Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 12:38 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 0/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terry and the Grand Canyon Age - A Judgement poll
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 1 of 8 (19951)
10-15-2002 5:27 PM


I would like to poll the members here, to come to a judgement on who is coming to the correct conclusions at the Talk Origins board "Grand Canyon" topic, the first page of which is located here.

Terry seems to be firm in his conclusion that the "new information" indicates that the entire Grand Canyon is much younger (700,000 years?), that what was previously thought.

Me and my ally CSkeptic are of the opinion that the "new information" only concerns portions of the Grand Canyon, and makes no statement about the age of the canyon as a whole.

{Added by edit: Please note - I am looking for a judgement of your opinions on what the "new information" of that topic means. I am not looking for a statement of personal beliefs. (Example: Terry is a YEC, but his is arguing a position that falls outside of the YEC framework. He is interpreting what the "new information" says, aside from his personal young earth beliefs).}

Please respond with:
1) Terry's right
2) Moose's right
or
3) Don't know / no opinion

Also please list your position in the creation/evolution debate:
1) Young Earth Creationist
2) Old Earth Creationist
3) Evolutionist
or
4) Other (specify)

Thank you,
Moose

Also by edit: I hope I've succeded in presenting this poll in an unbiased way.

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-15-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 10-15-2002 6:04 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 3 by frank, posted 10-15-2002 6:19 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 8:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 8 (19952)
10-15-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2002 5:27 PM


Mark

2) & 3) respectively.

The problem isn't your data or argument, it's Terry's Demon, he will not concede.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 5:27 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
frank
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (19953)
10-15-2002 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2002 5:27 PM


2 & 3.

I thought Terry had given up because it was a "waste of time".

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 5:27 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 8 (19963)
10-15-2002 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2002 5:27 PM


2 & 3

You're not actually having a discussion. Terry makes a good point when he says that geologists are moving closer to his point of view by assigning a younger age to Marble Canyon, but he's simply refused to address the issue that this is still far older than his YEC views allow, or the issue that it doesn't affect the age for the rest of the GC. He has also set himself up as both debater and judge of the debate when he unilaterally declares your posts a waste of time and exits.

Terry is fun to watch because of his silly antics, but you can't really have a meaningful discussion with him. And you certainly won't corner him, not in his own lair. You'll be banned for high crimes and misdemeanors first.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 5:27 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frank, posted 10-16-2002 12:01 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
frank
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 8 (20028)
10-16-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
10-15-2002 8:40 PM


Percy,

It appears the messages went from 3 to 5. Did something happen to message 4 ?

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 8:40 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 12:40 PM frank has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 7 of 8 (20032)
10-16-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frank
10-16-2002 12:01 PM


I noticed that gap yesterday. I was hoping that no message gaps would show up. That opens up the possibility of administrative meddling.

Between my having added an (early) edit to the first message, and that gap, this poll is probably terminally flawed.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frank, posted 10-16-2002 12:01 PM frank has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 10-16-2002 1:37 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 8 of 8 (20035)
10-16-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Minnemooseus
10-16-2002 12:40 PM


I accidently replied as Admin, so I deleted the message and rePosted as myself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 12:40 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019