2004-04-13T15:21:00.000-07:00

A skeptic by the who goes by the name of Broxident on the web wrote:

"So why do you believe Turkel links to some skeptics' replies and not to other replies, like those from Holtz and Till?"

and

"So you think it is just coincidental that Turkel does not link to the replies of his best critics?"

I replied:

"Again and again it seems like a central allegation of yours is that Mr. Till is one of Turkel's "best critics" and that Turkel is stonewalling Mr. Till because Holding is afraid of Till.

I suspect if Mr. Till were here he would agree with me with the principle of "he who asserts must prove." I suspect he would because I read the debate transcripts of the Horner-Till debate regarding the resurrection given at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/horner-till/index.shtml in Mr. Till maintains the principle of "he who assert must prove" is a valid principle. Of course, it is also true that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I could give several examples [ stars which were not visible with the naked eye existed before the telescope, etc).

Now you maintain strongly that Till is Holding "best critic" yet I have seen no demonstration of this that is compelling. In fact, I clearly showed that Till blatently and intentionally withheld key testimony in regards to his commentary on the 1975 Grzimek's Encyclopedia in regards to Grzimek's saying that "hyraxes even ruminate". You seem to be in denial regarding your heros behavior. You ask me if I am certain that Till definitely knew that Grzimek's said that "hyraxes even ruminate." Of course, I would say that Till certainly was very clear that the Grzimek's 1975 reference did NOT say the hyrax was a ruminant. Till was very emphatic about this as can be seen here:

"Jackson's final act of desperation was a claim that Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia has "classified the hare as a ruminant" and "considers the hyrax (coney) as a ruminant." His reference (1975, pp. 421, 422) did not cite a volume number, but I read these page numbers, as well as the entire sections about rabbits, hares, and hyrexes, in volume 12 and found no attempt to classify either the hare or the hyrax as ruminants. If Mr. Jackson will send us a specific reference and the exact quotation that classifies hares and hyraxes as ruminants, we will publish it in a future issue."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2biolo91.html

Now how would Till be so certain what it did NOT say if he did not in fact know what Grzimek's DID say! You will notice that Mr. Till asked for an "exact quotation"! Again the 1975 Grzimek's says that "hyraxes even ruminate" for those who want the whole story and do not want information withheld.

Broxident you ask me if hyraxes ruminate. I would say that hyraxes may or may not ruminate. I clearly gave sources which gave both sides via commentary and/or links. Also, hyraxes may or may not practice merycism as I demonstated above.

Now here is a good question? How does Holding compare to Till in his performance on this issue?

Let us take a look at Holding and see if he offers more comprehensive commentary that reflects the nuances of this issue:

www.tektonics.org/TK-LEV.html

If you look at Holding's sources you will see a diversity of views reflected regarding the linguistics and the science and in each case there is support given. Also, there is nothing hidden.

Now this issue of the hare/hyrax/cud is brought up continually by skeptics if you visit the skeptic sites. Clearly, if Mr. Till is a authority on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible Mr. Till should offer the type of commentary that an authority would be expected to offer on this issue. I am forced to admit though that Mr. Till falls short in terms of breadth and in terms of his transparency on this issue.

In summary, I would say that if Mr. Till is Holding's "best critic" then Mr. Holding is truly blessed. I do not believe, however, that Mr. Till demonstates the reasonableness that a judicious scholar would demonstrate. I would admit, however, that Mr. Till is obsessed or at least used to be obsessed with Mr. Holding and that Mr. Holding gave more attention to Mr. Till than he frankly deserved. I am glad that Mr. Holding is now spending more time engaging with discussants of the "skeptical side of the aisle" who demonstrate a higher level of reasonableness. I think it is far more productive in terms of refining the public's knowledge and understanding in regards to the atheism/Christian debate."

Holdingandcritic