Terry at the Talk Origins board

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

I'm bringing this in from the "A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship" topic:

quote:

---

Percy,

​

You can read my excruciatingly painstaking attempts at explaining these concepts to bob b over at theologyonline...

​

Update on the "argon" problem (should be helium of course)

​

Reiners himself puts in a word at the end.

​

If you ask me, bob is loosing his grip on reality. How old is bob, anyway? Is he suffering from some kind of dementia?

---

Your "Bob" seems to be a less coherent version of my "Terry". Of course, your "Helium" topic is more technically complicated than my "Grand Canyon" topic. Still, whatever Terry's shortcomings are, he does seem to be able to write clear, if misguided statements.By the way, the remarkable event of Terry conceding to the oppositions view seems to have happened at the "More than Blood" topic at the Talk Origins board (messages 8&9).Also, I have a little topic organization debate going with Terry. EdenNod had started a "Shroud of Turan" (sp?) topic a while back. It was still available on page 1 of the Talk Origins board list of most recent active topics. Anyhow, Terry came up with some "new" shroud information, and started a new topic for it. He is insistent that breaking it into two topics is a good thing!Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Quoting myself:

quote:

---

Anyhow, Terry came up with some "new" shroud information, and started a new topic for it. He is insistent that breaking it into two topics is a good thing!

---

I decided to look at some comparative statistics, Talk Origins board vs. , for the 100 most recent active topics lists.Talk Origins:
16 of 100 topics went 20 messages or greater.
4 of 100 topics went 50 messages or greater.
The greatest number of topic messages was 94, followed by the 83 of my "Grand Canyon" battle with Terry.:
50 of 100 topics went 20 messages or greater, including all of the most recent 5.
16 of 100 topics went 100 messages or greater.
4 of 100 topics went 200 messages or greater.
2 of 100 topics went 300 messages or greater.
1 of 100 topics went 400 messages or greater (can you guess which one?)Number 100 on the Talk Origins list was last posted to on 7/15/02; Number 100 here at was last posted to on 10/5/02.This illustrates what I see as one of the problems at the Talk Origins board - way too many micro-topics. Also, it shows how stifled the debate is there.I suspect that most of the "most messages" topics at the Talk Origins board, are when Terry and Salty clash on something.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-21-2002]

Amazingly enough, the "Grand Canyon" discussion at the Talk Origins board seems to be coming to a friendly conclussion.See the "part 2" portion of the discussion here.Moose

Something new from Terry, in message 64.

quote:

---

Hale, I don't know whether you are actually confused between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, or are blurring the two on purpose. Your objections to the papers on one of the many scientists on the ICR list indicates one of the two, however. NO creationist doubts the fact of evolution, it is absolutely established. What the creationist does not accept is the theory of evolution as a source of the diversity of all life on this planet from an original single celled form.
Evolution, as in adaptation, is absolutely established, and EVERY biological scientist knows that.
Evolution, as the mechanism which brought all forms of life extant from an original form is a theory, and many biological scientists doubt that.
The blurring of these two very distinct definitions is something I have seen done repeatedly, and the objections to such methods grew to the point that even the usenet group talk.origins finally admitted to a sharp distinction between the two.

​

It is helpful to refer to the two in distinct terms, such as macro-evolution and micro-evolution to avoid giving the wrong impression.

​

One other thing - how do you figure a DVM or an MD is not qualified as a biological scientist?

​

Terry

---

I added the bolds.Apparently Terry is making "Fact of Evolution"="Microevolution", and the "Theory of Evolution"="Macroevolution".While I do think the following reasoning is flawed, I would be inclined to have the "macroevolution" record of the fossil record being the single strongest evidence of the "fact of evolution".Or something like that.MooseA technical note, added by edit:While I was preparing the above message, I accidently closed the window. Instead, however, of having to start over, I was able to recover the page from my temporary internet files folder. This method may be useful to others, when a (long?) message they are preparing, is somehow lost before it was posted.[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-21-2002]

SLPx has become active there, which, of course, is causing all kinds of of turmoil.I kind of find myself being in the clumsy position of defending Scott's behavior.Apparently the only thing keeping Scott from getting banned there, is the wishes of Salty. Salty wishes that Scott remains, as being a representative of Darwinistic thought (or something like that).Essentially we may have the situation, of a clash between a cranky anti-Darwinist evolutionist (Salty), and a cranky pro-Darwinist evolutionist (Scott).A side comment, comparing the moderations methodology at Terry's Talk Origins, to that of EvCforum.net.Terry seems to feel a need to protect creationists from the harsh realities of the evolutionists point of view.Here at the EvCforum, such protection is less, or not at all. So the creationist side (fairly or otherwise) gets exposed to a greater dose of scientific reality (and I must again say, "or something like that").Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

There has been another recent banning (and unbanning) of one of the evolution side, at Terry's Talk Origins. While Terry may indeed sometimes have justification, I see this most recent one as being unjustified (the Joe Meert type situation).I wanted to bump this topic, but I don't have time to get the specifics up right now. Will get such up later.Cheers,
Moose

See messages 22, 24, and 25 hereAlso see the entire topic for the entire context. I believe that Gerald McGrew only posted in that one topic.I don't recall where I saw the info, but I believe Gerald was later unbanned.Moose

I happened to bother to check in, and found that the topic had (IMO) turned interesting.See Kurt's input, starting at about message 47 of the current 59. Here's where to find the topic. This will probably not get you to the precise page - It doesn't seem possible to do such a link at that board.Moose------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

OK, I've just posted message 9 at the Evidence for rapid geological formations topic, at Terry's Talk Origins.In consisted of:

quote:

---

This concerns both this topic, and the recent 3.somthing billion year old volcanics topic, and probably, in general, any geology topic at this site.

