Thank you very much. I'm grateful that I have found this site as it has been a great education for me. Frankly I was no academic and don't have a formal secondary education. As a result I'm trying to gain an informal education later in life and this site has been such a gift. Thanks again
I would like to nominate GDR as poster of the month. Polite, concise, thoughtful, determined - GDR is consistently all of these things. Ok - sure - I frequently disagree with his opinions. But that is irrelevant to the quality of his(?) posts.
GDR...nice work. *thumbs up*
Here's what the OP says for this thread:
When you find a post that is too good to be missed, nominate it here as one of the September, 2011, Posts of the Month (POTM). You message subtitle should include the author's name and the topic/thread title.
Message Format:
Author: Author's Name Forum: Forum where posted Thread: Thread title Message #: Number and Link to the nominated message
Nominations should include a link to the nominated article, and a short comment on why the message deserves nomination.
Note: As always, this is not a thread for debates. Posts should be limited to nomination, seconds, congratulations, and acceptance statements by nominees.
Can you link one of his posts you like the most for everyone who doesn't know GDR is "Polite, concise, thoughtful, determined"?
Author: ICANT Forum: Geology and the Great Flood Thread: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood Message #: 308 and/or 317
This may be a sort of a "good post because it's not nearly as bad as his creationist cohorts" sort of POTM nomination, but I do think it deserves a bit of special recognition.
The 2 messages cited are quite similar with much material in common, with the 2nd one being his topic summation message. These messages do show some quality connection to reality, although there is still much for the science side to contest. I also think the presentation style is decent to good.
One outstanding, albeit not perfect observation (quoted from the 2nd message):
But if the Bay of Fundy can rise 55 feet in 6 hours and then fall 55 feet in 6 hours and you can't see everything washed away, why would anyone assume that if the water rose a few hundred feet in 40 days it would leave any sign that it did so?
I think this is refreshing, if flawed. Most of the creation side and many to the most of the science side seem to advocate vast geologic impact by the flood. Further discussion of this, in a new topic might be a good thing.
Well, I'm kind of bending the "summation messages only" status of the topic in question, by starting to bring the debate into the POTM forum.
Moose
NOT A DEBATE TOPIC - DON'T CONTEST MY OBSERVATIONS HERE AT THIS TOPIC.
Re: ICANT at "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood"
Hi Moose,
I'll second that nomination.
But if the Bay of Fundy can rise 55 feet in 6 hours and then fall 55 feet in 6 hours and you can't see everything washed away, why would anyone assume that if the water rose a few hundred feet in 40 days it would leave any sign that it did so?
I think this is refreshing, if flawed. Most of the creation side and many to the most of the science side seem to advocate vast geologic impact by the flood. Further discussion of this, in a new topic might be a good thing.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
(1)