{"id":7719,"date":"2026-08-10T10:11:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T09:11:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/meerkatmusings.co.uk\/?p=7719"},"modified":"2026-08-10T10:11:23","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T09:11:23","slug":"the-meerkat-responds-fear-of-evidence-p2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/meerkatmusings.co.uk\/?p=7719","title":{"rendered":"The Meerkat Responds: Fear of Evidence, P2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Having made my point about professionalism, I waited to see if Mr Thiessen would adjust his attitude, and thus make any kind of conversation\/debate worth pursuing. His comment on my post contained a rare admission on his part that his behaviour is motivated by aggression, cowardice and pride, though he is also unrepentent in his approach. It therefore seems futile to continue any kind of debate or discussion over the subject of dating and science, but as I’d taken the time to write this all out, it would feel like a shame to waste that effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On to his response to me, let’s see what has upset him so much:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
(People Who Do Not Know) What they are talking about should not be talking about an archaeological subject. This is one of our pet peeves, as so many amateurs out there only regurgitate what someone else has said., They do not understand the full implications of the topic but use the information to bully or browbeat those they disagree with. Case in point:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Sadly, there is a great deal if irony here. Mr Thiessen has not, to my knowledge, demonstrated his archaeological credentials, and spends a lot of his time merely repeating what others have previous written, adding nothing to it but mere opinion, something which shall become obvious during the course of his post. He vainly appeals to authority, yet offers little of substance, and he is quick to become aggressive if his argumetnts are contradicted or refuted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Thiessen goes on to quote this passage of mine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Right, I should mention that this post has nothing to do with the science of romance! Nor I am not the best person to ask for dating advice! I\u2019ve not been too sure how to classify this post, since it is also a response of sorts, and it might look at the problem of creationist pseudo-science as well. What I instead refer to is how people date the past. Archaeologists \u2013 good ones at least \u2013 have a variety of tools at their disposal, and will use them to get a reasonable idea as to how old any given set of remains is. It does not give one hundred percent answers, but that doesn\u2019t mean those answers should be rejected. Science is rarely about absolutes. In most fields, be it biology, chemistry or physics, we are constantly learning. New experiments lead conclusions both expected and unexpected, which in turn lead to new tests, which lead to new conclusions, and so on.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
It is not without irony that he then issues the next few paragraphs…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
The author of those words has a big bias against those who believe in creation. This bias lead shim to just regurgitate the anti-creationist party line. You can see that act in how he says nothing new about any science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What adds to the problem is that he just blindly accepts what the scientists say without any research on his own. In his mind, the secular scientists said it, so I believe it. That is not how science is to be conducted, nor should writing about science be done in this manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are a host of problems with the scientific dating systems that are covered over by this glossy quoted comment. That quoted comment just provides more excuses for scientists and archaeologists to avoid finding the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Archaeologists and scientists have long hidden behind those excuses to protect their reputations, their careers, and their ability to publish. Instead of helping to protect their lack of effort, people should be challenging modern scientific methods to produce better and more honest results.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The biggest irony is that Mr Thiessen accepts without hesitation or question, anything that validates his narrow, literal view of the Bible, and only attempts meaningful scrutiny of information and evidence that contradicts his view. Worse, he does not provide actual evidence for the flaws he alleges exists with the scientific method. He merely states that it has problems, and from there, demands that everyone is compliant with his belief on science. He has not carried out research, and is not qualified to lecture on the various subjects he has written about, yet thinks his arguments should be accepted without hesitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He fails to understand that my acceptance of information via the scientific method has not come about from rigid dogma, because the scientific method does not operate on a rigid dogma. The scientists who perform experiments of various kinds don’t ignore results they don’t like in order to force specific, preferred conclusions. Mr Thiessen on the other hand, demands that scientists ignore the results of impartial and neutral study, if those results do not align with his narrow vision. Who is therefore being blind?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same is true with studying the past. We learn stuff that we might expect, and also that we don\u2019t expect, but what we don\u2019t do is throw the baby out with the bath water if an experiment yields something we didn\u2019t expect, or for whatever reason, don\u2019t like. (Ibid)<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
This is more proof that the quoted author knows nothing about what he is talking. He just likes to publish generic babble because he does not like what someone else has said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Further irony. A cursory look at both of Mr Thiessen’s sites shows he shares a lot of material purely to be objectionable, especially where his precious worldview is threatened. He didn’t like my post about dinosaurs, so he whinged. He didn’t like that I dared to criticise creationism and its faulty mindset, so he issued a lengthy, yet vapid response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n