Terry at the Talk Origins board

I see that wehappyfew has ventured into Terryworld.

Percy:

quote:

---

It is the only unmoderated forum at this site.

---

I view the "Free For All" forum as a place to go totally of any creation/evolution topic (of course, the "Coffee House" forum is for such also). It is also a place to trade insults, etc.I put this topic in this forum, because I expected that there would be some shots taken at Terry's character. Things have been pretty friendly, and I would hope that they stay that way.I know that, if things turned ugly in this topic, as topic starter I would request that the topic be closed. And since I have Adminnemooseus under my thumb (I can take away his use of the computer), I am confident that it would be closed.Moose------------------
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, 10-07-2002]

Sounds like we view this forum the same way. As the description of Free For All says, "No registration required, anything goes, no holds barred, flame-on."--Percy

Percy, why would one resort to flames when merely showing Terry's actions speaks much louder than any words?

Moose, I think you have arrived at a similar position as I did when discussing the Sakurai Object with Terry. In that case he clung to the phrase "extraordinarily fast" like a drowning man clinging to a lifesaver. I predict that in this instance Terry will cling to "young", "infant" and "blink of an eye" and similar adjectives from any of the references to preserve his position.It might be disturbing for him if you can show that the authors of such adjectives give contextual meaning to those words eg. infant (but still 700,000 years old). Terry is a master of selective reading (or is it double think?) but it may reduce his bleating if you remind him that the infant is 700,000 years old and not less than the 6,000 years required to support the creationist myth.

I sent an e-mail to Robert H. Webb (USGS), who is listed in the "contact information" box at the University of Arizona page. Maybe, if I'm lucky, they'll post some supplimental information.As I see it, my primary problem with Terry, is that the various pages telling of the "new information" use titles such as "Is the Grand Canyon a Geologic Infant?". Such titles do strongly imply that the "new information" is relevent to age considerations of the entire Grand Canyon. My assertion, or course, is that it is not; The "new information" makes no comment on the "entire Grand Canyon" age.This is my new message to Terry:

quote:

---

Terry, two questions:

​

1) What does the direct from the new information quotation "Some scientists now believe that a third of the canyon’s depth may have been cut in the blink of a geologic eye - perhaps during the past 600,000 to 700,000 years" mean to you?

​

2) Because of the new information, what time span are you assigning to the erosion of the entire Grand Canyon?

---

My bottom line, at that Talk Origins board topic, is that I'm not going to permit Terry to have the final message (unless he bans me, in order to get it). Maybe I'll just end up repeatedly posting the above two questions.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

quote:

---

Maybe I'll just end up repeatedly posting the above two questions.

---

It may be the only way.....I have signed up for Terryland, but probably won't bother posting, it looks like you've saved me a lot of frustration.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

I have signed up for Terryland, but probably won't bother posting,...

---

The old "annoy him by signing up for his message board, and then not say anything trick"? Moose

It's a debating tactic.

The only problem with signing up and never contributing is that, in Terry's mind, this demonstrates that the board is popular and all of the lurkers agree with Terry's opinions. Lack of supporting evidence for such a view would not be a problem for Terry.I suspect that the vast majority of currently listed members on Terry's board have lost interest long ago and no longer even lurk. A string of sign-ons and then resignations / withdrawals might induce an interesting reaction from Terry.

I think I may have succeeded in striking a blow at Terry's thought process, at the Grand Canyon topic at the Talk Origins board.See message 50, here.He still has some wriggle room, but I already have a response lined up, for what I anticipate he might say next.Moose

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I think I may have succeeded in striking a blow at Terry's thought process, at the Grand Canyon topic at the Talk Origins board.

​

See message 50, here.

​

He still has some wriggle room, but I already have a response lined up, for what I anticipate he might say next.

​

Moose

---

+++++++++++++++++++You have his back against a wall...so I guess we can expect you to be banned from his site soon...and all your messages deleted or edited in his favor.

I've now brought "Morton's Demon" to Terry's site.Terry's intitial response included:

quote:

---

This post you have placed here is one of the milder ones from the talk.origins ilk, so I will leave it - with the warning that this is exactly the type of debate method this group was formed to avoid.

---

I will probably also bring Kenneth Miller' conversation with Henry Morris over there, somewhere along the line.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I think I may have succeeded in striking a blow at Terry's thought process, at the Grand Canyon topic at the Talk Origins board.

​

See message 50, here.

​

He still has some wriggle room, but I already have a response lined up, for what I anticipate he might say next.

​

Moose

---

​

+++++++++++++++++++

​

You have his back against a wall...so I guess we can expect you to be banned from his site soon...and all your messages deleted or edited in his favor.

​

---

No he will just do what he always does and abandon the thread as unproductive(looks like he already has). If your arguments prove too strong to beat and too mild to ban he will decide to ignore you because he doesn't like your tactics or some such thing.
Randy

Terry seems unable to concede that he has made any sort of a mistake. He could possibly retract the point I think I caught him on, without totally destroying his (flawed) arguement.I shall give him some more time, then I will state that I must assume that the opinion of his previous message still stands. I'll then refute it one last time (also with a bit of new data), and declare a victory.Moose