Answering the Chicken
Challenge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arresting
a Hit and Run from an [sic] Multiply-Named Skeptic
James
Patrick Holding
Humayun: The Luckless Leader (1530-1556, but deposed 1540-1555) The stars always seemed to be against poor Humayun, who nearly lost the Mughal empire before it had barely begun. An intelligent man with a reputation for indecision and absentmindedness, Humayun was overthrown in 1540 by Sher Khan, a rival sultan from Bengal. Helpless, Humayun lived in exile in Persia, spending his years as an ascetic, trying to figure out just what had gone wrong in the first place.
from http://edweb.cnidr.org/india/humayun.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be your first time reading something on this page... if it is, welcome. You are about to see one of our major themes enacted.
I suspect some of you who run Web pages out there have also heard from this character we're about to mention, at least in one of his named incarnations, so we're going to drop a bit of special attention on him here. Long ago when this ministry was part of another called The Christian Apologetics Bookshelf we received the following message:
I invite any good apologist, to join a mailing list called "MCAD" by sending a blank email to MCAD-subscribe@lists.kz and post a single evidence for the Bible... If you won't, that will further convince me that the Bible can not be defended. ...and it was signed, "Huyamunn Masoud."
Well now - here was what I wrote back to this fellow:
...I invite you to tune into the following URL:
(At this point, I gave the old URL where my material used to be situated.)
....and refute even ONE CHAPTER of what you find there by me, James Patrick Holding. Send me the results as a text file or as an HTML file. If you're even 20% successful I'll join your little subscription list and thrash you like nobody's business. Just let me know when you get done and we'll work out terms of exchange of material.
That was written several years ago - and needless to say, our friend "Huey the Hot Air Balloon" has yet to respond in any way, shape or form. But I bring this up to make a few salient points regarding this fellow in particular, a certain class of skeptics in general - and to issue a challenge of my own.
First, I'd like to note the radical immaturity that our bud "Huey" displays - and which I satirized in my reply. He has set in advance his own interpretation of what our action (or rather, any lack thereof) would have to mean. It's not that we might not have time or interest in list-based discussions; it couldn't possibly be that we see no reason to dignify a skeptic's pipe dreams with a response - no, it has to be that we cannot defend our faith. Jeane Dixon would have paid vast sums for such precognitive abilities.
I've run across skeptics like this from time to time. Typically, there is no way to withdraw gracefully from any conversation with them, without it being assumed that your withdrawal means victory for their side. You have given up because you have lost - not because you have realized that you are beating a dead horse. The situation is rather analogous to the armored knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who, having had his limbs shorn off, avers, "Tis' only a flesh wound!" Well, we can't say they don't have a positive attitude. Robert Schuller is a dilettante compared to this breed of skeptics with their rose-colored glasses. As one of our readers has said, in the skeptical world, if you stop beating a dead horse and walk away, it will eventually get up and tell everyone it crossed the finish line ahead of you.
And so, since "Huey" has declined to answer our challenge given personally, preferring (apparently) the relative safety of his closed circle on this list of his, we'll re-issue the challenge here, and as a special bonus make it open to everyone -- and thereby express a key theme of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. The challenge is simple: Pick up any essay of mine and refute it. Contact me for terms of exchange. And if I hear nothing, I'll guess I'll just have to assume that no one can respond to my material.
The clock is still ticking. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been aware of Turkel's "chicken challenge" for several years, but I never replied to it because I knew that Turkel operated a closed forum where he preached to his choir by selectively quoting articles written by skeptics without linking his readers to the articles he was "replying to." I spent years shaming Turkel on the internet for refusing to debate in a forum where his readers would have the opportunity to see what his opponents said as well as what he had said. Apparently, my strategy finally worked, because just this year Turkel agreed to debate me in a forum where he would link his readers to my articles so that they could read both sides of whatever issues we were debating. The results have been articles posted at Turkel's site and mine.
Those who access The Skeptical Review site will see that I have more than satisfied Turkel's requirement. I have answered several of his "replies" to skeptical articles and will be answering many more of them, as long as he continues to link his readers to what I write. Furthermore, I think that any open-minded readers of my articles will agree that I have been far more than "20% successful" in rebutting Turkel's articles. Accordingly, I expect him to keep the promise that he extended to "everyone" and subscribe to my internet list II Errancy so that he can begin "thrash[ing] me like nobody‘s business." I look forward to having him on the Errancy list, but if he doesn't join, I'll have to send him a yellow jump suit to symbolize appropriately the implications of his refusal to join us after having boasted so confidently of what he would do to skeptics who dared reply to his materials. This invitation is extended to all, skeptics and believers alike. Just click on the above link and click on "Send" from your email program. Topica will take care of the rest.
Finally, a word should be said in Huyamunn Masoud's defense. As the name suggests, he comes from a Muslim background, and he began the old MCAD list as a forum where Islam and Christianity could be discussed. This list later became alt.bible.errancy, which still surivives and is maintained by Tim Taylor. Adnan, as we called him, seemed fairly well informed on Islamic matters, but he didn't have a strong background in biblical matters. I can see, then, why he would not have accepted Turkel's "Chicken Challenge." I, on the other hand, consider myself informed in biblical matters, and I have now accepted Turkel's challenge and met his criterion for joining the MCAD list. It no longer exists, but its successor alt.bible.errancy does, so Turkel can write to Tim Taylor for instructions on how to join this forum. Taylor is also a member of the Errancy list, so if Turkel will join it, I‘m sure that Tim would agree that Turkel has kept his commitment to Adnan.
Will Turkel keep his word, or will I have to send him his yellow jump suit?
The clock is
ticking....
