I thought I would write some final thoughts I've been having about my verbal assaults from David Marshall at amazon.com, and just talk about my feelings regarding all that's gone on. This will be my final post about this guy...that is, unless he comments on my new amazon.com review, or he writes me back on his blog. To date he still hasn't written back yet (The post I left on his blog I talk about here).
Well, to begin, I'm glad this all happened because he showed me that I was wrong on some things in my review, and I went to work to fix them. I don't regret this because as I've said before, I'm all about truth. If I'm wrong please point it out to me. But you have to bring evidence that I'm wrong. I doubt he can now refute my arguments, which is probably why he hasn't even tried since I rewrote the few parts of it that I did.
I would still like to actually debate Marshall, if he ever decided to get the courage to. I was just thinking how even Ray Comfort debated me (even though he used the same old debunked creationist arguments, which I easily refuted) and I would consider Comfort at the bottom of the totem pole as far as apologetics go. Though I wouldn't rate Marshall much higher. I think that it's humorous that even someone as dim witted as Ray Comfort has the guts to debate me, and Marshall doesn't. Maybe it's because Marshall has a bit more brains then Comfort, and he knows if he does debate me he will look like an idiot.
I don't usually get angry when I debate someone...though as I've pointed out, this wasn't even close to a debate. This was nothing more then Marshall throwing a temper tantrum and using personal attacks. Even after I fixed my few errors, he kept bringing them up. I thought that was cowardly, because yeah I was wrong, and I admitted it, and I fixed the problems. But he doesn't seem to want to shut up about the few mistakes that I've been guilty of. I see right through all this though. It's nothing more then a ploy to discredit me so he brings it up every chance he gets. This is a very disingenuous tactic and an unethical one.
I've fixed the errors, but he doesn't want to let it go and put his neck on the line (not to mention is book sales), and deal up front with my legitimate objections and criticisms of his book. This is all too clear.
But, I'm pretty much over it now. I still dislike Marshall; he is a cowardly asshole, and is an intellectually limited idiot who acts like a child. But, I won't waste any more space on my blog talking about such human trash. True, I'm using personal attacks, but when push comes to shove, I fight back. I always have. This, I basically said in my most recent Dumbass of the Month post on Marshall, which can be found here.
Now that I've fought back with words of my own I feel better. I said what I wanted to say to him and I hope he reads this.
I guess that's it.
Thanks for reading....
See ya next rant!
Showing posts with label asshole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asshole. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
David Marshall's Attempted Rebuttals
Edit - 3-22-10: I wanted to edit this post to include some comments in light of my second reading of Marshall's book and the more extensive 100 + page refutation I've since written. These comments will be in italics. No other changes have been made to the original post.
I have just read the following on Marshall's amazon.com blog where he wrote a few critiques of my review. I will once again destroy his silly arguments.
His post "Marshall is a Liar I" is a redundant post, and does nothing to refute my arguments. As I've said before, I can be harsh but fair. There are a few times in my review where I applaud Marshall's honesty on a very few topics. His is a gross misrepresentation of my review.
Now on to his attempted rebuttal, in his post "Marshall is a Liar II":
He claims I "misrepresent" his book in several ways. I do not, and his claims that I do are pathetic. I did make a few mistakes in parts of my review, which I have now edited, to make it easier to understand and took out my few mistakes. Though to put it in perspective, I only had to make 4 changes total to the whole review. Hardly a 'gross misrepresentation'.
I will have his comments in bold with my response afterwards.
(1) Contrary to AA's suggestion, I offer no "hype about destroying the atheists' position" here. My goals are more limited: to refute Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. I also argue that there is good evidence for Christianity (and give a little), and that the Gospel has changed the world dramatically for the better. I do not attempt to formally refute atheism in this 210 page book.
