Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 409 of 427 (791707)
09-20-2016 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:19 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Faith writes:
Having an explanation is of no value whatever if it's the wrong explanation.
You can't just declare it the wrong explanation. You have to show it the wrong explanation, using evidence and argument.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 410 of 427 (791708)
09-20-2016 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:28 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Faith writes:
Besides, this explanation works.
So you and others keep saying, but so far not a shred of evidence that it works to find oil.
This is so far beyond the pale of constructive discussion or even reality that I'm suspending you for 24 hours.
AbE: Explaining my action in more detail, the portion I'm very concerned about is where you say there is "not a shred of evidence," when my most important goal is an evidence-based discussion. Though in very general terms, in this very thread you've discussed the geologically derived rules for where to find oil and described your belief that they can be followed like cookbook recipes that work but whose other real world implications are false, while at the same time ignoring that theories that don't correspond to reality shouldn't work at all.
Please avoid declarations that there's no evidence - they're not just untrue, they're very provocative. You've said many times that you understand the scientific evidence but have a different interpretation. Please discuss that evidence and how it leads you to a different interpretation. Please avoid declarations like (paraphrasing), "Sedimentary layers could only be formed by a global flood, especially ones with tracks and burrows," unless they're followed by argument for how the evidence supports them. For just a couple examples, you could describe the evidence for mammals digging burrows on mud flats between tides, and the evidence that such burrows are found in sedimentary layers that formed from mud flats.
Please, no replies to this message.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 411 of 427 (791709)
09-20-2016 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Coyote
09-19-2016 8:39 PM


Re: First to find new field?
Discussions like this belong more in the Is It Science? forum. I'm trying to get the focus back on Glenn Morton's evidence.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2016 8:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 426 of 427 (791847)
09-23-2016 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
09-23-2016 12:12 AM


Re: Facts vs Beliefs again
Hi Faith,
Your last three messages (Message 417, Message 419 and Message 423) read like a list of things I've asked you not to do. You've claimed you've made successful arguments instead of actually making them, claimed you've proved things without actually proving them, declared arguments from the other side wrong without a bit of evidence or argument, declared that the future will prove the other side wrong, stated that you'll address some evidence and ignore the rest, and introduced the Bible into the discussion.
And let us not forget your last post (Message 1222) in the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread where you argued that how things look to you "IS evidence", jettisoning your responsibility for building your arguments around evidence and ignoring my frequent requests that you do so.
And you've ignored the one fact that has the biggest influence on the outcome of discussions here: instead of seeking common ground and arguing toward a resolution you abandon discussions, as you seem to be doing again now with your update of your status to "inactive". Someone should keep a count of how many times you've run off in a flurry of Forum Guidelines violations.
I'm suspending you for 24 hours. When you return I think the most benefit would be gained from resuming the discussion with Stile over in the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread by replying to his Message 1144.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 09-23-2016 12:12 AM Faith 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