​

Terry, I have a BS degree in geology, much of which I have long forgotten.

​

I do, however, have enough geological knowledge to know how geologically ignorant I am.

​

Such is not the case for you.

​

Cheers,
Moose

---

Let's see if this gets me banned.Moose

From this topic.The Great Society (message 60):

quote:

---

Conundrum continues: It would seem that the teaching of evolution exclusively violates the provisions of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since the Government is not supposed to legislate either for or against any particular religion.

​

TGS replies: If your faith opposes the findings of science, too bad for you. The Catholic Church found itself in that boat 400 years ago. Today creationist religions oppose biology, as it is most widely and commonly accepted. This is a scientific discipline, and the students ought to have some familiarity with it, if for no other reason than that they might more effectively deride it.

​

If your faith happens to contradict physics, is it a violation of the first amendment that your children are taught physics? You probably don't consider this a serious question, because the only science you may think you disagree with is biology, whereas in fact you also have trouble with geology, physics, astronomy, and a few others. It is primarily biology, and most specifically the evolutionary aspect of biology, that collides with your faith. Tough.

​

There is a hindu sect that believes in levitation. A few of these members are reputable scientists. I've seen posters for symposiums and other scientific conclaves held under their auspices. You, as a creationist, represent a significant minority in the biological sciences. The hindu levitationists represent an even smaller minority of the physical sciences. Yet were they to oppose modern physics on the basis that levitation is not offered as a competing or complementary part of science, should physics be swept under the rug to assuage them? Why does your religious minority viewpoint deserve more respect than theirs?

​

For that matter, even if young earth christian creationists managed to capture a majority of the science positions in education and research, I'd still want evolution taught in the public schools. The reason is that I am interested in science. I used to be interested in faith, but my interest in that has matured into new areas. Belief in dogma for the sake of belief no longer interests me at all.

---

Terry replys (message 61);

quote:

---

TGS, Evolution is in no way a "finding of science". It is a hypothesis based upon ONE interpretation of the evidence.
Unfortunately, most public schools teach it exactly as you said; a FINDING of science. That is unfortunate, and a disservice to our children.

​

To be correct and true to facts, the schools should either not get into origins hypothesis' at all, or at the very least make it clear that there are several differing ones, NONE of which is a proven fact.

​

Terry

---

And then Salty says (message 62):

quote:

---

TGS 400 years ago Galileo criticized the geocentric view of the solar system. He refused to consider it as an alternative to the Copernican view. That was all the Church wanted from him. There are parallels today with those of us who have dismissed Darwinism as a myth instead of being nice and offering only an alternative hypothesis. The Darwinian Inquisition is very similar to the Italian Inquisition, although for tolerance I would prefer the Italian version. salty

---

Those are the three messages in their entirety.Moose

"Morton's Demon" has come up in another topic. I believe I also touched upon it upstring (but I haven't checked).Anyhow, I made "Morton's Demon" a topic at Terry's Talk Origins. Terry took great offense.The end of that topic is here.Navigate back, to see the earlier pages.(That site is structured clumsy - It always gives you a full last page - All the page structures changes as messages are added - You can't seem to be able to link to a full page 1 and then work your way down string.)Moose

What might be an interesting topic to observe. Here at Terry's Talk Origins. I believe this link will take you to the most recent page of the topic. Currently there is only one page.A strong rebutal (message 2) came from someone who does not seem to be on the evolution side.I also like his comments on communism, Reagan, and G.W. Bush in message 4 (which was a response to a Salty interjection at message 3)Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Source

quote:

---

Hi guys. Some of you know me from other communities I'm sure, and of course the rest of you don't. I was a brief member of Terry's group a while ago and was quickly banned for expressing one of my opinions on young-earth creationists. Essentially, I told Terry I couldn't understand how YEC's can bring themselves to use a computer and the internet to express their views given that their position requires them to believe that all the major fields of science are not only wrong, but are so far off base as to be useless. IOW, their stance requires a sort of general disdain for mainstream science.

​

When I first joined Terry's group, I was fairly naive about what I was walking into. Terry has created a sort of oasis for internet creationists. There they can express the oddest of ideas and most ridiculous of arguments, but anyone who dares state the obvious is given a swift boot out the door. It's a nice, safe, protected environment for oddballs.

​

One thing I've come to realize is that when you try and debate a creationist, you have to remember that you're not only questioning their ideas--you're questioning their beliefs. And for many of these folks, their beliefs are likely the most important aspect of their very being. So when you point out holes or errors in their arguments or claims, of course they take it personally. From their perspective, you're exposing flaws in their personal beliefs, an act which is indistinguishable from a "personal attack".

​

So MJ, when you call LE on his bluster and bluff, to him and others who support him, you are indeed engaging in personal attacks. You're questioning his ideas, which stem directly from and are all entangled with his deeply held beliefs. When discussing creationism, there is no seperating the two.

​

It's the rare "evolutionist" (translated: empirical thinker) who can stick around in such an environment. Those that do are comfortable with letting the creationists off the hook on a regular basis. Most of us are used to "going in for the kill" when we have an opponent pinned in a debate. Do that in Terry's group, and you'll find yourself on the outside. Only those who can pin an opponent and not only let him up, but take care not to mention it again will last.

​

I can't do that, and I'm not sure I would ever want to.

---

Not a "Terry's Talk Origins" related message, but something concerning the spin-off forum "Fringe Science".At the Age of the Earth topic (which has drift all over the place) I am attempting to discuss very basic geology with someone going by the name of SaltbeGood. SbG seems to be locked into near total ignorance of geology, but that isn't stopping him/her.Anyhow, SbG's posting style is starting to remind me of someone who once posted here at . SbG also seems to be fairly good with HTML.Any guesses on what other name SbG might have gone under?Moose