The Skeptical Review Online - Where's The Land? / Part One

Turkel:
Key:

Initial argument by opponent
Our first response
**Response by our opponent (double star at beginning of section)
**Our second response (in same section)

Till:
I will change the ** to whatever name is needed to make the identity of the writer clear to readers. Otherwise, there would be some places where backing up and rereading would be necessary to sort out who has said what. In providing these markers, I will use Till(YFLP) to identify quotations from my original article. Turkel(1) and Turkel(2) and Till(1) and Till(2) will then be used. The (1) will refer to comments or arguments that were presented in our first round of exchanges, and (2) will refer to new arguments or comments in round two. If I choose to add a comment to what I said in a Till(1) or first-round statement, I will label it Till(B).

Turkel(2):
Our opponent uses my real name; I will substitute my writing name for the sake of continuity.

Till(2):
"Our opponent" will change Turkel's "writing name" back to his real name, which for some reason he keeps hiding behind, even though he has been laid off from his prison job and does not not have to live in constant fear that some released convict will come after Robert Turkel for writing internet articles in defense of the Bible.

Turkel(2):
Find the reading tedious?

Till(2):
It didn't need to be tedious. If Turkel had cut out all of his cut-and-pasted references to "fluff," "irrelevant distractions," "set up," and transitional sentences, he could have made his reply 1,353 words shorter by just the elimination of these "irrelevant distractions."

Furthermore, as I will soon explain, if Turkel had cooperated in the negotiating of a written agreement prior to the debate, we would have had guidelines that would have explained what should and should not have been quoted in his "reply" to my article. These guidelines would have prevented the farce that Turkel has turned this debate into.

To say that the reading of this debate has now become "tedious" is an absurd understatement. By the time I finished my replies to Turkel's "reply" to just Part One of my first-round submission, I had used 33,400 words. If I followed this procedure to reply to Turkel's cut-and-pasted comments to the other five parts of my first-round responses, the finished product would contain around 200,000 words. This is an obviously ridiculous situation that was created by Turkel's refusal to negotiate guidelines, which I will discuss shortly. If, however, readers will bear with me through the first three of my second-round responses, at the end of Part Three, I will explain how I intend to give Turkel a lesson in the standard procedures of written debating so that the rest of my second-round responses will strip away all of his diversions and distractions and get down to the nitty gritty of the issue we are supposed to be debating. This will be done without denying his audience access to anything that he writes on this subject.

Turkel(2):
Before our next upload we will present a "95% fluff-free" version of this article here which we will challenge our opponent to examine, and prove that our editing in any way affects the substance of his arguments.

Till(2):
I recommend that readers take a look at Turkel's idea of "fluff-free", Trick or Treat, Got Some Bread. From an article of 5,463 words, he gutted 5,360 words and actually quoted only 103 words directly from the article. Here and there, he purported to "summarize" my points in one to two sentences, and these "summations" probably totaled no more than 200 words. I urge readers to read Give Us This Day, Our Daily Dodge Part One and Part Two, my replies to Turkel's supposed solutions to the discrepancies I had identified in my original article. Those who do may get their eyes opened to Turkel's appallingly bad "apologetics." They will see that "fluff" is usually that which Turkel can't answer without positing silly scenarios.

Turkel(1):
Our focus is the article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" (TSR 1991/1) in which it was argued that the Biblical "land promises" to Abraham and his descendants were not fulfilled by God in the Israelite conquest. As formulated the article addressed only the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject. Questions of the historicity of the Conquest, or the propriety of driving out and/or killing the inhabitants of Canaan, were not addressed at all, and will not be addressed here. Readers should bear in mind that in any replies to this essay, any resort by our opponent to any subject other than that addressed in "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" -- that is, the internal consistency of the Biblical record on this subject -- can and will be taken as, and treated as evidence of, lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Turkel(2):
Not surprisinly [sic], our opponent immediately does as I have predicted and embarks upon a spate of diversions completely unrelated to the issue of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" thereby offering at once evidence of his inability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.

Till(2):
I'm sure that those who read my replies to Turkel clearly saw that I was easily able to rebut Turkel's fanciful, how-it-could-have-been "solutions" to the land-promise problem. I emphasized the introductory references to prophecy in my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" only to make readers aware of Turkel's obvious reluctance to debate the issue of Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies, a reluctance that I had discovered in personal correspondence with him. Why shouldn't his admirers be told that which he would never tell them himself? As I will soon explain, Turkel wouldn't cooperate in negotiating an agreement on guidelines before the debate began, so I have violated nothing by pointing this out to the readers, because there was no debating agreement to violate.

Till(1):
Turkel need not worry that I will evade his attempts to rebut my arguments in the article he attempted to reply to.

Turkel(2):
No worry is present. What I have offered is a pertinent clinical observation concerning our opponent's usual methodology in the face of issues where his knowledge and argumentative capability are severely taxed, and we see already that our opponent has proceeded in his usual fashion: i.e., using the word "attempted" to describe our reply in a manipulative way to instill doubt.

