Hi, Watson! I'm happy see you're still here. Sorry to give you a hard time.
People who have been here a while already know that Percy and Admin are the same person. It's on my list of things to do to get the admin names posted visibly somewhere, but I'm up to my ears in other improvements right now. I'll take this opportunity to alphabetically list the administrators:
Admin: Percipient (evolutionist) Adminaquility: Tranquility Base (Creationist) Adminnemooseus: minnemooseus (evolutionst)
I took the opportunity presented by your posts to try to publicize some of the issues the admins wrestle with. No one posted a response, so most likely they all thought Percy had finally flipped (and who knows, maybe I have ).
Thanks for the offers of information, but most of it would be off-topic for this thread. Feel free to open new threads if you'd like to kick off a discussion about any of them. I think the question you were asking Wmscott, before I interrupted, was whether the smelting of radioactive metal ores by native Americans would affect the radiometric dating of their bones, and I agree with Wmscott's answer that it would not, though not through the same line of reasoning. Organic material is dated via radiocarbon dating, not radiometric metal dating. Even had they ingested huge amounts of radioactive metals that became incorporated into their bones, it wouldn't affect the dating of the carbon by modern techniques (AMS - Accelerator Mass Spectrometry).
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-17-2003]
Greetings everyone. I realize I have almost no experience in this forum, but reading all of the posts, I am ashamed at my fellow evolutionists. No one should be attacked, insulted, or criticized for WHAT they believe, no matter how incredulous their beliefs may seem. I am ashamed at the sassy and rude insinuations the creationists are receiving on our part. If we truly desire for them to accept what we know is true, the best way is gentle persuasion and thorough explanations. Responding to anyone in an offensive manner will only bring about defense from them, not consideration for what we believe. I would encourage all of us to approach these issues with a genuine concern for what the other believes, not a heated annoyance. Cheers
(This might be in the wrong place -- I guess an admin can move it)
I agree with you in spirit. That is that all of us on both sides should remain polite and reasonably respectful.
However, we are all human and some lapses might be acceptable if the provocation is enough. There are individuals who pop up, post junk without checking that it has already been discussed ( I lurked for a couple of months before posting) and then run off into cyberspace (booboo shows some characteristics of that kind). I find it hard to remain respectful of this kind of behaviour. But I agree with you that I should anyway. I will try.
Maybe there should be a separate thread (no, I think there definitely should be along the lines of the "post of the month") that picks examples of dubious posting behaviour and suggests a better approach to it.
Here's an example of a post I made today.
The original post was: "The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years," My Response was: "LOL LOL LOL LOL -- part dinosaur!!! "
I think this response qualifies as "sassy" and maybe "rude".
If I try to creatively construct a defense for it that might go like this:
The individual posting this needs to know when he has stepped over a line in a fashion that makes him look foolish. If I simply say something like: "The coelocanth is in now way part dinosaur." It just doesn't convey that problem and he might not learn to be more careful of his facts.
quote:truly desire for them to accept
I'm afraid that underlying my views on this is the pretty strong conviction that they are not going to do that. You say you are new to this forum. Watch how effective reasoned and even polite discussion is.
Yeah, I'm new to this forum. However, I have already seen some posts that have had personally degrading responses to info that yes, may have already been covered or is not completely relevant or researched, but I do not have enough time to find and quote them... You've said that being nice may not be all that effective, but it really depends on your definition of effectiveness. Some might think that being effective means making people angry and frustrated with their debates while others may feel that effectiveness lies in other means of debate. Even if the opposing view does not accept what our opinions are, not offending them purposely will certainly make them more respectful and possibly more open to a friendly exchange of ideas... Just a thought. :]
I can understand the propriety of civility; however when one's opponent makes such a remark as (for instance) "the foundation of life is life", how is one to respond except with some much-deserved disdain?
Honestly if creationists want a higher degree of discourse with evolutionists maybe they should get better arguments than "I know I'm right because god sayz so." Can there be any response beyond a little measured disdain in a scientific forum?
The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them.
At any rate, it's not just the evolutionists who are rude. I for one find it really rude of people to assume that just because I don't believe in god or its commandments that I advocate a position of total moral anarchy, have no purpose in life, and deny the dignity of human beings. That's quite a lot to assume from one statement, in my view, and an erroneous one - I've never met such an atheist and I suspect they don't really exist.
Sorry, getting off-topic. I agree that us evo's can get a little terse, but I maintain it's just with the people who deserve it.
I apologize if I seemed to state that only evolutionists are rude, but I meant no such thing. I, as an evolutionist, really can only speak to my "fellow" evolutionists regarding this issue, because it would be quite rude of me to address the creationists. If there is a creationist who agrees with me, so be it, and they can speak to their own kind, but it stands I will not openly criticize them, only their theories. A person should be treated with respect whether or not their inteligence is high or their theories are ridiculous. When following your logic, one could say anything to anyone just because. For instance, "I can speak rudely to creationists because they are dumb." Under this logic, a parent could be very rude to their child who has not fully developed yet because they are "dumb," or one could behave rudely to a mentally handicapped person because they are superior in mental capacity. If one believes themself to have better or superior mental capacities or inteligence or knowledge, it would be quite humane to not abuse that power or act like they are indeed better. Cheers
Did any evolutionists test the basalt adnormality that Austin found proving the rubidium-strontium method flawed, or do they just sweep it under the rug, I would think the basalt layers Austin brought in question could easily be tested, and could be re-tested against A/A, K/A, U/Pb methods, to verify if these other methods agree or disagree with rubidium-strontium, or is the basalt above really that much older than the basalt layer below, etc...
P.S. It would appear that the dating methods do not all agree, with each other, etc...
JonF, No, had nothing else to contribute, other than they are finding that argon gas is part of the off gases coming out of oil wells, finding argon gas in coal mines, proving Snelling correct in that not all argon is tied up within the rocks, though likely argon is rising up from the inner earth, etc... P.S. Its interesting that the evolutionist didn't retest the basalts in question, would seem it would of been a feather in your cap, to prove the accuracy, between all your dating methods, wasn't this the real issue, etc...
I never said that you stated that, merely that "one could" under your logic state anything like that. Is the state of "lacking knowloedge" or "playing dumb" rudeness? I see no evidence in your statement that implies that you believe they are. "The people who genuinely seek knowledge are to be treated with the respect that they deserve for they are the honest seekers of truth. Those, however, on an agenda to misinform draw nothing but sarcasm. I don't really have a problem with this. Although sometimes it's hard to tell between those who are genuinely lacking knowledge and those who are playing dumb. I admit we should do a better job of distinguishing between them."