His goal was to show why the "new atheists" are wrong and christianity is better then is often portrayed. Who cares about how I word his goal? In essence that was his goal to refute the prominent atheists! This is no argument whatsoever and is just arguing over wording. I'd also like to point out that I never did say that Marshall hyped his book as destroying the atheists' position. I simply said that was what the reviews I read said about the book; nothing Marshall said. Marshall claims that I didn't really read his book, and yet he seems to be a hypocrite once again because he didn't seem to even read my review (even though I actually did read his book)!
(2) I don't say that "skeptical historians" accept the miracles described in the Gospels as "strong evidence" for their historicity. I’m not even sure what that means.
Oh wow... don't play dumb. On pages 17-18 Marshall says, "Second, jesus often did miracles, calling them 'signs', which (even skeptical historians often admit) show strong evidence of historicity."
He is claiming that even historians admit that jesus' miracles are proof of the bible's historical truth, which is false, as I stated in my review. Now, please, tell me. Does this, or does this not, say that??? That's a direct quote.
Marshall accuses me of being affected by mirages, but his accusation has no basis. Marshall, however, seems to be suffering from amnesia because he apparently can't remember what he wrote in his own book.
In the above case in the sentence about jesus I may or may not have misread anything. I don't feel Marshall has been honest with me about it and so I do not trust his claims. Either way, I left out this passage since it's not a very important passage in his book. I go on to refute his more important claims in my review.
(3) Neither do I call science "narrow-minded." My actual point is that science is a limited way of testing reality: a point scientists in the audience (when I speak) often affirm. I also argue that broader ways of knowing, such as history, are a crucial part of any rational search for ultimate truth.
Yes he does say that science is narrow minded. He does not use that exact phrase, but he says how "we've been bamboozled into accepting (in the name of science, though not always from scientists) a lie about truth and how to find it, an untruth that narrows life and hands truth to tunnel-visioned specialists (page 16)." (Emphasis added)
He is saying that science is narrow minded...narrow in it's application, which I rebut in my post and say why it's not narrow minded...or "tunnel-visioned" since Marshall seems so anal about words. But that is how science is done, and the best way to get reliable results. Once again, I was correct in my interpretation of what Marshall was talking about. It seems that Marshall is so close-minded and clearly didn't read what I wrote that he couldn't understand that I was correct in what his argument was, and of course throws out his usual round of insults for no reason!
As I said above, I did even then understand his argument, but just as he's always done he argues against a strawman version of my counter-argument. So, despite Marshall's delusion regarding this case, I did understand his argument. I think anyone can see this. Is it any wonder I called Marshall a liar in our earlier discussions?!
(4) Nor do I say there is anything "wrong" with accepting things only on evidence! My point is just the opposite.
This is a strawman. I never said such a thing. I simply said that we accept many things without a lot evidence and I cite some examples, and I tried to show how everyday faith is different from religious faith. However, I think I know where he was mistaken about where I said, "What is wrong with accepting things only when there is evidence?" I was simply talking about how science is done...not talking about something that Marshall said specifically.
(5) I don’t assume, as AA claims, that "we can trust every word" of the Bible. That's not the sort of argument I make: I'm an empiricist, and prefer what John Polkinghorne calls a "bottoms-up" approach to understanding the Bible.
The reason I stated this was because of the many statements that Marshall makes about the reliability of the bible. He doesn't ever seem to say that the bible has any real flaws.
This comment was prompted by Marshall's claims in his book about the reliability of the gospels and the supposed accuracy and trustworthiness of them and the testimony contained therein. Again, Marshall didn't even bother to engage my actual argument.
(6) AA reports: "(Marshall) is saying that we should trust what is written in the gospels, because people wrote them, and we're supposed to trust other people."
Arizona is largely desert, no doubt subject to mirages. This appears to be one of them. I defy readers to find any such statement in any of my writings. Some people, of course, are not trustworthy at all – including, unfortunately, Arizona Atheist.
