Re: Why is the Intelligent Designer such an idiot?
The last two pages degenerated, which is why Adminnemooseus closed it. There were multiple contributors to the degeneration, for an example of your own see Message 148. I'll reopen the thread, but I leave it to you to keep the thread focused on arguments from evidence rather than from incredulity and ridicule, otherwise the thread will soon be closed again.
For future reference, threads with titles that include words like "idiot" might do well at attracting participants, but not necessarily the serious ones you might like, and like a red car on the highway they tend to attract the attention of moderators, too. You might consider changing the title to something like, "Why is the Intelligent Designer Inept?"
For the first time (that I have seen anyway) we have a highly competent and scientifically minded debator (RAZD) arguing the case for the existence of god/gods in earnest against the atheistic contingent (myself included).
The normally in agreement science lobby are arguing philosophy, logic and practicality regarding their different outlooks as opposed to the all too frequent "creationists are demonstrably wrong" sort of debate that we often have.
I would like the chance to reply to Raz. I would also like to see how the defence of deism pans out in practical terms.
Daniel4140 wasn't addressing the thread's topic. If Daniel4140 doesn't propose a topic to discuss his issues then someone else should do it for him. His marshaling of a number of creationist arguments against dating methods deserves to be addressed.
The is something to be said for presenting "grand unified topics". But they are contrary to forum rule/guideline 3 - "When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points." The reason for that rule 3 is that the lack of focus of such "Grand unified topics" make for debate messes.
I think the "Version 2 No 1" is a fine reference but not a viable debate topic, thus I'm for leaving it closed. I think someone needs to start up a new "Dates and Dating" topic that has more focus.
Select quality replies to this message are welcome. But such should focus on the concerns of "broad focus vs. narrow focus topics".
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
There is, in my opinion, a focus to the V2 No 1 topic of RAZD's: it is precisely the correlations. You can't discuss that without given the list of thing correlated. It may be difficult to focus individuals on the correlations because they don't understand them or can't handle them (or both) but that doesn't mean it isn't a focused topic.
I think we can corral Daniel4140 with the new tree ring statistical analysis thread and the existing carbon-14 dating thread for now, and thus keep the focus on age correlations on the correlations thread rather than individual measurement problems.