|
Author
|
Topic: Terry at the Talk Origins board
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
Message 1 of 157 (17735)
09-18-2002 6:44 PM
|
|
|
I've gotten into a bit of a tangle with Terry, over his starting of topics that I view as trite nitpickings, in some sort of effort to discredit scientific methodology. The current particular topic, is here. So, I figure I'd start a topic here, to flame on Terry's thought process in the ever popular evolution/creation debate. Moose ------------------ BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by wj, posted 09-18-2002 7:56 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied | | | Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 8:24 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied | | | Message 6 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-18-2002 10:55 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied | | | Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-19-2002 4:53 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied | | | Message 10 by Me, posted 09-19-2002 5:20 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
Moose, I noticed your post when cruising through that board. That is the only boaard that I have been banned from. I also resigned in disgust from the board when Joe Meert was banned for daring to discuss the failure of the science community to confront creationism in the general community. Maybe I would be offering a biased view?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 6:44 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I've gotten into a bit of a tangle with Terry, over his starting of topics that I view as trite nitpickings, in some sort of effort to discredit scientific methodology. The current particular topic, is here. So, I figure I'd start a topic here, to flame on Terry's thought process in the ever popular evolution/creation debate. Moose
I have a feeling that he isn't really interested in what you can prove to him. Just by his "borrowing" of the name from a pro-science and evolution site to confuse the issue should tell you this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 6:44 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
|
Message 4 of 157 (17744)
09-18-2002 8:29 PM
|
|
|
For what it's worth, here's Joe Meert's parting shot at the Talk Origins board. Scroll down to message 18. Terry's banning message is the following, #19. Moose Added by edit:
Joe's last message writes: Jeff sez  lus, I have a little speculation that the appeal of this as "folk science" is a means for the common man to take back something that was believed to be co-opted by an oligocracy of scientists who are trying to keep science out of the reach of your average Joe; sort of similar to the 'herbal remedies' vs 'medical science' phenomenon. JM: Jeff, this is so true and it is partly the fault of scientists and partly the fault of our overall educational system in the US. I notice this in the statement I frequently hear from freshman; "I'm not a science person" or the corrolary "I am not a math person". In the case of the former statement, the more correct for should read "I was a great scientist up until age 6 or so and then I stifled my curiousity or my curiousity was stifled". In the case of the latter, the more correct statement is "I've been told by lots of people that it's ok if I don't understand math, so that must be the case". On the flip side, science has not done a good job of taking its case to the people. The notion that conventional science is an exclusionary effort is entrenched amongst creationists and for good reason. Here you have creation 'scientists' taking their case to the masses with 'good sounding' arguments in one hand, and the HOLY BIBLE in the other. Conventional science buries its head (not all but too many) and says "How can ANYBODY believe such nonsense" and then we go back to our labs, equations and work in oblivious bliss. The environment of the Universities is partly to blame as we are required to 'get funding' and 'publish' and that leaves little time for battling a movement that is perceived by science as nonsensical. In fact, if we took the time to explain a little bit more, participate in exposing the myths and errors of ye-creationism (and other pseudosciences) the creationists would not be so strong politically. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox by saying that students can and do come out of this funk and when the absurdities of pseudoscience are pointed out to them, the light bulb goes on. Unfortunately, many teachers (not all, but IMO too many), concentrate on 'facts' and 'terms' and fail to explain how either were established. The fun and the joy of science is determining how things work and not memorizing terms. Cheers Joe Meert Terry's reply writes: That's it, Joe. I have warned you repeatedly, and you refuse to abide by the rules of this community. You're out of here. Terry Edited by Minnemooseus, : Quoted the messages, so that they can be preserved forever.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by wj, posted 09-18-2002 9:02 PM | | Minnemooseus has replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
Moose, if you can tell me how to shorten url's as you did for the thread linked to "here's" I should be able to provide examples of Terry's (and EdenNod's) behaviour with suitable links without stuffing up the format of this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 8:29 PM | | Minnemooseus has replied |
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7597 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