In the section where he is talking about the bible (page 18) and how historians accept miracles as evidence of the factual nature of the bible, Marshall writes, "Is it rational to believe things on the basis of human testimony (Emphasis added)? It'd be a pity if it weren't, because as Samuel Johnson put it. most of our knowledge is based on 'implied faith' in other people."
Because this statement was tied into the part talking about the bible, it appears that he was referring to the bible. But either way, I show in my review why this kind if thinking is not rational. If it's not referring to the bible, this sentence seems out of place, because what else could it be referring to? He is talking about the bible before and after this sentence. Also, the bible is human testimony.
And once again, Marshall uses a personal attack, instead of anything of real value and substance.
Is Marshall once again being deceptive here, or does he simply not know how to properly write a book?
Edit: See below my evidence to show why I strongly think Marshall was either outright lying about what he says in his book, or was simply attempting his theological bullshit in an attempt to make me somehow look foolish since he continuously likes to argue how I cannot read so didn't want to admit my correct interpretation. - This was an original edit made earlier, but I have nothing further to add, except to ask the reader to take note of Marshall's very evasive attitude. On about each and every point he claimed I hadn't understood his argument when it should be obvious to any rational person I did.
(7) True, I do argue (as AA reports) that in the Christian vocabulary, faith doesn't mean what Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett represent it as meaning, belief unsupported by evidence. Rather, faith "begins 'with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence'." AA disagrees, accusing the Christian theologians I cite (including Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas) of "a bit of a word game because faith, to my knowledge, has always meant 'belief without logical proof,'" even "as far back" as 1906. AA is free to disagree with Justin and Aquinas. (Though he should do so cautiously.) The problem is, he doesn’t appear to realize that Justin wrote in the 2nd Century, and Aquinas in the 13th. How can theologians play "a word game" by distorting a definition that would not be written for seven or seventeen centuries after their deaths?
Yes I consider it a word game, not for past theologians but modern theologians. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but either way, even in bible times, the bible's definition of faith, found in Hebrews 11:1, is "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith). My point was that even in the early 1900's faith seems to have always had that meaning, and not the one which theologians wish it had, and I wanted to know when it ever held the one they claim. It sure didn't even back as far as the early 1900's, or even bible times apparently.
Actually, as I've shown in my updated version of the review it seems Marshall is misinterpreting the texts to say something they do not, and these christians actually say the opposite.
(8) Arizona Atheist calls me a "hypocrite" for saying that churches sometimes "set young people up to lose their faith by teaching bad science." He has persuaded himself (somehow) that this is meant as a rebuke of scientists. It is actually (of course) meant as a (gentle, I hope) rebuke of some of my fellow Christians.
After rereading this section of his book I did misinterpret it when I did my review. Though, even in my original review, I state that I'm not exactly sure what Marshall is trying to say, but I think he might be saying such and such. I was tentative in my rebuttal. And, yes, Marshall is a hypocrite in several parts of his book. I detail this in some parts of my review.
This is simply one out of the very few unintentional mistakes I had made in the first draft of the review, but it has been corrected since this was pointed out to me and I reread the passage in question.
(9) Nor do I claim that the Trinity is easy to understand, or that I have a perfect handle on it. My actual point is that a quote on the Trinity by an ancient Christian thinker, which Dawkins mocks for its obscurity, seems to me both clear and lucid. I leave the reader to consider the passage for herself, and make up her own mind about the justice of Dawkins' comments. But the reviewer has (yet again) completely botched mine.
I felt that Marshall's defense of the trinity was pointless, as this is an absurd concept to begin with, and is nothing more then the historical belief in multiple gods which has not been squared away in modern christianity. At least this is my view, from my reading about the history of religion.
This comment about the trinity I left out of the updated critique of the book since it's not important.
Marshall did nothing to refute my points. He didn't seem to even understand half of what I wrote. This was a pitiful "rebuttal". Sorry for the quotes, but it seriously needs them : - )
He didn't bother to rebut even half of my points. This was just a sloppy, and poor attempt at refuting my arguments, which he didn't even come close to doing.
