the Gospel of John, as is evidenced by the wikipedia article referenced in the claim. --Scord
 * quite a few links are broken as well. Тy Lonely. Ever so lonely. 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that there are several points, e.g. 66 and 67, that insist on using uniformitarian assumptions in places where they are clearly bogus. Perhaps this should be noted separately, maybe a conclusion section that lists common fallacies and points which use them. --Tweenk (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Make an overview of the fallacies the second section, not the end - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of backwards to me to point out problems in specific arguments before they are even stated. On the other hand, having this section at the end helps the reader to notice common themes and tactics. It also provides closure - without it, the text ended rather abruptly after point 101. --Tweenk (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the end is good, a long, detailed list analysis needs a concluding summary. Sophie  because liberals  21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
Some of the original 'evidences' are lengthy articles and really need something more detailed than the SBS format allows. We should probably have separate in-depth rebuttal articles that can be referenced from here. 09:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably yes, but debunking each creationist article would take inordinate amounts of time. This should be restricted to the most important ones, such as "Revelations in the Solar System", which could itself be debunked in an SBS format. For others, pointing out the main error should be enough. --Tweenk (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that every point needs to be expanded, but some of them probably need more data supporting why there is an error rather than a simple assertion. Particularly with things like geology where the creationist interpretation is sweepingly simplistic. 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover run for real
This is excellent, but could still do with a lot of polishing. Here are some demands for shrubberies: Isn't peer review fun! Anyone else got shrubberies? - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * capture-tag all the creationist sites (it's not that I don't trust them ... oh wait, yes it is)
 * omit needless words - the writing could benefit from serious work on terseness
 * a lot of claims need cites. At some stage I'll fact-tag a pile of stuff, which doesn't mean I think it's wrong, just that it really needs a reference (I'll look for these too)
 * "This is wrong on two levels" para in intro needs to be much shorter (not sure how, but it does)
 * intro in general feels way too long
 * That is a good list. I have another list.
 * '''People who have made good lists on this page:
 * David Gerard.
 * Me.
 * That is all.-- 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly endorse capturing what we are debunking. Otherwise the relevance of articles or points can disappear overnight. 09:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro is much better, fallacies at end works great (particularly the list broken down by fallacy). I've been going through and doing some rewriting. I've actually been toning down the outrage at the blatancy of the bullshit and keeping it very sober - my imagined audience is a smart kid who has been fed creationist rubbish and could do with a complete obliteration of it to hand.
 * I've capture-tagged some of the creationist pages, but not all.
 * Decorating the answers with as many RW and WP links as is reasonable will increase this page's usefulness a lot.
 * Dead links. All the missing refs need fixing.
 * Every link needs checking.
 * The argument against unavailable creationist references is not a strong one in general, given how expensively paywalled scientific research is (and I see Gondwana Research is now an Elsevier journal ... boo, hiss).

Coming along nicely :-D - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be worthwhile to have an "own goal" category in the end-list? 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's in "technical errors" - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it isn't, is it? I've listed them separately in the analysis. Does #73 count as an own-goal? Any explanation with the starlight problem is a definite own-goal - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Found one abstract. CRSQ's archive is the finest of 1995 web design. Surely someone somewhere must be able to track down the missing paper ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know where "technical errors" is, but the comments on carbon dating seem wrong. Specifically ". Comparing, for example, a 10,000 y.o. fossil with a 100,000,000 y.o. one will show that the decay of carbon-14 in the latter sample is far more advanced than in the former.". Unless Wikipedia is wrong: C14 dating is used only on terrestrial organic material (not fossils which are mineralized), and is only valid back to about 50k years. ~Jerry

#23
Creationist field trip in 1987. This needs a reference. (The linked NCSE article doesn't cover it, or I couldn't spot at a glance where it did.) If the creationists are making a big deal of this field trip, RW needs to cover it somewhere - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears to have been 1986 and published in 1987. Got the ref, if not the article - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For posterity, this is the reference to the creationist publication: Waisgerber W, Howe GF, Williams EL. Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200-million-year hiatus in question. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1987: 23: 160-5.
 * Creationists have made a number of such field trips. Another one is documented in #21. --Tweenk (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't just call liars "liars"
If we just call them the liars they are, a disinterested third party - the target audience for this sort of article - will assume we're just indulging in ad hominem. Lalomov is a lying arsehole, but we need to be able to show this. The articles appear to have disappeared entirely from the CRSQ archive (even the abstracts aren't present) - did they remove them from shame? I would not expect this, because they don't have shame ... but we can't just allude to Lalomov's lying arsehole ways (#44), we need to address the actual points. Same goes for Humphreys (#47).

Where on earth could we track down back numbers of CRSQ?