Till(2):
The proof of the plum is in the pudding, and I cannot think of words that could accurately express how satisfied I am with my rebuttal of Turkel's attempt to resolve the land- promise problem. My only regret is that so much time had to be wasted on Turkel's cut-and-pasted repetitions about "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions." I'm perfectly willing to let the record speak for itself. This second round will only drive the wooden stake deeper into Turkel's heart. He may fool gullible readers who have never given 10 minutes of serious study to the land-promise failure, but those who have looked into the issue will have no difficulty seeing that Turkel grasped for straws and missed.

Turkel(2):
As before we stress that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than that he wishes to score debate points with a skeptical readership easily distracted by such tactics.

Till(2):
If Turkel resumes this line of distraction in this round, I will answer only with "straw man," because that is what it is. It has no relevance at all to the issue being debated.

Till(1)
He will see that there are very specific replies to every one of his points, so he will get more "replying" from me than he wanted.

Turkel(2):
This is a very nice statement of our opponent's intentions, but as what matters is whether he fulfills the promise or not, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Straw man!

Till(1):
I have read through his attempt to show that Yahweh's land promises to the descendants of Abraham failed miserably, so why would I want to miss an opportunity to expose him as a would-be apologist who just doesn't have what it takes to defend biblical inerrancy?

Till(2)
Turkel didn't even notice the miswording in my statement. In his reply to my article, he didn't attempt to show that Yahweh's land promises to the descendants of Abraham had failed miserably. He was attempting to do the exact opposite. Because of the eagerness of me and my associates to get our new website on line, my rebuttals of Turkel's "reply" were posted before I had proofread them as carefully as I like to do. I later edited my replies and changed the statement above to read like this: "I have read through his miserable failure to show that Yahweh's land promise to the descendants of Abraham was fulfilled...."

I have long suspected that Turkel doesn't read very carefully what he is replying to, and his failure to spot my error confirms it. He is probably more eager to hack out a "reply" than to take the time to absorb what his opponents have written, because he knows that he is preaching to a group that would praise him even if he posted his shopping list.

Turkel(2):
It should be patently obvious that our opponent has read through our material, for otherwise he presumably would not have issued a response.

Till(2):
Well, Turkel has "issued a response" too, but as I just showed, he wasn't too attentive in his reading, so a "response" to an article doesn‘t really mean that the respondent has satisfactorily answered an opponent's arguments or rebuttals. In the articles Give Us This Day, Our Daily Dodge Part One and Part Two and Yes, Why Didn't They Know I have demonstrated that Turkel's attempt to rebut two of my articles were so superficial in their scope that they barely scratched the surface of the issues. I will show later that Turkel is now making excuses for not putting links on his site so that his readers will know about my rebuttals. That has always been my primary complaint about Turkel. He attacks others on his website but doesn't let his readers know about those who reply to him.

Turkel(2):
It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent,

Till(2):
This is a repetition of Turkel's straw man, but early in this second round, I'm going to take the time to explain to everyone that all of Turkel's rantings about "superfluous commentary" could have been completely avoided if he had only cooperated with me in negotiating a written agreement on rules, guidelines, and standards that would have given structure to the debate. On 5/20/02, I initiated an attempt to negotiate such an agreement by sending him the following guideline proposals. I have omitted numbers 1 and 2, because they pertained to a ridiculous proposition that Turkel originally wanted to debate but later withdrew.

3. Each participant agrees to publish all exchanges in their entireties on their internet sites.

4. Each participant agrees to include all links that the participants refer to in their exchanges.

5. Each participant agrees to reply to all arguments and rebuttals made by the other.

6. If a participant overlooks an opponent's argument or rebuttal, he will reply to it after receiving notification that the argument/rebuttal was not answered.

7. Both participants agree to refrain from argumentation by asserting, question begging, or special pleading.

8. The participants agree to negotiate precisely worded propositions before a debate on an issue begins.

9. The affirmative debater agrees to define all key words in his proposition at the beginning of the debate so that the audience will know what the issue is in that part of the debates.

10. Both participants agree that their exchanges will be uncopyrighted so that anyone who wishes to publish them may do so as long as the published copies do not delete or add anything to the exchanges as they were presented by the participants.

11. The guideline immediately above will not exclude the right to correct grammatical or spelling mistakes after the exchanges have been posted.

12. Both participants agree to sign written copies of the guidelines and propositions after they have been agreed upon.

Numbers 3-6 would have easily eliminated the straw-man issues about "fluff," "irrelevant distractions," and "superfluous commentary" that Turkel has wasted so much of our time on, because Numbers 3 and 4 would have guaranteed that the full texts submitted by both participants would have been available to the debating audience. Number 5 would have enabled either of us to reply to the other's arguments or points without quoting transitional or "set-up" statements or anything considered "fluff" that just introduced arguments or points. Then number 5 would have guaranteed that if either of us overlooked an argument or point, the other could state the oversight after which the opponent would have to reply to the argument or else violate the written agreement.