I also find it funny that he said that "Love of truth is something that Christians and sincere skeptics should share in common", because truth is not something religion is good for, and his book is a poor representation of the truth. If that were true religion would not have murdered so many for nothing more then telling the truth! Once again, I expose his inaccuracies about several things in my review.
I don't have much else to add. I still agree with what I said. I will add, however, this relevant point. These very few unintentional mistakes that were made a good two years ago at this point have all been fixed and not one person (even Marshall or his cohorts) have pointed out a single mistake since I fixed them. Arguments and claims to the contrary I've soundly refuted here and on Amazon.com. On the other hand, look at the tons of mistakes and misreadings that theists have made in reading Dawkins' The God Delusion or Sam Harris' The End of Faith for example. The theists' books that I've reviewed I've exposed probably about five times more errors in their books than I ever made in my initial review - and they are honestly more formally educated than I am and have more writing experience! I think that says a lot even about my very first attempt at a critique, but my most recent PDF edition firmly puts all this nonsense about errors to rest.
Below are screenshots of his blogs on amazon for reference:
UPDATE 5-21-09
Previously I had posted my evidence against David Marshall here at the end of this post, but I have decided to delete all of the pictures to save room on my Blogger account because I have copied the entirety of the evidence of Marshall’s hypocrisy and lies here.
I have just read the following on Marshall's amazon.com blog where he wrote a few critiques of my review. I will once again destroy his silly arguments.
His post "Marshall is a Liar I" is a redundant post, and does nothing to refute my arguments. As I've said before, I can be harsh but fair. There are a few times in my review where I applaud Marshall's honesty on a very few topics. His is a gross misrepresentation of my review.
Now on to his attempted rebuttal, in his post "Marshall is a Liar II":
He claims I "misrepresent" his book in several ways. I do not, and his claims that I do are pathetic. I did make a few mistakes in parts of my review, which I have now edited, to make it easier to understand and took out my few mistakes. Though to put it in perspective, I only had to make 4 changes total to the whole review. Hardly a 'gross misrepresentation'.
I will have his comments in bold with my response afterwards.
(1) Contrary to AA's suggestion, I offer no "hype about destroying the atheists' position" here. My goals are more limited: to refute Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. I also argue that there is good evidence for Christianity (and give a little), and that the Gospel has changed the world dramatically for the better. I do not attempt to formally refute atheism in this 210 page book.
His goal was to show why the "new atheists" are wrong and christianity is better then is often portrayed. Who cares about how I word his goal? In essence that was his goal to refute the prominent atheists! This is no argument whatsoever and is just arguing over wording. I'd also like to point out that I never did say that Marshall hyped his book as destroying the atheists' position. I simply said that was what the reviews I read said about the book; nothing Marshall said. Marshall claims that I didn't really read his book, and yet he seems to be a hypocrite once again because he didn't seem to even read my review (even though I actually did read his book)!
(2) I don't say that "skeptical historians" accept the miracles described in the Gospels as "strong evidence" for their historicity. I’m not even sure what that means.
Oh wow... don't play dumb. On pages 17-18 Marshall says, "Second, jesus often did miracles, calling them 'signs', which (even skeptical historians often admit) show strong evidence of historicity."
He is claiming that even historians admit that jesus' miracles are proof of the bible's historical truth, which is false, as I stated in my review. Now, please, tell me. Does this, or does this not, say that??? That's a direct quote.
Marshall accuses me of being affected by mirages, but his accusation has no basis. Marshall, however, seems to be suffering from amnesia because he apparently can't remember what he wrote in his own book.
In the above case in the sentence about jesus I may or may not have misread anything. I don't feel Marshall has been honest with me about it and so I do not trust his claims. Either way, I left out this passage since it's not a very important passage in his book. I go on to refute his more important claims in my review.
