Hey, Carbon 14 specific topic Not a general purpose radiometric topic.
Carbon 14 only used for ~50 thousand years back and is not relevant for dating considerations of millions or billions of years. Millions or billions of years considerations need to find a topic elsewhere.
All messages should have a Carbon 14 connection. Will need to start slamming messages that don't have that connection.
The decay constant is the underlying principle supporting radiocarbon dating.
It is also the primary place creationists attack radiocarbon dating.
Spanning three-quarters of the thread and constituting a quarter of it: Dawn Bertot's messages. I am strongly convinced that Dawn has no idea what he/she actually thinks or is arguing in support of, beyond the conclusion that "order = design, therefore there is a designer".
This is evidenced by
the inability to use terms consistently with either other people's uses and definitions or with his/her own;
the inability or refusal to clarify what definition is being used at any given point;
the inability or refusal to answer direct and relatively simple questions about the arguments or statements;
inability or refusal to acknowledge basic logical errors and correct them afterward;
constant repetition of the same point without any further explanation or detail being added; ignorance of what the opposing point actually is;
and preference to claiming personal deficiencies in anybody questioning the statements Dawn makes, instead of addressing the questions raised, all of which sums up into avoiding any useful debate at all.
While the discussion of "can an ordered and complex universe be used as evidence of implicit design?" was somewhat good and relatively on-topic (at least, on-topic for a thread at this forum ) if not closely related, it has become stalled by Dawn's simple lack of actual discussion.
Could moderators please begin either helping the thread to return to its major theme, progressing the current discussion along to a consensus (more rapidly than at present) or ending that discussion to allow others in its place.
I endorse everything Nij says. I would have posted the exact same things, but it takes time to carefully compose such condensations.
Unfortunately Adminnemooseus and I are the only active moderators in the science threads right now, and since I'm one of the primary participants I cannot moderate in that thread. Adminnemooseus closed the thread at one point for being off topic, but I reopened it in my role as Admin because as a participant I knew that it was off topic in appearance only.
I think the thread is still on topic. It is trying to discuss whether ICR is teaching science or religious apologetics, but it looks like the thread is off-topic because we've digressed into trying to figure out what Dawn Bertot is saying. I think if Dawn can be encouraged to clarify what he is trying to say that the thread can then return to discussing whether what he's talking about is science, and if it is, whether that is what ICR is teaching. But it all depends upon whether Adminnemooseus is willing to try moderating the thread.
I know the current discussion is on-topic -- I explicitly defined how it was related to the subject, in fact.
I appreciate your efforts in trying to focus Dawn on one point at a time, but the simple problem is that Dawn won't do it. I don't know whether the avoidance is caused by misunderstanding of what is being asked or refusal to explain properly for whatever reason, but the outcome is the same: stalling of the thread.
I'm not sure whether direct moderation will really help, now that I think of it. That could only entail closing for off-topicness, suspending Dawn, or forcing us to cease discussing that issue some other way. None of those would help figure out what Dawn meant and the topic would be a vital one in any serious discussion of why ID is or is not science.
Perhaps a better method would be explaining to Dawn exactly what our issues are in a less hostile environment? Maybe you could try PMing him, Percy; that way the thread won't get more confused, and when the discussion restarts it will be on more level grounds where everybody is defining and using words or terms the same way.
But it all depends upon whether Adminnemooseus is willing to try moderating the thread.
Short version answer: No
Longer version answer: Do you think I'm that crazy?
Still longer version answer: I don't thinks I'm remotely up to understanding what's happening in that topic, and thus be in any position to supply any useful guidance, discipline, or magical fix. Or something like that.
Maybe a disinterested someone else is interested in taking a stab at moderating the topic, to be appointed "special moderator" status. Maybe kind of like being the Ken Starr of evcforum.net.
Again I say, I don't think I'm up to it. Besides, much of my time is going to be taken up by my fixing things up between Israel and Palestine.
Hi, AdminPD slapped down my question to icant about why the two genesis accounts apparently contradicting each other don't. My question was Message 239 and I'm not quite sure what was Off-Topic about it?
quote:Hi, AdminPD slapped down my question to icant about why the two genesis accounts apparently contradicting each other don't. My question was Message 239 and I'm not quite sure what was Off-Topic about it?
Is Message 240 also off-topic?
Ignore the title and read the OP and the Admin Message #236.
The originator states: This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.
The debate is about whether the contradictions presented by the originator debunks the inerrancy of the Bible. It is not about whether these are actually contradictions or not.
Message 240 is an attempt to get the thread back on track.
You came into the discussion after we all ran amuck.
Always remember, the title is not the argument; the OP presents the argument for debate.
I admit I was confused about the distinction, too, so maybe if I give my understanding of it now it will help clarify.
The originator of the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 thread points to what look like contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 and asks participants to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the contradictions are real. He then asks for a discussion about whether the contradictions call the inerrancy of the Bible into question.
Actually, Percy, with respect, that's not what the OP says. Nor does the originator state in Msg #8 that he doesn't want to debate whether or not the accounts are contradictory.
In fact, in the OP, after stating "Here is the argument," hepteract posts the two creation accounts, points out apparent contradictions, and says, "This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does."
In Msg 8 he merely declines to join ICANT's thread "because your thread explicitly states that the bible is the final authority. My thread explicitly states that the bible is being questioned. Therefore, the threads should remain separate."
I see no cautioning against arguments for non-contradiction there.