These guidelines were proposed from my background of decades of experience in formal public debating, both oral and written, so the guidelines were entirely reasonable. Turkel was entitled to present a counterproposal, but instead he left with the discussions still in progress and posted his farcical "reply" to my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." The debate quickly lost guidance and structure, and the blame for this rests entirely on Turkel, who amateurishly and unilaterally began a debate without first reaching an agreement with his opponent. The result has been the mess that I am now replying to.

Turkel(2):
other than, as is clear, he needs the distracting commentary ("miserably", "would-be apologist", "doesn't have what it takes") to shore up his case, which otherwise apparently would not stand on its own without decoration.

Till(2):
I do wish Turkel would learn how to use the American system of punctuation. His use of the British method is... well, distracting. As for his comments about my "needs" to shore up my case with the expressions he quoted above, I have to wonder if Turkel read my first-round references to the pot calling the kettle black. Each time he makes a remark like this, I'm going to quote the "pot" to show everyone that he is a fine one to make complaints like this. Here are some quotations from his attempt to rebut my article "Why Didn't They Know?" which I have replied to at Yes, Why Didn't They Know .

When Farrell Till can't find mistakes in the Bible, he tries to make one appear by hook or by crook.

But we have long learned not to expect consistency of thought from Till when he thinks that there are sound bites to be bitten.

Till first takes the occassion [sic] to issue the usual dirge that the OT didn't predict the resurrection at all; for that matter we presently refer the reader here to show just how few hermeneutical hints Farrell has.

Were the disciples indeed so dense? Probably not -- and Farrell is missing some points here, mainly because, as usual, he lacks the substantive training needed to get the point.

(W)e need to address one more set of points before we bop Farrell on the head with the answer.

Compared to other comments on his website, these are relatively mild, but anyone who has browsed on his site knows that it drips with sarcasm, yet when a skeptic speaks of his failures as an "apologist," he seems to take offense. As I said before, consistency is not one of Turkel's virtues.

Till(1):
That is really no personal insult to him, because the fact is that biblical inerrancy is completely indefensible, so it isn't his intellectual level that is the problem but the ridiculous position that he attempts to defend.

Turkel(2):
The backhanded compliment is appreciated, but we nevertheless maintain that it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Then why quote it? Well, Turkel has to keep pounding away on his straw man to take attention away from his repeated failure to establish consistency in what the biblical texts say about Yahweh‘s land promises.

Till(1):
I wish I knew why people who are perfectly intelligent in most matters take complete leave of their senses when religious beliefs are involved.

Turkel(2):
This is a very nice expression of our opponent's personal sentiments, but it adds nothing to the discussion other than a transparent attempt to score debate points,

Till(2):
Well, were his comments that I just quoted above from his website "transparent attempt(s) to score debate points"? Keep in mind that consistency is not one of Turkel's virtues. Keep in mind also that if Turkel had cooperated in reaching an agreement on guidelines prior to the debate, all of his complaints about "fluff," "superfluous commentary," etc. would have been unnecessary. He could have cut to the chase in answering my article and replied only to what pertained directly to my proposition that Yahweh's land promise had failed.

Turkel(2):
and as such, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Straw man! Before I finish my second-round rebuttals, I will do a count to determine how many words Turkel wasted this time on repeating this "irrelevant distraction." If Turkel had cooperated in reaching an agreement on guidelines, he could have passed over "superfluous commentary" without having to make his own superfluous commentary.

Till(1):
Before I proceed to rebut his counterarguments, I must first take the time to point out that Turkel has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to.

Turkel(2):
As we predicted, our opponent engages in an irrelevant distraction. The presence of links is of no relevance to the issue of Yahweh's Land Promise,

Till(2):
But it does make a significant statement about Turkel's apparent fear of letting readers of his website know where they can find the material he is "rebutting" and possible rebuttals of his rebuttals. I obviously have no reluctance at all to let readers see his articles, because I posted some of them on the new TSR site, and put links right at the beginning of my articles. He, on the other hand, refuses to post my articles, and the one link that he has put on his site (as of the day that I am writing) was at the very end of his 13,045-word "reply" to "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." Some readers may not have the patience or the willingness to take the time required to read a document that long, which is filled with cut-and-pasted "fluff" about a situation that resulted from his own refusal to negotiate a debating agreement, and so they would exit the article without ever knowing that I have posted a reply to it.

The bottom line is that Turkel strives to minimize the number of people who will have access to my material, whereas I do everything possible to give readers of the TSR website access to his articles. The difference in our approach speaks volumes about which one of us has the more confidence in his position.

Turkel(2)
and as it is a transparent attempt to influence skeptical sentiments, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent.

Till(2):
Straw man! Keep in mind that Turkel refused to cooperate in reaching an agreement on guidelines that would have given structure to the debate.

Turkel(2):
However, that said, I told our opponent clearly that a link was made on the core page of our debate record and that I felt that this was sufficient for any reasonable, intelligent person to be able to find his material. I also agreed in turn to provide a link inside my response if he got the Secular Web to provide one to my response. He promised to look into it, though now I would suppose the condition applies to a copy of his original article once it is on the new TSR website, and we shall anticipate news of that in time.