(3) Neither do I call science "narrow-minded." My actual point is that science is a limited way of testing reality: a point scientists in the audience (when I speak) often affirm. I also argue that broader ways of knowing, such as history, are a crucial part of any rational search for ultimate truth.
Yes he does say that science is narrow minded. He does not use that exact phrase, but he says how "we've been bamboozled into accepting (in the name of science, though not always from scientists) a lie about truth and how to find it, an untruth that narrows life and hands truth to tunnel-visioned specialists (page 16)." (Emphasis added)
He is saying that science is narrow minded...narrow in it's application, which I rebut in my post and say why it's not narrow minded...or "tunnel-visioned" since Marshall seems so anal about words. But that is how science is done, and the best way to get reliable results. Once again, I was correct in my interpretation of what Marshall was talking about. It seems that Marshall is so close-minded and clearly didn't read what I wrote that he couldn't understand that I was correct in what his argument was, and of course throws out his usual round of insults for no reason!
As I said above, I did even then understand his argument, but just as he's always done he argues against a strawman version of my counter-argument. So, despite Marshall's delusion regarding this case, I did understand his argument. I think anyone can see this. Is it any wonder I called Marshall a liar in our earlier discussions?!
(4) Nor do I say there is anything "wrong" with accepting things only on evidence! My point is just the opposite.
This is a strawman. I never said such a thing. I simply said that we accept many things without a lot evidence and I cite some examples, and I tried to show how everyday faith is different from religious faith. However, I think I know where he was mistaken about where I said, "What is wrong with accepting things only when there is evidence?" I was simply talking about how science is done...not talking about something that Marshall said specifically.
(5) I don’t assume, as AA claims, that "we can trust every word" of the Bible. That's not the sort of argument I make: I'm an empiricist, and prefer what John Polkinghorne calls a "bottoms-up" approach to understanding the Bible.
The reason I stated this was because of the many statements that Marshall makes about the reliability of the bible. He doesn't ever seem to say that the bible has any real flaws.
This comment was prompted by Marshall's claims in his book about the reliability of the gospels and the supposed accuracy and trustworthiness of them and the testimony contained therein. Again, Marshall didn't even bother to engage my actual argument.
(6) AA reports: "(Marshall) is saying that we should trust what is written in the gospels, because people wrote them, and we're supposed to trust other people."
Arizona is largely desert, no doubt subject to mirages. This appears to be one of them. I defy readers to find any such statement in any of my writings. Some people, of course, are not trustworthy at all – including, unfortunately, Arizona Atheist.
In the section where he is talking about the bible (page 18) and how historians accept miracles as evidence of the factual nature of the bible, Marshall writes, "Is it rational to believe things on the basis of human testimony (Emphasis added)? It'd be a pity if it weren't, because as Samuel Johnson put it. most of our knowledge is based on 'implied faith' in other people."
Because this statement was tied into the part talking about the bible, it appears that he was referring to the bible. But either way, I show in my review why this kind if thinking is not rational. If it's not referring to the bible, this sentence seems out of place, because what else could it be referring to? He is talking about the bible before and after this sentence. Also, the bible is human testimony.
And once again, Marshall uses a personal attack, instead of anything of real value and substance.
Is Marshall once again being deceptive here, or does he simply not know how to properly write a book?
Edit: See below my evidence to show why I strongly think Marshall was either outright lying about what he says in his book, or was simply attempting his theological bullshit in an attempt to make me somehow look foolish since he continuously likes to argue how I cannot read so didn't want to admit my correct interpretation. - This was an original edit made earlier, but I have nothing further to add, except to ask the reader to take note of Marshall's very evasive attitude. On about each and every point he claimed I hadn't understood his argument when it should be obvious to any rational person I did.
