Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 91 of 157 (19886)
10-14-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
10-14-2002 7:10 PM


Oh, Richard Strauss, Op. 35.
Are you referring to me or Terry (or both of us)?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-14-2002 7:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 10-14-2002 9:15 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 157 (19887)
10-14-2002 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minnemooseus
10-14-2002 9:10 PM


Terry's the windmill.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-14-2002 9:10 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 1:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 157 (19904)
10-15-2002 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by wj
10-13-2002 11:07 PM


This Salty guy is interesting... Can anybody invite him here? Put him in a team with Peter Borger and arrange a 2-on-1 against SLPx in 'The Great Debate'!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wj, posted 10-13-2002 11:07 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Randy, posted 10-15-2002 4:40 PM Andya Primanda 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 94 of 157 (19937)
10-15-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
10-14-2002 9:15 PM


I've now got an ally at the active Grand Canyon topic, at the Talk Origins board.
My newest message there, is number 63.
I think my next message at that site may be my last. It may be:
MORTON'S DEMON!
MORTON'S DEMON!
MORTON'S DEMON!
Added by edit: The Glenn Morton "Morton's Demon" message can be found at : http://EvC Forum: Ignorance and Arrogance -->EvC Forum: Ignorance and Arrogance
I first mentioned "Morton's Demon", in this topic, at http://EvC Forum: What happened at talk origins? -->EvC Forum: What happened at talk origins?
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 10-14-2002 9:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by frank, posted 10-15-2002 2:35 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 9:58 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 157 (19942)
10-15-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2002 1:35 PM


Declare victory first !
Clear Skies !
Frank

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 1:35 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 96 of 157 (19948)
10-15-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Andya Primanda
10-15-2002 5:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
This Salty guy is interesting... Can anybody invite him here? Put him in a team with Peter Borger and arrange a 2-on-1 against SLPx in 'The Great Debate'!
I don't think Salty will debate. When I asked him some questions about what I see are some inconsistencies between his semi-meiosis papers and things he says on the board he told me to stop interrogating him. He is comfortable on Terry's board because no one knows enough about evolutionary theory and chromosome structure to really challenge him. You will note the he mostly posts anti-Darwinist sound bites.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-15-2002 5:25 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 157 (19974)
10-15-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Minnemooseus
10-15-2002 1:35 PM


Doesn't Terry have a good point about Havasu Canyon? Not in the final tally, of course, but at this middle stage of the discussion where you've been arguing that a younger age for part of the Marble Canyon has no implications for the age of the rest of the canyon, Havasu Canyon is almost at the other end of the canyon. Terry is pointing out that younger dates aren't just at the top end of the canyon, but also at the bottom end, and by implication probably lots of other places too.
This is easily rebutted, but it seemed his strongest point, and you didn't seem to address it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-15-2002 1:35 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-16-2002 12:30 AM Percy 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 98 of 157 (19988)
10-16-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
10-15-2002 9:58 PM


quote:
Havasu Canyon is almost at the other end of the canyon. Terry is pointing out that younger dates aren't just at the top end of the canyon, but also at the bottom end, and by implication probably lots of other places too.
The information presented for Havasu Canyon is also that the part of the canyon under consideration, is the deepest part, not the entire depth. But the information is presented in a rather fuzzy manner, so I didn't choose to pursue it.
Instead, I have chosen to primarily focus in on this statement, from the "new information". I have quoted it to Terry repeatidly, in red text with bold highlighting.
quote:
Growing numbers of geologists now believe that Marble Canyon and the Inner Gorge may be no more than 700,000 years old veritable infants on the geologic time scale, and much younger than the earlier 3-million- to 5-million—year-old estimates. 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.
This explicitly states that it is the bottom third of the canyon, that was erroded in the last 700,000 years. The last 700,000 years doesn't cover the top two-thirds of the Grand Canyons depth.
I would think that this in itself should be plenty to shoot down Terry's arguement that the entire Grand Canyon, rim to river, was erroded in the most recent 700,000 years. But, alas, Morton's demon seems to be powerful enough to filter the "a third of" right out of the sentence. Terry persists on reading it as "Some scientists now believe that 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.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 10-15-2002 9:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 157 (20047)
10-16-2002 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Minnemooseus
10-09-2002 11:39 AM


Here is part of a recent posting by Terry on his Closer and closer thread which illustrates 2 points (see message 27).
"It is those that DON'T post that we are speaking too, Salty! Those are the ones that have not had their minds set like concrete on one paradigm or another due to whatever educational system they have been steeped in. We challenge them to QUESTION AUTHORITY! That is the beginning of true knowledge."
Firstly I don't know if it is more laughable or pathetic that Terry should challenge others to question authority when his whole worldview is based on unquestioned acceptance of biblical authority.
Second, his reference to the silent lurkers supports my view from message 70 that Terry thinks the lurkers agree with his opinion or at least are undecided. I'm sure that Wehappyfew, Mark24, Mammuthus etc (some silent lurkers) would not like to see themselves counted as evolution doubters or skeptics as Terry naturally assumes.
[This message has been edited by wj, 10-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-09-2002 11:39 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-17-2002 5:09 PM wj has not replied
 Message 101 by Mammuthus, posted 10-18-2002 4:36 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 100 of 157 (20128)
10-17-2002 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by wj
10-16-2002 8:59 PM