Till(2):
Turkel surely knows by now that "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" has been posted on TSR's site with a link at the very beginning of the article to his first-round attempt to rebut the article. Readers do not have to go all the way through the 3,400 words in the article to find a link at the very end. They will know from the beginning where they can go to find Turkel's "reply." A link to Turkel's "reply" has also been put on the original article at the infidels.org site. I'm not a bit reluctant to make Turkel's articles easily accessible wherever my articles are posted. Obviously, he can't say the same about easy access to my articles.

Turkel(2):
At any rate, it is clear that our opponent does not think that most readers are intelligent and reasonable enough to find his material via that link,

Till(2):
My comments above explain why the way that he links will likely keep some of his readers from noticing where they can find my materials on the subject, so I will ask him now if he is willing to change his linking method and put the links at the beginning of his articles. If he has as much confidence in his arguments and rebuttals as he claims, he should not object to doing this.

Turkel(2):
and I would make the further point that our opponent shows a remarkable lack of ability in terms of locating Web material.

Till(1):
I think Turkel is confusing lack of general expertise in computers with inability to locate web materials. I find it rather simple to search for web materials, but there are many aspects of computers that I know little, if nothing, about. There is no particular disgrace in this, because Turkel's writing shows that there are many aspects of basic English grammar and writing that he knows little about. If I had my choice, I would rather be ignorant of computer matters than basic aspects of my native language.

Turkel(2):
I noted very clearly in my initial response that the original item was titled "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise". In personal email our opponent asked how I expected anyone to find his original item.

Till(2):
Hmm, that's strange; I don't remember ever saying this. I took the time to read through our correspondence and didn't find it. I did find where he had said that someone would have to be "remarkably computer illiterate" not to be able to find my article on Yahweh's failed land promises. When I later asked him to explain why remarkable computer illiteracy would be necessary to keep someone from finding my article, he gave an answer similar to what he said below.

Turkel(2):
Apparently it is beyond our opponent's grasp that all one simply has to do is go to any search engine (Google, Altavista, Yahoo) and type in the phrase "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise," and the entry will be found with ease. "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" is a unique phrase and unlikely to have duplications that are not our opponent's material (or else references to it). This is simple common sense; if one wishes to read Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, one searches for the title, The Sum of All Fears -- one does not search the subject index under "military thriller". At any rate, that our opponent offered no reply to us on this point in personal correspondence, and that he makes such a critical error, speaks volumes we think of his general analytical capability.

Till(2):
I didn't reply to this message from Turkel, because I had already seen that any attempt to conduct a civil correspondence with him would be an exercise in futility, because he had already shown that anything I said would bring from him a sarcastic response, which really didn‘t address my concerns. I needed to get down to the business of writing my replies to him, so I decided to put my time into doing that, but since he has padded his second-round "rebuttal" with this "irrelevant distraction" that does nothing to explain how Yahweh's land promise was fulfilled, I'll take the time to write the response that I could have easily made when I received his message, but first, let's take a look at some of his sarcastic comments that I have cut from that message.

Aye aye, Cap'n Picard, le doofus sevoo play. No better substitute for self pep-rallying than dissing your opposition from the get go, yazzah?

Do you prefer the ones [vitamins] shaped like Barney Rubble or the ones shaped like Bugs Bunny?

You're just a fundy with a different pair of undies is all.

Yeesh. Sounds like someone on the Sausage Avoidance and Intolerance Committee. I'll prefer to be Robert "Yes to Patties" Turkel.

Hoo hoo, haa haaa. Bluster and blather, what more would I expect? <grin> Can't you add a little color, though? Some creative juices?

Now could just anybody go to the internet and find my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise"? No, because many people, especially those who grew up before computers were ever even thought about, don't know how to use search engines. Once when I was asked by a friend in my age group where he could find information on the internet about a town in Kentucky, I told him to do a google search. His reaction was, "What's that?" Before this, his wife had wanted to know how to copy and cut and paste. I explained it, but later my wife had to go to their home and show her how to do it.

Since Turkel is only 34 years old, he may find such computer illiteracy as this hard to understand, but I can assure him that it does exist. Besides this, there is the simple fact that many people will not take the time to exit a website they are reading to do a search for an article mentioned on the site, but if links are on Turkel's website, then someone who has accessed one of his rebuttal articles would be far more likely to click a link in order to take a look at what he is "replying" to. Just as many people won't take the time to turn to the end of an article or book to read endnotes, some won't exit a website to search for an article for which there is no link.

Turkel is stingy with links, because he knows that not having links will minimize the chances that his readers will see his arguments being soundly rebutted.

Till(1):
All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said.

Turkel(2):
In addition to our notes about diversion above: This is a plain error, I noted the title of the article in the very first sentence. This is more than sufficient for an intelligent, reasonable reader (or even one not that intelligent) to find the material.

