Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terry at the Talk Origins board
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
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 sezlus, 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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
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:
. . .
Link to another file or resource
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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 17 of 157 (18318)
09-26-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
09-25-2002 10:39 PM


For what it's worth to anybody - I skimmed the remainder of the topic thread without noticing any banning commentary. Apparently Percy's was a stealth banning.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-25-2002 10:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nos482, posted 09-26-2002 7:37 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 10:00 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 157 (18383)
09-26-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
09-26-2002 12:15 PM


Something I posted on 3/21/02, in the "Ignorance and Arrogance" topic.
quote:
I just discovered this Glenn Morton production at:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002
Here it is, in its entirety:
and
quote:
Morton's Demon
Post of the Month: February 2002
by Glenn Morton
I quoted it in it's entirety at: http://EvC Forum: Ignorance and Arrogance -->EvC Forum: Ignorance and Arrogance , so I won't repeat it here.
Terry seems to be a prime example of someone under the influence of "Morton's Demon".
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 12:15 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by wj, posted 09-27-2002 3:04 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 157 (18535)
09-29-2002 11:06 AM


Fresh exchanges w/ Terry - In rapid canyon carving topic here
Moose (Message 13):
quote:
I was visiting a friend last week, in a area I had never visited before. In his back yard, he had a stream in a 4 foot deep gulley. While I was there, there happened the largest rainstorm ever historicly known in that area. Just before I left, I notices that, in the last 24 hours, the stream had cut the gulley an additional 4 feet deeper.
This situation made me curious, so I had to ask my friend, "Where did that stream run 48 hours ago, before it started cutting the channel through your yard?"
Moose
Terry responded (message 14):
quote:
Good analogy, moose -
you have shown the falacy of uniformitarian thinking, and have begun to grasp catastrophism, which YEC's believe to be of much greater influence on geological features that OAE's do. It is absolutely WRONG to observe a process today, and make the assumption that it has always been thus.
Terry
Moose (message 15):
quote:
Moose reply: And it is equally absolutely wrong to observe a catastrophic event in the geologic record, and to then asssume that you can extend the effects of that event back in time and/or forward in time.
Just because there is evidence that a portion of the Grand Canyon was eroded rapidly, does not mean that the earlier or later part of the errosion was also rapid.
Moose
ps: The concept of uniformitarianism has long included catastrophic events sometimes happening. One, however, must assume that non-catastrophic processes are the norm, when there is no evidence of a catastrophic event.
Added by edit 2:
Message 16 from Moose (typos/misspellings preserved), at the Talk Origins board is:
quote:
I wish to modify:
"Moose reply: And it is equally absolutely wrong to observe a catastrophic event in the geologic record, and to then asssume that you can extend the effects of that event back in time and/or forward in time."
into
"Moose reply: And it is equally absolutely wrong to observe a catastrophic event, be it in the present, or be it in the geologic record, and to then asssume that you can extend the effects of that event back in time and/or forward in time.
Added by edit 1: Terry bungled his response, above and beyond my expectations!
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-29-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-29-2002]
Still more by edit #3 (message 17):
quote:
Terry in message 14:
"Good analogy, moose -
you have shown the falacy of uniformitarian thinking, and have begun to grasp catastrophism, which YEC's believe to be of much greater influence on geological features that OAE's do. It is absolutely WRONG to observe a process today, and make the assumption that it has always been thus."
I think I've long had a pretty good grasp of the concept of catastrophism. I am, however, getting a much better grasp on the YEC perspective of catastrophism.
Moose
and message #18:
quote:
And that is, catastrophe is the norm, and normal is a catastrophe.
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-29-2002]