(7) True, I do argue (as AA reports) that in the Christian vocabulary, faith doesn't mean what Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett represent it as meaning, belief unsupported by evidence. Rather, faith "begins 'with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence'." AA disagrees, accusing the Christian theologians I cite (including Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas) of "a bit of a word game because faith, to my knowledge, has always meant 'belief without logical proof,'" even "as far back" as 1906. AA is free to disagree with Justin and Aquinas. (Though he should do so cautiously.) The problem is, he doesn’t appear to realize that Justin wrote in the 2nd Century, and Aquinas in the 13th. How can theologians play "a word game" by distorting a definition that would not be written for seven or seventeen centuries after their deaths?
Yes I consider it a word game, not for past theologians but modern theologians. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but either way, even in bible times, the bible's definition of faith, found in Hebrews 11:1, is "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith). My point was that even in the early 1900's faith seems to have always had that meaning, and not the one which theologians wish it had, and I wanted to know when it ever held the one they claim. It sure didn't even back as far as the early 1900's, or even bible times apparently.
Actually, as I've shown in my updated version of the review it seems Marshall is misinterpreting the texts to say something they do not, and these christians actually say the opposite.
(8) Arizona Atheist calls me a "hypocrite" for saying that churches sometimes "set young people up to lose their faith by teaching bad science." He has persuaded himself (somehow) that this is meant as a rebuke of scientists. It is actually (of course) meant as a (gentle, I hope) rebuke of some of my fellow Christians.
After rereading this section of his book I did misinterpret it when I did my review. Though, even in my original review, I state that I'm not exactly sure what Marshall is trying to say, but I think he might be saying such and such. I was tentative in my rebuttal. And, yes, Marshall is a hypocrite in several parts of his book. I detail this in some parts of my review.
This is simply one out of the very few unintentional mistakes I had made in the first draft of the review, but it has been corrected since this was pointed out to me and I reread the passage in question.
(9) Nor do I claim that the Trinity is easy to understand, or that I have a perfect handle on it. My actual point is that a quote on the Trinity by an ancient Christian thinker, which Dawkins mocks for its obscurity, seems to me both clear and lucid. I leave the reader to consider the passage for herself, and make up her own mind about the justice of Dawkins' comments. But the reviewer has (yet again) completely botched mine.
I felt that Marshall's defense of the trinity was pointless, as this is an absurd concept to begin with, and is nothing more then the historical belief in multiple gods which has not been squared away in modern christianity. At least this is my view, from my reading about the history of religion.
This comment about the trinity I left out of the updated critique of the book since it's not important.
Marshall did nothing to refute my points. He didn't seem to even understand half of what I wrote. This was a pitiful "rebuttal". Sorry for the quotes, but it seriously needs them : - )
He didn't bother to rebut even half of my points. This was just a sloppy, and poor attempt at refuting my arguments, which he didn't even come close to doing.
I also find it funny that he said that "Love of truth is something that Christians and sincere skeptics should share in common", because truth is not something religion is good for, and his book is a poor representation of the truth. If that were true religion would not have murdered so many for nothing more then telling the truth! Once again, I expose his inaccuracies about several things in my review.
I don't have much else to add. I still agree with what I said. I will add, however, this relevant point. These very few unintentional mistakes that were made a good two years ago at this point have all been fixed and not one person (even Marshall or his cohorts) have pointed out a single mistake since I fixed them. Arguments and claims to the contrary I've soundly refuted here and on Amazon.com. On the other hand, look at the tons of mistakes and misreadings that theists have made in reading Dawkins' The God Delusion or Sam Harris' The End of Faith for example. The theists' books that I've reviewed I've exposed probably about five times more errors in their books than I ever made in my initial review - and they are honestly more formally educated than I am and have more writing experience! I think that says a lot even about my very first attempt at a critique, but my most recent PDF edition firmly puts all this nonsense about errors to rest.
Below are screenshots of his blogs on amazon for reference:
UPDATE 5-21-09
Previously I had posted my evidence against David Marshall here at the end of this post, but I have decided to delete all of the pictures to save room on my Blogger account because I have copied the entirety of the evidence of Marshall’s hypocrisy and lies here.