I sometimes lurk on that board and find it quite amusing. In addition to Terry (and the creepily conservative EdenNod) there is a hilarious old duffer writing under the name of salty who was once (or perhaps still is) a biology professor and who seems to think he is taking part in some high-falutin' academic forum. He constantly refers any one who queries any of his opinions to his published papers, refuses to discuss anything except by way of publication in journals, gleefully expresses his disdain for authority while simultaneously deriding any opponents for their lack of publication, and expects people to regard his views as evidence while at the same time flaunting his distrust of anything so upstart as "logic." Terry seems to indulge him for the one reason that he also has a vitriolic hatred of anything to do with Darwin. He's well worth watching for the amusing vacuity of his posts and his pomposity. I saw him once claiming to be "humble", which reminded me of the Scottish saying, "There are two things no-one can believe if you speak them: I am humble and I am dead." Recently one of my countrymen (a historian who I think I know) who posts on the board as "dan" seems to have got to the core of Terry's "technique" as something like this: :: Take a position held by a scientist (or anyone else he chooses to turn his fire on); :: oversimplify it to the point of absurdity; :: attack the oversimplified postion, preferably with some homely anecdote about the creek in his backyard, or his dog; :: claim overwhelming victory in the debate on account of this. You can see this pretty clearly in the example you posted. (Even worse in this case, he is incapable of distinguishing between bad journalism and bad science!)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 6:44 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by wj, posted 09-19-2002 12:09 AM | | Mister Pamboli has not replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
Our friend Terry has an idiosyncratic view of "civil" behaviour and speech. In my first (short) stay on his board I was responding to a posting by one of the creationists' post which had used the word "evilution" by using the word "cretinism". Tit for tat, I thought. I subsequently discovered, after having difficulty getting into the board, that I had been summarily banned for using "uncivil" language and my offending post deleted. No warning, no notice, no consultation with other managers on the board - banned forthwith. Interestingly the original "evilutionist" post remained untouched. I decided to point out this inconsistent and unreasonable approach to Terry. He said that he had not noticed the "evilutionist" post and thought it was a typo. He deemed to let me back on the board if I was a good boy. I was subsequently admonished for uncivil language for using the word "debunk" with respect to creation science. I thought this might be a cultural thing but all of the other non-creationist posters said that the word was not considered uncivil in US society. Joe Meert was admonished (and threatened with banning) for referring to creation science as pseudoscience. Such sensitivity is in stark contrast to the insulting and derogatory remarks which Terry's sidekick EdenNod fires at evolutionists on the board without comment from Terry. Very idiosyncratic.
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
|
Message 8 of 157 (17750)
09-19-2002 2:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by wj
09-18-2002 9:02 PM
|
|
quote:
Moose, if you can tell me how to shorten url's as you did for the thread linked to "here's" I should be able to provide examples of Terry's (and EdenNod's) behaviour with suitable links without stuffing up the format of this thread.
Previous to this topic, I've always just posted the entire URL (and I do kind of like making the full thing plainly visible). But those Talk Origins board URL's are so long, I'm not even sure they'd work right. Anyhow, I was forced to consult the "HTML Quick Ref" in the "Forums Help" column at the top of most (all?) pages. It is at http://www.evcforum.net/htmlcode.html . Anyhow, the answer is in the "Hyperlinks or Anchors" section of the quick ref. It is the third of five examples there:
quote:
For my "here's" example, I copied that entire line (everything from and including the left most "<" to and including the right most ">"). Then you substitute the target URL in the place of the "URL" (including replacing the " 's; ie a href= http://etc.) Then you put the "here's" in the place of the . . . , between the > and the <. If you do this, and preview or post it, you should see only "here's" as a clickable link. Any additional text is added in front and/or behind the above mentioned. You may wish to try using the "Practice Makes Perfect" forum, or just keep previewing until you get it right. Moose ps: If you want to see what a mess of HTML code a page really is, just right click on the background of this (or any) page, and the select "View Source" (This is for Microsoft Internet Explorer). [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-19-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by wj, posted 09-18-2002 9:02 PM | | wj has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by wj, posted 09-20-2002 2:06 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: 08-09-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I've gotten into a bit of a tangle with Terry, over his starting of topics that I view as trite nitpickings, in some sort of effort to discredit scientific methodology. The current particular topic, is here. So, I figure I'd start a topic here, to flame on Terry's thought process in the ever popular evolution/creation debate. Moose
Hmmm maybe I should post the comparison of creationism to believing in the stork theory of reproduction..however, since this clown seems to remove posts by anyone with a brain I have a feeling it would be a waste of time....but maybe worth the laugh of pissing Terry off  Have you invited any of those guys to post over here where they cannot delete posts by non-creationists? Cheers, M
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 6:44 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
Me
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I've gotten into a bit of a tangle with Terry, over his starting of topics that I view as trite nitpickings, in some sort of effort to discredit scientific methodology. Moose