Functioning in the Admin mode, I did a save and print out of the complete topics list. The file ran 1,034 KB, took 31 pages to print out, and numbered 665 topics (including a number of damaged topics).
Anyhow, very deep in the list, I discovered an old Talk Origins / Terry topic. It's at http://EvC Forum: What happened at talk origins? -->EvC Forum: What happened at talk origins? .
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wj, posted 10-16-2002 8:59 PM wj has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 101 of 157 (20157)
10-18-2002 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by wj
10-16-2002 8:59 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj:
[B]Here is part of a recent posting by Terry on his Closer and closer thread which illustrates 2 points (see message 27).
"It is those that DON'T post that we are speaking too, Salty! Those are the ones that have not had their minds set like concrete on one paradigm or another due to whatever educational system they have been steeped in. We challenge them to QUESTION AUTHORITY! That is the beginning of true knowledge."
Firstly I don't know if it is more laughable or pathetic that Terry should challenge others to question authority when his whole worldview is based on unquestioned acceptance of biblical authority.
Second, his reference to the silent lurkers supports my view from message 70 that Terry thinks the lurkers agree with his opinion or at least are undecided. I'm sure that Wehappyfew, Mark24, Mammuthus etc (some silent lurkers) would not like to see themselves counted as evolution doubters or skeptics as Terry naturally assumes.
************************
Hi wj
I actually have not lurked over there for a while. I find it useless to confront anyone over there when there is such a high probablitiy that when I am in conflict with I will get banned, my posts deleted, or edited to mean something I did not say. Terry declared his unwillingness to debate in a forum where he does not have this power of censorship.
And I have been busy arguing with Peter Borger and slugging it out with Wordswordsman on this board. Though I may have a little more time since Wordswordsman has declared his unwillingness to debate evolution any more and has instead shifted to proclaiming he has the characteristics of a deity and that christianity justifies slavery....
why go out to the circus at Terry's when we have a 3 ring circus with Wordy here?
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wj, posted 10-16-2002 8:59 PM 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 102 of 157 (20195)
10-18-2002 2:42 PM


My most recent message at the canyon topic, at the Talk Origins board:
quote:
OK Terry, here comes the H-bomb:
I had e-mailed Robert Webb, the researcher behind the "new information", concerning the first cited article in message 1. I have just received a reply from him. I hope he doesn't mind me passing the message on.
Robert Webb said, and I quote:
I had a real problem with the people that wrote that article. We tried to restrict it to our work (1) on lava dams, which indicate that volcanism occurred much more recently than previously thought and (2) offset rates on the Hurricane and Toroweap faults, which could explain why eastern Grand Canyon downcutting rates may be more rapid than those in western Grand Canyon. We said absolutely nothing about the overall age of Grand Canyon, which remains at about 5-6 million years. Instead, we have been trying to focus on very specific issues within the inner gorge of Grand Canyon, which might be much younger than previously thought. Others are focusing on Glen Canyon, which some now think is younger than 500,000 years. So as you perceived, there is a perception problem here that originally caused the delay of that press release by 4 months and now I wish I had cancelled it altogether.
Bob
------
Robert H. Webb
U.S. Geological Survey
520 N. Park Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85719
520-670-6671 ext 238
rhwebb@usgs.gov
CASE CLOSED?
Moose
Moose
ps: I've been posting ban provoking comments at TE. I should be gone from there soon.
Morton's Demon has Terry's head in a vice.

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 10-18-2002 3:15 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 106 by wj, posted 10-19-2002 1:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 103 of 157 (20199)
10-18-2002 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Minnemooseus
10-18-2002 2:42 PM


Terry's reply will be that his point all along has been that science is coming closer and closer to the Creationist point of view, and the fact that science isn't yet all the way there isn't significant at this stage of the process.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-18-2002 2:42 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-18-2002 4:23 PM Percy 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 104 of 157 (20205)
10-18-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
10-18-2002 3:15 PM


I'll cite and quote this (timed stamped message) to Terry, after he makes the predicted statement.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 10-18-2002 3:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 10-18-2002 6:23 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 10-19-2002 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 105 of 157 (20210)
10-18-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Minnemooseus
10-18-2002 4:23 PM


You might also mention that dates are revised all the time, both upward and downward. Geologists are simply responding to new data or improved interpretations or analyses of existing data, and it has nothing to do with the YEC perspective. They're not disagreeing with YEC when they revise upward, and they're not moving toward the YEC point of view when they revise downward. Their perspective has been and remains one of geologic time, something which the YEC maximum of 10,000 years doesn't allow.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-18-2002 4:23 PM 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