Till(2):
As I just noted, some people will not take the time to do an internet search who might click a link if it were available on Turkel's site, and some who are older just won‘t know how to do an internet search. Putting a link into a website article would take such limited space that there is nothing else to conclude in this matter except that Turkel is doing everything he can to keep his readers from being exposed to both sides of whatever issues are being debated.

Till(1):
I sent an e-mail message to Turkel and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game he is playing.

Turkel(2):
In addition to our notes about diversion above: There is no "game" here; our opponent is either lacking in cognizance (as suggested by his inability to conduct a fundamental search) or else is trying to score points with a skeptical readership, or both. In any event, I would like to hear from any skeptic or reader who was unable to find the original "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise" if such indeed exists. I consider this nothing but an obfuscation and an irrelevancy, and a transparent attempt to elicit sympathy from a skeptical readership.

Till(2):
If I'm as fundamentally ignorant of search-and-find procedures as Turkel thinks I am, then he would surely realize that I am not the only one. There would also be others, so if my articles are as incompetently written as he claims they are, why wouldn't he want as many people as possible to find my articles so that they can see my incompetence for themselves? Providing links to my articles would greatly increase the number of those likely to read them. But Turkel knows this, so why am I wasting time stating the obvious?

As for Turkel's request to hear from those who were unable to find my original article, I would much prefer that those who didn't even take time to search for it because of the inconvenience involved in exiting Turkel's website to conduct an internet search contact him. As I said above, just as many people reading a book will not take the time to turn to the end of the chapter or the end of the book to read endnotes, many readers will not bother to exit a website to search for an article for which there was no link. An article posted on 100 websites will surely be read by more people than if it were on just one site. Likewise, an article on two websites will probably be read by more people than if it were on just one site. Links to articles will result in more people reading the articles than if the articles were just mentioned without links.

Turkel knows this, of course, and that is why he is doing everything he can to discourage people from reading whatever articles he "responds" to on his site. On the very afternoon that I was writing this section, I received from Turkel rather conclusive evidence that he is afraid to give his readers easy access to my replies to the hackwork that he cranks out on his website. I will present it later in this section.

Till(1):
By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the chances that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine.

Turkel(2):
Once again, our opponent is simply not, apparently, possessed of enough congnizant [sic] flexibility to understand how to conduct a simple search;

Till(2):
See my comments above. This is not a matter of computer competence but of facilitation and courtesy. More people would be likely to click a link in a website article than would be likely to exit the article to do a search of the internet, so if links would encourage more readers to examine both sides of an issue, why not be courteous enough to put links into the articles so that readers could more easily access them? The answer is simple. Turkel wants to limit the number of people who will see his opponents' rebuttals. After all, he is openly soliciting 80+ contributors who will donate $70 to $80 per year so that he can become a full-time internet "apologist." Letting his readers have easy access to rebuttals that completely dismantle his arguments will certainly not help him achieve that goal.

Turkel(2):
note that this is not a "computer" issue but a very basic issue of understanding how to locate information via standard "handles" like title and author, of the sort which all of us were taught in elementary school. I did not think it beyond our opponent's abilities to recognize this, but regrettably, I continue to overestimate him.

Till(2):
Turkel is talking as if he thinks our debate should be something like a research lesson that might be assigned in a college English class, which the teacher purposefully designs to withhold information in order to give students experience in locating information. I'm familiar with that, because I gave such assignments in my own college classes. My position about this debate, however, is that it should be structured to attract as many readers as possible and should be organized to facilitate reading it. An obvious way to do that would be to make it as easy as possible for our readers to access both sides of the debate. That is why I am putting links at the beginning of all of my articles. I want as many people as possible to see Turkel's articles, because I honestly believe that his failures to defend his position are so obvious that they will be noticeable to everyone whose mind has not been numbed by religious nonsense. On the other hand, I think that the reason Turkel stubbornly refuses to make access to my articles as easy as possible is because he realizes that his position is weak. The more of his readers who come to realize this by reading competently written rebuttals of his arguments, the more difficult it will be for him to achieve his ambition of becoming a full-time internet "apologist."

In a moment, I will present evidence from Turkel himself that my opinion of his motives is probably true.

Turkel(2):
At any rate, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(2):
Straw man! I have already pointed out that a written agreement on guidelines prior to the debate would have given it structure to control what Turkel calls "superfluous commentary," but he refused to cooperate in negotiating one. Hence, he is complaining about a situation that is his own doing.

Till(1):
I suppose, then, that Turkel will also refuse to put a link to this reply, or else he will put it somewhere on his site where some readers will be likely not to see it.

Turkel(2):
In addition to notes re diversions above: Since the core debate page is linked from our "What's New" page, and has been included in our newsletter, it seems entirely impossible that readers will not see it.

Till(2):
In just a moment, I will show evidence from Turkel's own e-mail that there is more to his excuse-making than meets the eye. He obviously wants to minimize the potential number of readers who will access replies to him.