Number #43 is not as bad (we have a direct reply to the cited paper), but it'd be really nice to have some proper science that addresses the actual issue raised - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's enough to say that we can't reply to this argument if its details are inaccessible, and refrain from any other comments until by some unlikely occurrence someone gets access to those publications? The note about Humphreys should stay, as it's relevant. --Tweenk (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I see that the footnote on #43 does not answer the paper in question, but other papers entirely. So it's still calling Lalomov a lying liar in an insufficiently specific sense. Gah. We need to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've asked on Twatter/arsebook if anyone knows where to track down a physical copy of CRSQ v44n1 - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd hate to chuck them any money but you could always buy them :) 22:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * AAAAAAAA At the brilliant suggestion of a friend, I have emailed NCSE asking for their help - obviously they can't just copy it for me, but they can verify whether the article is in it or the creation.com author just made it up. Also, the British Library apparently has copies of some issues of this pseudojournal ... which is frightening, really - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've emailed creation.com about it, noting it's not even in the CRSQ "all abstracts" list, asking if it's in the paper version and if they're absolutely sure they got the reference right - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think they actually say "all abstracts" just "abstracts", although they don't explicitly say that not all articles are listed. Just looking at the page ranges shows there are gaps, unless they have lots of ads. 08:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, true. I'd enquire with CRSQ too except their site's fallen over. Will when it comes back up - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just emailed CRSQ too - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a scan of the actual article, courtesy a benefactor I obviously cannot name! It exists! Will put it somewhere we can all hurt our brains on it ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting outside review
This article should be suitable material for a general audience new to the debate (yes, there are people new to the debate). To this end, I've been posting it around asking for review, and I just emailed Jerry Coyne asking if he could please note it on Why Evolution Is True. So if we get a sudden onslaught of edits, good or bad, please don't lock the article against idiots - call it part of the cleansing fire of review - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Woot, we got a plug in WEIT! I have also commented, explicitly telling people to hit "edit" - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to recheck the original!
It looks like the original was edited since this article was started. I just removed a few sentences that aren't in the original any more, and weren't captured in our image of the page. Need to go over the article again to check we have it word-for-word as of the 26th March image capture. (And to note any further changes.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we need the caps. Do you mean the actual "101 evidences..," page or some of the online articles it references? Also are the changes material and do we have a copy of the prior version? 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual article seems to have changed since our article was created (a few years ago). Hence specifying the date in the first para. I suppose we could add deleted sections since 2009, etc, if anyone can be bothered. Might get messy though - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wayback Machine has examples from 2009 and 2010.  17:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If a part has been changed, that can go in a footnote. I think we should really concentrate on what the list says nowadays.  Sophie  because liberals  21:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They killed #90, about the cometesimals! I'm so disappointed. It's been replaced with a duplicate of #65 - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Point #90 was such a slam dunk that it should be kept, perhaps somewhere at the end in a section called "changes". --Tweenk (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I convinced Don (who is rational) to get rid of #90. He's also going to take down #82 when he gets a chance. I understand this page is intended as a reference for people who are too stupid to figure it out themselves, but maybe we can also organize an open discussion with the creation scientists. They listen to criticism and reason. I posit that if evolution is indeed correct, then we can convince all of the creation scientists to stop arguing against it. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about creationism ever again, and we could get started on global warming. Scottm (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? You thing creationists can be converted to an old-Earth paradigm? It's not just about evolution. 07:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about it: the entire creationist movement makes no sense at all. They obtain their knowledge through faith; a literal reading of the Bible. Then they try to use naturalistic arguments (in which they use knowledge obtained from observation) to support their faith. The fact that these people even consider naturalistic arguments speaks to their willingness to engage in a discussion. What I'm saying is: It is possible (and should probably be very easy) to convince these people that a literal reading of the Bible is in fact inconsistent with evidence we observe today. The end goal is that people who believe in a literal reading concede that their views aren't realized in observation, and, therefore, the creationism movement dies. There are hardly any examples here where someone actually emailed Don and tried to convince him personally, despite the fact that Don is willing to play by the rules of secular science. There are scores of "Don's" out there. We should try to reach out. Scottm (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How a creationist would read it
This is useful feedback - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lalomov paper
File:CSRQ44-1 p64-66 Lalomov Mineral Deposits as an Example of Geological Rates.pdf - have at it, and we can properly nail #42 and #44 - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Great job!
 * First impressions (I don't have much time today): "Petukhov, 2004" is quoted as if it was a reference to a legitimate petroleum prospecting expert. In fact, it's a creationist monograph in Russian called "Creation". The expert in question is clearly a proponent of abiotic oil, a well known pseudoscience. I think we have struck gold here.
 * The bit about iron-manganese nodules is harder. It appears that creationists are ignoring the possibility that nodule growth on man-made metal objects is much faster than normal, but I don't know enough about the mechanism of formation to say this conclusively. --Tweenk (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IANAC but possibly a metal substrate might have accelerated deposition through some galvanic reaction.  22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Now this is obvious, and IAAC. There is a relevant and funny experiment: you hold a zinc rod and a copper rod in dilute hydrochloric acid. The hydrogen bubbles appear on the zinc rod. However, when you touch the two rods together, the bubbles start appearing on the copper rod! This is because copper has higher overpotential of hydrogen formation, and it is energetically more favorable for one part of the reaction (2H+ + e -> H2) to happen in a different place than the other (Zn -> Zn2+ + 2e) and 'pay' for this with a voltage drop due to electrical resistance of the metal.
 * In the case of manganese nodules, it seems that a similar reaction is in place, but instead of hydrogen bubbles, we have manganese depositing on the nodule. --Tweenk (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fast-growing nodules do exist, per linked paper. Dunno why they grow so fast in the Baltic - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, I thought that these nodules were metallic. In fact they are composed of hydroxides. I need to think some more about how to explain it. --Tweenk (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just reread the paper about the Baltic and was way out of my depth - is that one about free nodules? And does it posit a cause? - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

#47
We don't have Humphreys' paper, but there are these rebuttals of the creationist idea of how it works Joe Meert t.o and this rebuttal of Meert's rebuttal. Someone who understands this better than I do should be able to put together a reasonable response to what's being asserted here - David Gerard (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah. Meert concentrates on bludgeoning Humphreys' 1993 paper into the ground, not the 1988 one. The t.o rebuttal helps. Need moar - David Gerard (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

More rebuttals
These need digesting - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

#17
I'm not too happy with our rebuttal of the artificial opals. According to WP synthetic opals are manufactured and Len Cram actually seems to be some sort of opal expert. There is a write-up in The World of Opals (1997) about his experiments and on p.36 he says that nobody from CSIRO has analytically examined his opals although a deceased CSIRO scientist had seen them. This contradicts Snelling' 1989 paper which says that they have been examined under an electron microscope. There is no mention of Cram's creationist beliefs in the parts of opal book that is searchable, so perhaps he was being coy. 11:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think ours is fine. The synthetic process currently produces things easily distinguishable from mined opals, and the process isn't possible in nature. If Cram's going to just say "I added a little bit of this, a little bit of that", then too bad for his claim. Be nice to track down the claimed scan, but there being no outside examination of his claimed homebrew opals is more damning - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done with it - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the bit about him possibly passing off mined opals as synthetic because you said we should be careful about "lying liars". 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ooh yeah, how did I miss that - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just found this in the Geological Survey of NSW. I'll need to read it in depth. 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like there is fast evidence for fast formation of opal but this does not necessarily imply recent formation. 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

#2
"Far from universally" seems a bit weasel-words - "not widely" or "limited support"? 14:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "still debated" should cover it. The bacteria are secondary; the key point is that the age of the salt is not questioned (and the abstract of the paper questioning the bacteria states that outright) even though they claim it is - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

First section needs more reference links
Most of the items are peppered with reference and Wikipedia links, which will help the (target) uneducated or miseducated reader nicely. The first section has hardly any and it could do with them. In particular, I can't find a good Wikipedia page explaining the general scientific principle of concordance, that multiple approaches should get the same answer - does it have another name? - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct term is apparently consilience. The article appears to have been written by the shitty philosophers who bother with the stuff on Wikipedia, but I've just rewritten stealing a coupla sentences from Tweenk's marvellous wording :-D - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More reader feedback from an ex-YEC
- "The most convincing rebuttals are the ones point out demonstrably false claims, and these should be hammered home for all they're worth. The more often they show up, the more likely YEC readers are to think creationist authors are actively lying or terrible researchers than occasionally mistaken. That is, you want to trade their perception of creationists with their perception of scientists. For instance, on the question of how old major mountain ranges are, I would also throw in the age of the rockies, the himalayans, and the alps, all indisputably "major" and all of which are dated (at least in origin if not when they finished forming) much older than 5 million years." - I'll just do the mountains one now, but if anyone wants to spruce up the others ... David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

#3 WTF
The computer science paper ... it says it was partially funded by the "FMS Foundation". That couldn't be the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, could it? I thought they were reality-based ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ready to promote
Unless anyone has any showstopping objections, this should be promoted tomorrow. I consider this past week an excellent example of what a week's concentrated peer review can do to improve an article - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True. I'm impressed with all the improvements. --Tweenk (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
An article '101 evidences for an old age for the Earth and the Universe.' 171.33.197.73 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it would be more like '1,000,001 evidences for an old age for the Earth and the Universe'. Генгис silverbrain.png 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As 'they' came up with 101 reasons for their theory, no need to batter them with the evidence.

Reason No 1. God made humans in (all encompassing deity possessive pronoun) image. Humans prefer going for the easiest option, so God does. If God created the world/the universe in six days, why go to the hassle of creating sufficient backstory to make humans believe that the universe has a long history?

Any other reasons 'of this nature'? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Another (non)response from Batten
Batten gives a number of excuses for why he won't respond to "atheistic" criticisms by indulging a number of rhetorical strategies typical of those who have no answer. It's interesting that he doesn't find it necessary to respond to these criticisms, but that CMI ebuliantly posted a number of "responses" to answers to their 15 questions. What else can you expect from people who already know the answer, whether they're liars or not. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)