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 28 of 157 (18546)
09-29-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by wj
09-27-2002 3:04 AM


quote:
I recall Terry saying at one point that he had corresponded with Glenn Morton at some earlier time on flood geology or some such matter and was of the opinion that Morton was incompetent or dishonest
To say the least. What some creationists have said about Morton, at the Talk Origins board (I think), would easily have gotten an evolutionist banned, had it been said about a YEC. It might even have gotten a poster chastised at .
Fortunatly, here at , we have Kent Hovand, available for slurring by both evolutionists and creationists.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by wj, posted 09-27-2002 3:04 AM wj has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 30 of 157 (18553)
09-29-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by wj
09-29-2002 10:40 PM


wj, that's the same link, as the "here" that you asked about back on page 1 of this topic. Well, that goes to show, a "The Ocean Depth Pangea Problem thread" is better that a "here".
By the way, in case you didn't notice, the "here" type business can be done with either HTML or UBB code. See the respective help topics, if you wish.
By the way, did you notice that I adopted the "homely anecdote" method, in my current Terry project (also as documented a bit up this page)? I think I'm entering a bit into his mindset, and it is a bit of a trip into the twilight zone.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by wj, posted 09-29-2002 10:40 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by wj, posted 09-29-2002 11:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 33 by wj, posted 09-30-2002 11:19 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 157 (18663)
10-01-2002 12:30 AM


For the local record, this is where the situation stands at the Talk Origins board:
My intital message at the "More Rapid Canyon Carving" topic:
quote:
I was visiting a friend last week, in a area I had never visited before. In his back yard, he had a stream in a 4 foot deep gulley. While I was there, there happened the largest rainstorm ever historicly known in that area. Just before I left, I notices that, in the last 24 hours, the stream had cut the gulley an additional 4 feet deeper.
This situation made me curious, so I had to ask my friend, "Where did that stream run 48 hours ago, before it started cutting the channel through your yard?"
Moose
Now, in the current message (#23), we are at an impass. The respective opinions on the above quoted are:
quote:
Terry: "That is a demonstration of uniformitarian thinking, not catastrophic thinking."
Moose: "As for my analogy, I view it as an example of catastrophic thinking. Time for some opinions from others."
I concluded that message 23 with:
quote:
One of us is clearly wrong. Bring on the judge(s).
Moose
Believe it or not,
The same old Moose
ps: Does that "catastrophic thinking" phrase have a double meaning?

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by wj, posted 10-09-2002 1:22 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 157 (18845)
10-02-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Joe Meert
10-02-2002 11:01 AM


Joe - Lay of using all capital letters! It really ticks me off.
I'm recommending to Adminnemooseus, that every individual who posted at the Mickey-Mouse topic be given a 24 hour suspension!
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Joe Meert, posted 10-02-2002 11:01 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 10-02-2002 11:28 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 48 of 157 (18931)
10-02-2002 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mammuthus
10-02-2002 11:28 AM


quote:
And you denigrated Mickey Mouse!
How disgustingly racist! How dare you use the de-N word, especially right before Mickey Mouse.
Moose
-----
Explanation to someone from Germany, who may not have heard the U.S. incident.
A fair while back, some public figure used "denigrate" in a public speech. Someone else got all bent out of shape, because they thought the word was derived from the dreaded "N" word. I think the guy may have been forced to resign from his job. Much uproar over much ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 10-02-2002 11:28 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 10:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 50 by Mammuthus, posted 10-03-2002 1:55 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 10-06-2002 12:59 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 51 of 157 (19109)
10-05-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Mammuthus
10-03-2002 1:55 PM


I think it would be more interesting, to see if one could get banned for something more subtle.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Mammuthus, posted 10-03-2002 1:55 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 55 of 157 (19156)
10-06-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
10-06-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
I thought that the word that was used was "niggardly."
1. Grudging and petty in giving or spending.
2. Meanly small; scanty or meager: left the waiter a niggardly tip.
You're absolutely correct! See what happens when I depend on my memory.
I think the "denigrate" joke still keeps much of it's validity (it was part of a pretty silly string of comments). I was, as I wrote this, thinking that niggardly and denigrate might have a common root. Doesn't the "denigrate" meanings include "make small" or "make smaller"?
Consulting the Webster's, I see the above is wrong. In a nutshell, the literal meaning of denigrate is "to blacken". Their roots are apparently unrelated.
Well, anyhow, now you've gotten back at me, for the "alisonleeisme" incident, back then in Yahooland.
Thanks,
Moose
Added by edit: By the way, my debate with Terry, about the Grand Canyon, at the Talk Origins board, is continuing. It can be found here.
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 10-06-2002 12:59 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 10-07-2002 11:30 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024