David Marshall: The Cry Baby!
I just saw on David Marshall's amazon.com blog page, located here, where he mentions me and my review of his book.
As usual, Marshall doesn't defend his book; only claims that people misrepresent what he says, and how people don't really read it. He claims that I have personally attacked him (I'm assuming since he named me personally, he is referring to my review as well) in my review. I do no such thing. You can go read my review here to see for yourself. I do make fun of him at times, but I am honest, and I say what I think. I don't just use personal attacks. I never do. If I think someone is ignorant, I will say so, but also say why. That is not a personal attack. That's just stating the obvious!
Edit: I should say that since this post I have written my final (2ed) draft of my refutation of Marshall's book and in it, I do use some vulgar language in this updated review. But did no such thing in the original. The third draft of my review does have some language in it, however I’ve since written an edited (and final) version that includes more arguments and I edited out the language.
I did my best to make sure I had sources for my information and last I checked they are all working. I submitted my review at Richard Dawkins' website for people to point out any errors I might of made or any other advice on something I may have missed, and I got stellar reviews of it.
Marshall's only disappointed that I trashed his book and is trying to reclaim his credibility, because I pointed out many errors of his. I debated him some at amazon.com, but he could not give me one good argument for why I was wrong; he only used the logical fallacy of an argument from authority, saying that because some evolutionist supposedly said his statement was accurate he was correct in his statement, but that doesn't make it so. He must have facts, but he didn't bring up any. We didn't even get to the other problems with his review, like his taking out of context some of the things Richard Dawkins says in his book, The god Delusion, several times.
I expose this, and several other errors in Marshall's pitiful book.
Here is the screenshot of Marshall's silly little whining session:
One last observation about my "debate" with Marshall. One other person was going back and forth with me who went by the name of J.R. This person hadn't even read the book, and he was trying to tell me how wrong I was! I couldn't believe it. The funny thing was, this guy was pretty much doing Marshall's debating for him. Marshall pretty much just stood behind this guy saying things like, (and I'm paraphrasing here)'Yeah you should listen to J.R.; you don't know what you're talking about. He hasn't even read the book, and understands my arguments better then you.' Pure bullshit. What''s wrong Marshall? Can't fight your own battles?
I still hope he comes to my blog to properly point out why I'm wrong on each of my points. With all of his talk, you'd think he would be more willing to try and refute me, point by point, but he doesn't. I see this as intellectual cowardice at its finest here!
UPDATE! 2-6-08
Well, a few days ago I went to amazon.com and saw that Marshall did reply to a few things in my review, though I can hardly call it a rebuttal. He made some of the most redundant points, which he wasn't even correct on in the first place! I rebut his absurd arguments in a newer post called David Marshall's Attempted Rebuttals.
UPDATE! 6-18-08
I figured I'd go ahead and point out an error that "J.R." made in my debate with him. He had claimed that genetic drift should help change the human population, and that is a flaw of evolutionary theory. David Marshall, as I pointed out above, basically stood behind this person and said 'Yeah, yeah, see I told you that you were wrong.' Nope, sorry. J.R. was actually very wrong. I wasn't able to find any information about genetic drift at that time, but since then I have found some information at the TalkOrigins.org (I also confirmed this with a few people at Richard Dawkins' evolution forum on his site) website that stated that genetic drift can have a dramatic effect upon small populations, but very little, if any, on large ones. The human population is anything but small. So, it would seem that not only was Marshall proved wrong (he wasn't even able to defend his position!) but his foolish defender was also. Well, that's what you get when you leave a theist (I read posts by J.R. at amazon.com stating that he had degrees in theology but none, if I recall, in biology) to do a scientist's job!
Update - 3-22-10
Well, I was browsing these old posts and clicked on the link to David Marshall's Amazon.com blog and found that a few weeks later he edited his post to exclude any mention of me so no one can check out the truthfulness (and his distortion) of some of the critiques he mentions of mine. I wonder why...