Turkel(2):
Our opponent gives you, the reader, very little credit for the sake of scoring points with a skeptical readership, and I once again request that anyone having trouble finding any portion of this debate write me at jphold@earthlink.net as I will be glad to give you fundamental instruction in data searching that will greatly benefit you in other endeavors as well.

Till(2):
This isn't only a matter of accessing this debate; it is a matter of accessing other articles that people have written. Turkel has had a long history of "replying" to articles through a process of selective quoting that guts his opponents' arguments and then gives his readers no links to let them know where they can go to find the articles he is "replying to." Turkel can't say, "Well, let them go to google.com and find the articles for themselves," because sometimes he doesn't even give his readers the names of either the authors he is responding to or the titles of the articles they have written.

His "trilemma" debate with Brian Holtz is an excellent example of this. Holtz has published detailed replies to the "trilemma" (liar, lord, or lunatic) that Turkel borrowed from C. S. Lewis, but Turkel has never put this link in any of his "replies" to Holtz. He doesn't even give Brian Holtz's name; he simply refers to him as "our critic." Turkel has asked me questions, so now I will reciprocate.

1. How do you expect readers to locate the articles by "our critic" if you don't put links in your "responses" or even tell them what his name is?

2. How do you expect readers to locate "our critic's" articles if you don't even tell them the titles of his articles?

Obviously, Turkel is engaged in a damage-control action in which his primary strategy is to be as secretive as he can in his "replies." I'll have more to say about this below.

Here is an update that I am adding to this section about Brian Holtz's reply to Turkel‘s "trilemma" article. Holtz just sent to me a copy of his reply to Turkel's website article "The Impossible Faith".

Till(1):
Hence, we are already seeing indications that he is not going to debate in an open forum but will continue to hide on his personal website and selectively quote what he wants his readers to see.

Turkel(2):
As noted, this objection is the result of our opponent's own lack of cognizance. Even so it still has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise,"

Till(2):
This is not a matter of just linking his "replies" to my articles and rebuttals but of his history of trying to keep information from his readers so that he can selectively quote and give the impression that he is some kind of great "apologist," which he accomplishes by not letting his readers see what his opposition has said. On 5/20/02, I sent the following message to Turkel.

I just received today from Brian Holtz, a very detailed reply to your "trilemma," er, Josh McDowell's trilemma position, er, C. S. Lewis's trilemma position. Will you be putting a link on your website so that your readers will be able to read this?

Here is the reply that he sent.

A link for Mr Crybaby H.? Of course not. He is even more silly than you are. And twice as obnoxious, and three times more deluded about his own self-importance. OTOH you are a far more intelligent opponent.

That Turkel would have the audacity to accuse anyone of being "obnoxious" is another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Later on, I'll report more about his most recent attempts to keep his readers from seeing what his opposition has written.

Turkel(2):
it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(2):
Straw man! (I have already pointed out that the situation Turkel complains about repeatedly is his own doing, because he wouldn't cooperate in negotiating guidelines that would have given structure to the debate.) Before I end this part of my second-round reply to Turkel, I'll give readers a count of the number of words that Turkel wasted cutting-and-pasting this comment from his round-one "response."

Till(1):
I have said for years now that Turkel is too cowardly to debate biblical inerrancy in an open forum where he will have to confront informed opposition, and his latest antics are confirming that I was right.

Turkel(2):
This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability,

Till(2):
Nope, it is based on facts that are borne out by Turkel's own statements in his personal correspondence to me and the obvious fact that he had refused for years to link his articles to what he was answering. As I pointed out above, his readers cannot search the internet for the articles that Turkel "replies to" if they don't even know the name of the author or the titles of the articles.

Turkel(2):
[it] has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(2):
Straw man! A count of the number of words that Turkel has so far wasted on this "fluff" is coming up. Keep in mind that Turkel refused to negotiate a written agreement that would have given structure to the debate. That was a mistake that only an amateur would have made.

Till(1):
The link to my original article is here.

Turkel(2):
I have taken the liberty of making the URL into a link for convenience. And what now of the tasty crow our opponent must eat, since I have willingly provided this link?

Till(2):
A proper reply to this will necessitate some "fluff" that Turkel can complain about if we go into round three. For years, I have tried to coax Turkel into an open internet debate where readers would see everything that both of us had written on the issues. He would never agree to the proposal. When I would receive messages from visitors to his website who wanted to know why I wouldn't answer him, I would forward to them a detailed reply that I had written on the Jehu/Hosea issue, and I would include a notice that I had repeatedly challenged Turkel to an open-forum debate. I would then ask the correspondents to write to Turkel and urge him to accept the debate proposal. I suspect that Turkel eventually felt the heat, which coincidentally came about the time that he was laid off from his prison job and began soliciting contributions to become a full-time internet "apologist," because he posted an acceptance that had ridiculous conditions attached. (The TSR website will later publish a compilation of correspondence between Turkel and me as I tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a debating agreement with him.) The upshot of it all was that Turkel went out on his own and decided to reply to my article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise," but he made the mistake of saying that although he would not put my part of the exchanges on his website, he would give his readers links to mine.

At that time, Turkel had fallen into the trap that I had set for him, because I had wanted some kind of concession from him that would at least make it possible for readers of his site to click a link and conveniently locate what I had written on the subject. Now that Turkel has committed himself to doing this, he can't very well back out without making himself look bad, so he finds himself in sort of a fix. He has to provide links to my part of this debate or else face the public embarrassment of backing down. That would not look too good in a forum where he is still looking for 80+ contributors to give $70 to $80 per year so that he can be a full-time internet "apologist."

I'm seeing clear signs that Turkel has already learned a lesson the hard way. In his "Chicken Challenge," he issued a challenge to "refute even ONE CHAPTER of what you find there by me, James Patrick Holding" and then went on to say that if the results were sent to him "as a text file or as an HTML file," he would then join the internet list of the person he was addressing, who was someone who had invited him to join a certain list. I will be responding to Turkel's "Chicken Challenge" later on, so I look forward to having Turkel join the Errancy II list. I will be sending him instructions on how to subscribe to it.

Oh, oh, I forgot. In his "Chicken Challenge," Turkel said that any replies to his articles would have to be "20% successful," so that, of course, is going to be his way out. As judge and jury of any replies sent to him, he will be the sole person to decide if the replies were "20% successful." He and Ray Comfort have a lot in common.

That brings me to the latest indication that chicken is a word that is far more applicable to Turkel than any skeptics. He challenged skeptics to reply to even "one chapter" of what is on his website, and I have done that. I'm not talking about the land-promise debate either. On 6/25/02, I sent a message to Turkel to inform him that I was writing replies to his "rebuttal" of my TSR article entitled "What Men with David?" I asked him if he intended to put links to these replies on his website, and this was his answer.

Sure, why not, readers are getting a lot of comedy relief watching a flounder out of water. Take five on the shrooms, dewd.

On 7/01/02, I wrote to Turkel to tell him that my replies (Part One and Part Two) to his "rebuttal" had been posted and asked him to put the links on his website. I got back the following reply.

Since I didn't agree to debate these issues, you get no link and no EVERYTHING guarantee. I'll respond in my usual fashion, and ignore your complaints.

Turkel's "usual fashion," of course, is to quote his opponent selectively and not give his readers links so that they can with a convenient click go to see what was said in the article he is answering. I can certainly understand why Turkel doesn't want his readers to see my replies, because I thoroughly exposed the extent of his selective quoting by reinserting arguments that he skipped over, and in "Part One," I completely dismantled his "explanation" for why Jesus had said that Abiathar was the high priest at the time of an incident when his father Ahimelech was actually the high priest.

Turkel's refusal to put links to my replies on his website was too good an opportunity to pass up, so I immediately cross-posted his refusal to alt.bible.errancy and Errancy II. When Turkel received a cc of the cross-posting, he immediately sent the following reply.

Ha ha porkchop,
Take a chill pill! You don't get the instant link like I gave you with the land promise issue is what I'm sayin'. You'll get a link at the top of my reply -- I just ain't puttin' one on the debate page. GET IT? I was talking about the *debate page*. I said the word "debate". No habla? Yeesh, next time you don't get a grip, try asking first. You coulda saved yourself a migraine. Not that that ever stopped you from putting arguments in other people's mouths before...

There was absolutely nothing in Turkel's first message to indicate that this was what he meant. In fact, I never even expected him to put links to my "David" replies to the "debate page," because the debate page concerned an entirely different issue, i. e., the failed land promise. I wanted the links on the pages where Turkel had written his reply to my David article, and now I have a promise from him that I will get this link "at the top of [his] reply." However, as I am editing this part of my reply on 7/10/02, a week has passed since I notified Turkel that my reply to his David "rebuttal" was on line, but I still haven't see a link to it on his site.

I'll check periodically to see if he keeps this promise and puts a link at the top of his reply, entitled "Trick or Treat, Got Some Bread." On 7/10/02, my reply to his attempt to rebut my article "Why Didn‘t They Know?" was posted. I invite everyone to read my original article, then read Turkel's "reply," and finally read my rebuttal. I'm sure Turkel doesn't believe that I am giving all of these links because I think he gave me a "whoopin.'"

Turkel(2):
What also of our exchange, apparently something our opponent wishes to be uninformed of, to post a link to my first reply on the infidels.org site? This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise,"

Till(2):
For what I lack in computer skills, I make up in logic and debating skills. Turkel is learning that much to his detriment. Anyway, if his readers will go to the index page of The Skeptical Review Online, they will find a link to his "rebuttal" of "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." A link to his "reply" has also been put on my article at the infidels.org site. I have no qualms about giving readers easy access to Turkel's articles, but he obviously isn't too eager to give his readers easy access to mine.

Till(2)
Straw man! Keep in mind that Turkel wouldn't cooperate in reaching an agreement that would have structured the debate and controlled the situation he has constantly complained about.

Till(1):
If Turkel does not put this link into his article and then give his readers a link to my reply, he will be reneging on a promise he made during the failed debating negations that everyone can read about in another article that will soon be posted on the new TSR website.

Turkel(2):
Since the link is there, we will be delivering several boxes of raw crow to an address in the Midwest.

Till(2):
I have no need to eat crow, because my constant dares to Turkel achieved exactly what I wanted, i. e., a public commitment from him to participate in a debate that would allow his readers to have easy accessibility to my replies. Now that he has made such a display of agreeing to do what I wanted, he can't back out without looking bad. I'll forego the crow, but Turkel should consider sitting in the corner with a dunce hat on for having been so easy to lure into a trap.

Turkel(2):
This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise," it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer,

Till(2):
Well, it seems that "our opponent" did have the ability to get Turkel exactly where "our opponent" wanted him. He has to keep putting links to my articles on his website or else look bad.

Turkel(2):
and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(1):
This article [a compilation of private exchanges with Turkel] will contain all of the private e-mails that he and I exchanged while I was trying to get him to agree to negotiate a written agreement, and the correspondence will show that he (1) refused to post our debate on his website, but (2) agreed that he would provide links to my articles and rebuttals. The correspondence will also show that he wouldn't cooperate in negotiating guidelines that would have structured the debate, so he is responsible for the situation that he repeatedly complains about.

Turkel(2):
Once again, as predicted, our opponent engages in a pointless diversion for the sake of scoring points, thereby suggesting a lamentable lack of ability to address the matters at hand.

Till(2):
Parts Two through Six of my replies showed an ability to reply in detail to Turkel's attempts to quibble his way to a solution. I let those replies speak for themselves, and Turkel's failures to satisfactorily rebut them show that there is nothing lacking in my ability to "address the matters at hand." I am bearing down on Turkel's past evasions and refusals to provide his readers with links to his opponents' arguments so that, while Turkel is providing links, his readers will be informed of his past evasions. I have also hammered away on this point in order to draw Turkel further and further into a linking commitment that will now be difficult for him to back out of. I thank him for his cooperation. I achieved exactly what I set out to do.

Turkel(2):
Yet again, this objection only demonstrates our opponent [sic] lack of cognizance in terms of doing a proper search; and it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(2):
Straw man! A word count is coming up soon to show how many words he wasted complaining about a situation of his own doing.

Till(1):
Right at the very beginning of the debate, he has already reneged on one promise, so what will we see from him next?

Turkel(2):
Once again, since the link is here, just a few lines above, and another one in our title slot, we will be delivering several boxes of very tasty, prime cut, filet of raw crow to an address in the Midwest.

Till(2):
As I explained above, one doesn't have to eat crow for using a debate strategy that worked. Turkel, however, should put on his dunce cap and sit in the corner.

Turkel(2):
This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise,"

Till(2):
Hurray! Turkel finally put a closing quotation mark in the correct position with reference to a comma that terminated a clause.

Turkel(2):
it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer,

Till(2):
Well, everyone certainly saw that Parts Two through Six didn't "cover up the actual tenor of our exchange." When I get to them and strip away all of Turkel‘s evasive, cut-and-pasted distractions, we will see how "miserably" Turkel failed to rebut my counterarguments, and I didn't even use my best stuff in the first round. A competent debater will always hold back the really good stuff until his opponent has put his foot into his mouth.

Till(2):
Straw man about a situation of his own doing! A count of how many words Turkel wasted cutting and pasting this "irrelevant distraction" is coming up soon.

Till(1):
In an article about Turkel that I published in the July/August 2002 issue of The Skeptical Review, I said that some skeptics call him Robert "No Link" Turkel, so he is already living up to this name.

Till(1):
As I said, one doesn't have to eat crow when he has employed a debating strategy that lured his opponent into a trap, but Turkel needs to put on his dunce cap and sit in the corner for having been such easy prey. Besides that, Turkel is far from demonstrating a willingness to give his readers links to all of my replies to him. That was discussed above and will be discussed throughout Parts Two and Three of this second round.

Turkel(2):
This still is based on our opponent's lack of ability, has no relation to "Yahweh's Land Promise,"

Till(2):
When I get much further along in Turkel's second-round "reply," I will show everyone that Turkel is the culprit who doesn't understand the land-promise covenant. I'll be referring to scholars whose "lifeblood" has been biblical research, so he should like that.

Turkel(2):
it covers up the actual tenor of our exchange and my link offer, and finally, it is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superfluous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent, other than a desire to score points.

Till(2):
Straw man and a situation of his own doing! This is where I intend to stop Part One in this round, so I can now give the word count in Turkel's repetition of the "irrelevant distraction" immediately above. He cut and pasted it 14 times. It has 55 words, so he wasted 770 words chanting a mantra that added nothing at all to the debate. And he has the temerity to accuse me of having too much "fluff" in my writing.

I wonder if he now recognizes the importance of negotiating guidelines prior to beginning a debate. If he did, he would never admit it, because... well, because Turkel is Turkel. Go to Part Two.