I have looked at the referenced thread. The argument is pointless - it is not about scientific methodology; it is about a sloppily-worded journalistic piece. Little is gained either by attacking the item or defending it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2002 6:44 PM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
Thanks Moose. Here goes. This is an amusing discussion thread from the Terry's board. Stellar Evolution Terry started with a link to a webarticle on the Sakurai Object which talks about advanced stellar evolution and the place of the Sakurai Object. Terry interprets this to mean that the complete lifecycle of a stellar object, from pre-white dwarf to red supergiant to hot central star, has been observed over 70 years. Therefore the "evolutionists" stories of stellar evolution taking million or billions of years is disproved by this single example. One of my first comments was that this did not appear to be the conclusion of the authors but this was dismissed as evolutionist conspiracy or brainwashing. Nevertheless he held this single case to be indicative that stellar evolution occured much faster than evolutionist previously thought. After I gave him links to further articles on the Sakurai Object and the class of dying star which it represented (rather than a new star being created), he withdrew and held the line at "the evolution was extraordinarily rapid" and therefore conventional cosmology is orders of magnitude wrong in its times for stellar evolution. I'm not sure if he ever understood that the Sakurai Object is a short-lived burst of a dying star rather than a new star being formed, evolving and dying. It seems that Terry will selectively believe any anomoly if it is not fully explained by conventional science but studiously avoid actually understanding the issue. Common creationist attitude. At least I got a bit of an education in cosmology through the thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-19-2002 2:11 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
nos482
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 12 of 157 (17846)
09-20-2002 8:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by wj
09-20-2002 2:06 AM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Thanks Moose. Here goes. This is an amusing discussion thread from the Terry's board. Stellar Evolution Terry started with a link to a webarticle on the Sakurai Object which talks about advanced stellar evolution and the place of the Sakurai Object. Terry interprets this to mean that the complete lifecycle of a stellar object, from pre-white dwarf to red supergiant to hot central star, has been observed over 70 years. Therefore the "evolutionists" stories of stellar evolution taking million or billions of years is disproved by this single example. One of my first comments was that this did not appear to be the conclusion of the authors but this was dismissed as evolutionist conspiracy or brainwashing. Nevertheless he held this single case to be indicative that stellar evolution occured much faster than evolutionist previously thought. After I gave him links to further articles on the Sakurai Object and the class of dying star which it represented (rather than a new star being created), he withdrew and held the line at "the evolution was extraordinarily rapid" and therefore conventional cosmology is orders of magnitude wrong in its times for stellar evolution. I'm not sure if he ever understood that the Sakurai Object is a short-lived burst of a dying star rather than a new star being formed, evolving and dying. It seems that Terry will selectively believe any anomoly if it is not fully explained by conventional science but studiously avoid actually understanding the issue. Common creationist attitude. At least I got a bit of an education in cosmology through the thread.
What does stellar evolution have to do with biological evolution? They are two completely unrelated subjects.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by wj, posted 09-20-2002 2:06 AM | | wj has not replied |
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
|
Message 13 of 157 (18298)
09-25-2002 7:04 PM
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I've gotten myself involved in another of Terry's topics. It's Public wants ID IN Ohio Public Schools!
I think I've decided having any great concern, of having a rational thought process, should be discarded when dealing with Terry. Maybe just get in there, and see if you can "out goofy" him. Moose ps: This time I tried using the UBB code variation to create the above link. Before I used the HTML method. They both can give the same results. [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2002]
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by wj, posted 09-25-2002 9:04 PM | | Minnemooseus has replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
Moose, that's probably the way to go. Keep to philosophical, sociological or political issues in discussions with Terry. They are generally expressions of personal opinion with little scientific support. Trying to discuss a science related topic and arguing over the evidence with Terry (or the dealy departed EdenNod)is an exercise in bashing your head against a brick wall - painful and with no tangible benefit. But be warned, don't disparage creationist, even in the most polite terms, or you'll get the Joe Meert treatment.
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
|
|
Message 15 of 157 (18306)
09-25-2002 9:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by wj
09-25-2002 9:04 PM
|
|
quote:
But be warned, don't disparage creationist, even in the most polite terms, or you'll get the Joe Meert treatment.
I think that may be the interest and the challenge of participating there - To find what dunderheaded reason Terry can come up with, to justify banning you. Don't try reasoning with him - Just see what you can do to annoy him.  Moose [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-25-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by wj, posted 09-25-2002 9:04 PM | | wj has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-25-2002 10:39 PM | | Minnemooseus has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2