|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 | |||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Larni writes: Buzz, I sought to save you embarrassment by not attributing it.If you would like me to take it down because you do feel embarrassed or for me to attribute to you so that you are not lumped together with other poster's gibberish I would be happy to comply as a guesture to you. I'm not ashamed at all of my statement. I want credit for mine and mine alone, but would you be so kind as to cite the context message & thread to which it applies? You know, Larni we can isolate statements of others from many threads which, isolated from context, are not easily understood. The meaning and application are often only understood in context. BTW, it's "Buz," as in "Buzsaw." BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Larni writes: Would it be acceptable to link your post so all can read the full message, if they wish to do so? I'd appreciate that. Thanks very much, Larni. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Done and done. Thanks Larni. To be consistent, it would be great if you would attribute the other statements to their respective authors as well since it appears that those are from me to you. Perhaps by and by you'll think of something more inspirational for your readers whenever they read your messages. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Perhaps, due to the fact that most of the debating in the Buz/Moose thread is essentially Buz debating the PG, it would be wise to grant me a waiver from the Science ban so as to debate the Peanut Gallery on this topic.
What's going on now is essentially just what I have been asserting, i.e. the creationist argument that they are using circular flawed dating methodology for supporting their false premise. Now the PG is merging into nothing but personal attacks on me leaving me with no recourse.The following is their same ole circular argument. 1st lap on the circular track - Dr Jones Message 44date measured at time layer/strata deposited. The various radiometric dating methods produce the age of the igneous layers measured from the time that they were deposited. 1st lap on the circular track - Dr Jones Message 44date measured at time layer/strata deposited. 2nd lap on the circular track - Coyote Message 42 layers/strata dated using direct dating methods. The current example is your "circular reasoning" argument--it's straight out of the creationists' Handbook. Here's how it works: scientists date volcanic layers using direct dating methods. That's pretty accurate. Even the RATE boys didn't put a dent in those methods. 3rd lap on the circular track - Coyote Message 42layer dated by fossil in layer/strata But that sedimentary layer might have a particular fossil that is not found in any other layer. This would be called an "index fossil" -- this means it is confined to a relatively narrow time period and (hopefully) is widespread. That fossil, then, can be used as a dating method to date a layer in which it occurs without the need to do radiometric dating of volcanic layers above and below. But that sedimentary layer might have a particular fossil that is not found in any other layer. This would be called an "index fossil" -- this means it is confined to a relatively narrow time period and (hopefully) is widespread. That fossil, then, can be used as a dating method to date a layer in which it occurs without the need to do radiometric dating of volcanic layers above and below. 4th lap on the circular dating track - Coyote date of layer/strata measured by time deposited. (In this strawman example, date foreknown before determination) An example you might be able to relate to: the pop-tops on beer cans were produced only between 1962 and 1975. They are widespread, nearly indestructible, have a narrow temporal range, and are easily identified. They are, like the index fossil, a time stratigraphic marker. You find a layer in a dump with a lot of pop-tops and you are looking at the 1962-1975 range. We have explained these things to you over and over, so stop trying to play dumb with these dating questions; you are succeeding all too well. After this circular track, a barrage of personal attacks on me ensued by several members, all, in chorus agreeing that the circular arguments aired by Jones and Coyote were spot on and Buz is the stubborn nucklehead refusing to espouse their circular arguments. This is what's going on without my ability to respond directly. Admin PD advised that no direct responses should be aired between PG and GD. Imo, the above is why it would be advisable to spin off this as a separate topic allowing me an exception from my ban from the Science Forums to debate this topic. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
AdminModulous edited a pertinent portion of Message 414 from view. What was edited out can be seen by clicking the peek button of that message.
The problem with editing a portion of the pertinent point of my message out is that what was left would leave the impression that I was blaming Admin alone for slowing the progress of threads. I also stated this so as to inform several responders why I did not respond to their individual messages, clicking the acknowledge button instead. My message was intended as a conclusive statement so as to, hopefully, put the matter to rest.
quote: I cited the reason for the message as follows.
quote: Finally, I cited both the trolls and Admin's actions for slowing the progress.
quote: I hope this will not derail this thread by further discussion from members on that topic. AdminModulous PMed that I could air my problem here when I PMed a complaint to him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Putting everything in context clarifies what Percy cherry picked so as to chastise Portillo for doing what it appears dwise1 did to me in context, i.e. a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate my position, lumping me in with others and falsely stating my position.
What makes it worse is that dwise1 knows that I, being banned from the forum, can't respond. He apparantly thinks he can air his demeaning allegations with impunity, full well knowing that he won't be chastized by Percy as Portillow was. In context, it appears that Portillo's cherry picked response applied to what Trixie said below. At worst, perhaps Portillo applied a poor choice of words. Clearly his comment referenced Trixie's application of biological evolution relative to this thread topic.
Trixie writes: Message 84 That's exactly what dwise1 was saying and what you've just amply demonstrated. Unless otherwise stated, just about every reference to evolution made on this board is talking about biological evolution, the Theory of Evolution, Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species".If you choose to conflate all of your examples with what we're saying, that's up to you, but unless we're all using the same definition, discusson is impossible. Changing definitions mid-conversation is a recipe for confusion. It's also a tactic used with boring regularity by those who wish to deny biological evolution, who don't accept the mechanism of descent with modification. Can you tell me how the Theory of Evolution is affected by, or deals with the evolution of galaxies, of stars? In a thread entitled "Evolution is not Abiogenesis" it's pretty darned obvious that we're talking about biological evolution and a particular idea of the origin of life. This thread is asking if the ToE is affected by the method by which life originated. You seem to be broadening it to take in just about everything that changes. Portillo writes: Message 85 Yes, this thread is about biological evolution. The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true. dwise1 writes: Message 88 I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion. Percy writes: Message 88 To the rest of us this looks like a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate. It looks like, having perhaps decided that the battle in this thread can't be won, that you've decided to destroy any focus and clarity the thread might have. It is rare that people act out of base motives, so I have to believe that you have a clear conscience and do not believe you're doing any such thing, but I have to wonder what the heck you're thinking. You really believe that Dwise1 is saying that we evolutionists only accept one definition of evolution, no matter the context? Really? Even if you really and truly believe this in your heart of hearts, wouldn't it be a better strategy to hide this fact so that people don't think you're, uh, comprehensionally challenged, or worse, lying?BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024