Perhaps he doesn't want to draw any attention to them so people won't come to my blog to read my devastating arguments against his case? Who knows...
Below is a screenshot of the current page taken today.
As usual, Marshall doesn't defend his book; only claims that people misrepresent what he says, and how people don't really read it. He claims that I have personally attacked him (I'm assuming since he named me personally, he is referring to my review as well) in my review. I do no such thing. You can go read my review here to see for yourself. I do make fun of him at times, but I am honest, and I say what I think. I don't just use personal attacks. I never do. If I think someone is ignorant, I will say so, but also say why. That is not a personal attack. That's just stating the obvious!
I did my best to make sure I had sources for my information and last I checked they are all working. I submitted my review at Richard Dawkins' website for people to point out any errors I might of made or any other advice on something I may have missed, and I got stellar reviews of it.
Marshall's only disappointed that I trashed his book and is trying to reclaim his credibility, because I pointed out many errors of his. I debated him some at amazon.com, but he could not give me one good argument for why I was wrong; he only used the logical fallacy of an argument from authority, saying that because some evolutionist supposedly said his statement was accurate he was correct in his statement, but that doesn't make it so. He must have facts, but he didn't bring up any. We didn't even get to the other problems with his review, like his taking out of context some of the things Richard Dawkins says in his book, The god Delusion, several times.
I expose this, and several other errors in Marshall's pitiful book.
Here is the screenshot of Marshall's silly little whining session:
One last observation about my "debate" with Marshall. One other person was going back and forth with me who went by the name of J.R. This person hadn't even read the book, and he was trying to tell me how wrong I was! I couldn't believe it. The funny thing was, this guy was pretty much doing Marshall's debating for him. Marshall pretty much just stood behind this guy saying things like, (and I'm paraphrasing here)'Yeah you should listen to J.R.; you don't know what you're talking about. He hasn't even read the book, and understands my arguments better then you.' Pure bullshit. What''s wrong Marshall? Can't fight your own battles?
I still hope he comes to my blog to properly point out why I'm wrong on each of my points. With all of his talk, you'd think he would be more willing to try and refute me, point by point, but he doesn't. I see this as intellectual cowardice at its finest here!
UPDATE! 2-6-08
Well, a few days ago I went to amazon.com and saw that Marshall did reply to a few things in my review, though I can hardly call it a rebuttal. He made some of the most redundant points, which he wasn't even correct on in the first place! I rebut his absurd arguments in a newer post called David Marshall's Attempted Rebuttals.
UPDATE! 6-18-08
I figured I'd go ahead and point out an error that "J.R." made in my debate with him. He had claimed that genetic drift should help change the human population, and that is a flaw of evolutionary theory. David Marshall, as I pointed out above, basically stood behind this person and said 'Yeah, yeah, see I told you that you were wrong.' Nope, sorry. J.R. was actually very wrong. I wasn't able to find any information about genetic drift at that time, but since then I have found some information at the TalkOrigins.org (I also confirmed this with a few people at Richard Dawkins' evolution forum on his site) website that stated that genetic drift can have a dramatic effect upon small populations, but very little, if any, on large ones. The human population is anything but small. So, it would seem that not only was Marshall proved wrong (he wasn't even able to defend his position!) but his foolish defender was also. Well, that's what you get when you leave a theist (I read posts by J.R. at amazon.com stating that he had degrees in theology but none, if I recall, in biology) to do a scientist's job!
Update - 3-22-10
Well, I was browsing these old posts and clicked on the link to David Marshall's Amazon.com blog and found that a few weeks later he edited his post to exclude any mention of me so no one can check out the truthfulness (and his distortion) of some of the critiques he mentions of mine. I wonder why...
Perhaps he doesn't want to draw any attention to them so people won't come to my blog to read my devastating arguments against his case? Who knows...
Below is a screenshot of the current page taken today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)