By: LARRY SITES Re: Jim Murray's LIAR Huse Following is another perfect example of how CHR

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: LARRY SITES Re: Jim Murray's LIAR Huse Following is another perfect example of how CHRISTIAN LIARs lead fundie fools to the slaughter. Watch as Jim Murray ignorantly attempts to battle truth with a book of lies: Jim Murray to Martin Goldberg on 04-27-95 18:22 re: Re: I-D-E-N-T-I-C-A-L JM> When using radioactive dating techniques, the following JM> >>>>assumptions<<<<< must be made: JM> 1. The rock contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, JM> only parent atoms; JM> 2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, o JM> taken from the rock; and, Not true for the Isochron method. JM> 3. The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant. Produce evidence to the contrary and win an instant Nobel. JM> research suggest that certain conditions (exposure to neutrino, JM> neutron, or cosmic radiation) may alter the rates of radioactive JM> decay. Footnote 36, reference: RE Kofahl, _Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter_, 1977, p. 159. I'll wager that if you chase this back to it's scientific source, it actually refers to the rate of carbon-14 production in the atmosphere and doesn't have SQUAT to do with DECAY rates. Why did he skip the reference to Barry Setterfield's throughly debunked light speed changes in the same paragraph? Living snails have been dated as being 2,300 yeasrs old JM> by the carbon-14 method. Footnote 34, reference: Keith and Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictious Results with Mollusk Shells", _Science_, Vol 141, 1963, p 634. I'll GUARANTEE that ONLY a FLAIMING FUNDIE FOOL would misrepresent this as evidence for the unreliability of carbon dating! Wood taken from growing trees has been JM> dated to be 10,000 years old by the same method. Footnote 29, reference: Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970", _American Scientist_, vol 59, May-June 1971, p 298. Same guarantee. Hawaiian lava JM> flows, which are known to be less than 200 years old, have been JM> dated by the potassium-argon method at up to 3 billion years JM> old. Footnote 37, reference: WE Lammerts, _Why Not Creation_, 1973, p 388. Another fucking liar for god and I've got the goods from the scientific source on my hard drive to prove it, if anyone is interested! (The above was taken from The Collapse of Evolution by JM> Scott M. Huse, Ph.D. a computer scientist at the U.S. Air JM> Force's Rome Laboratory. Here's a previous example illistrating this "Ph.D." level work and more fundie sheel led to slaughter by it: Area # 231 EVOLUTION 10-27-94 09:59 Message # 1 From : LARRY SITES To : ARTHUR BIELE RCVD Subj : Huse, lord's liar ARTHUR BIELE to JOE MORLAN on 10-25-94 23:29 re: NOT SEEN? Why don't you deal with your past lies before generating more? AB>"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically AB>portrayed to be, Evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounde AB>hypothesis that is riddled with countless other scientific fallacies." AB>Scott M. Huse, former evolutionist and atheist, in his book, "The AB>Collapse of Evolution", P 127, Baker Book House, 1983. Get you quotes right at least. Even you authority did NOT capatalize evolution. How would you know Huse is a former evolutionist and atheist? The book you quote certainly says no such thing. It describes him as a teacher and principal of Pinecrest Bible Training Center and holding the following degrees: BS, MS, MRE, ThD, and PhD. He dedicates his book thus: This book is dedicated to our Creator and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone is worthy to recieve all glory, honor, and power. Why didn't you quote the rest of his page 127 conclusion? The words after your quote read, "Biblical creationism, on the other hand, does correlate with the known facts of science. Indeed, there is an abundance of impressive and convincing scientific evidence which can be used to justify an intellegent faith in Biblical Christianity." Huse is either a liar or a just plain sloppy scholar. On page 73 he says QUOTE, "Charles Darwin acknowledged the utter inadequacy of the evolutionary theory when attempting to account for a structure such as the eye:". He then goes on to quote Darwins infamious out of context quote where Darwin expresses increduality at a natural explaination for the eye. Huse footnotes Darwin's quote, but when you look at the footnote it is NOT a reference to _Origin of Species_, but to page 468 of E. Shute's _Flaws in the Theory of Evolution_! Now I have not read Shute, but I HAVE read that section of Darwin and this IS a GROSS misrepresentation. Darwin, after first setting the stage with the APPARENT difficulty of eye development, launches DIRECTLY into an explaination complete with examples of eyes in various stages of development. Your fundi predicessor, Mark Fox, made the very same false assertation and had the aduacity to attempt its unsupported defense thus making a fool of himself. But Huse doesn't quit there. He continues, "An incomprehensible constellation of favorable, intergrated, and synchronized mutations would have to occur to produce an organ such as the eye." He quotes a probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 266 and then says, "In light of these scientific facts, today's evolutionist would do well to abandon his dogmatic attitude and follow the honest example of Charles Darwin who conceded this serious flaw in the evolutionary theory." Darwin did NO SUCH THING. Huse is WRONG, either out of ignorance or deliberate deception. And yet Huse has the aduacity to say on page 127, "The widespread influence of evolution is largely responsible for our moral decline of recent years. Belief in atheistic evolution has led many individuals to reject the Biblical account of creation, and along with that, the entire message of the Bible itself. Herein lies the awesome danger of this Satanic delusion - many will fail to receive the grace of God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which leads to salvation and eternal life." I suppose "evolution" makes you fundis lie for your lord, eh? It is just such lying for the lord that leads many to reject the entire bible message. I guess that makes you guys Satans agents, don't it? Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank