|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Concerning edge's advice: I've never said anything about Yellowstone and have no interest in that discussion.
Concerning wind blown "dunes" I believe it was the creationist Snelling who proved that the angle of repose of the sandstones in GC show water deposition and not aeolian deposition. I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true. Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me. He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode. If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose. Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum. There has been a general deterioration in the level of civility at EvC over the last few years and Percy has been setting a very bad example. If you want to deal with my violations of rules you have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper. That's my Summation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
This thread started as an attempt to smear geologists and palaeontologists.
Faith asserted (likely correctly) that many popular articles on prehistoric times did not explain the evidence that lead to those conclusions. She asserted that this was done to hide the fact that the evidence was weak, without bothering with any analysis or attempts to gather more direct evidence, and blamed the scientists rather than the authors of the articles, who would be mostly journalists. The argument is obviously weak, relying on a very questionable inference. Faith did not even present any analysis of the articles showing that a proper discussion of the evidence was in line with the intent of the article. Nor was there any attempt to justify blaming scientists or to support the idea that the evidence was weak. Indeed, Faith refused to discuss the evidence and seemed intent on minimising it. A number of lines of evidence were suggested but Faith wanted to mention one of these - large evaporate deposits - and that only as salt in the rocks a dismissive and inaccurate summary - without even the explanation that would surely be required. (Perhaps Faith was only trying to support her assertion that only a small amount of additional text was needed rather than insisting that the evidence should be misleadingly presented to make it easy to dismiss, but either way it was still less than honest). The thread then metamorphosed into a Flood argument thread. Faith’s behaviour did not improve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The only support offered in this thread for the possibility of a Biblical Flood has been misrepresentation, dishonesty, denial of reality and utter failure to address any of the evidence that has be presented.
The idea that there was ever a Biblical Flood deserves nothing more than ridicule and laughter; and of course, pity for the willfully ignorant that support such nonsense..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3
|
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
jar writes: Is this keeping discussion civil? The idea that there was ever a Biblical Flood deserves nothing more than ridicule and laughter; and of course, pity for the willfully ignorant that support such nonsense.. I rest my case and I am out. See you all on the next thread...though before I promote any I would prefer that we state our respective positions and methodologies before the arguments even get started. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
For this topic Faith invented a problem that doesn't exist: that scientists are hiding their lack of supporting evidence and rationale from the public by not publishing it in the popular press. Never mind that such articles are written by journalists at a level appropriate to the audience.
It is so fitting that in her summary to her own thread in Message 871 that Faith didn't manage to touch on the topic, but she did manage to touch on a couple other issues that don't belong in a summary, but now that she's said them they do deserve a response. First about PaulK she says:
Faith in Message 871 writes: I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true. Members do not get "smacked down" by moderators here, and this thread was unmoderated except for a single comment by Adminnemooseus to stress content and stay on topic. If Faith had any moderation issues then she should have raised them in Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. I'm not going to go through PaulK's messages one by one to see how often he characterized what Faith said as lies.In my moderator role I would prefer forms of the term "lie" be used sparingly and appropriately, preferring instead use of terms like mistaken, false, untrue, erroneous, etc. But the brazenness and frequency with which Faith just makes things up and then insists endlessly that they are true while being unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale or even the physically possible often leaves one at a loss for how to characterize them as anything but lies. I long ago decided I would never call anything a lie here, but the blatantness of some more recent false pronouncements by Faith has left me no choice to occasionally use the word. It doesn't matter that Faith thinks them true because she's made not effort to verify their veracity. Besides, the odds of making something up that just by pure happenstance turns out to be true is vanishingly small. About me Faith says:
Faith in Message 871 writes: Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me. Again, members don't get smacked down by moderators, but it's interesting that Faith now believes that low opinions of her contributions should be punishable violations. She wants to place herself in a special category above reproach.
He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode. I responded each time Faith went off-topic to complain about other participants and to point out how her behavior was far worse.
If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose. I don't think Faith has thought this through. She really doesn't want me as moderator because my first action would be to require her to support her claims with evidence and/or rationale. Because she ignores most moderation I would make use of the temporary suspension feature.
Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum. Faith doesn't like people who speak truth to her lies.
If you want to deal with my violations of rules... Faith is apparently aware that she frequently and flagrantly violates the Forum Guidelines.
...you have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper. Anyone can comment on any part of any message, including those parts that violate the Forum Guidelines. Faith is apparently operating under the misimpression that she makes up the rules here. No Percy summary would be complete without a list of issues Faith has failed to address. Some she ignored, others she typed words in response that made no sense:
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member (Idle past 141 days) Posts: 303 Joined: |
A large part of current volcanism is related to Plate Tectonics. Large historical eruptions have had wide ranging catastrophic effects and have left discernible dust residues.
Flood models visualise a vastly speeded up rate of PT. The associated volcanism even if stretched over an historically impossible time of 1000 years would have such effects as to severely compromise all life on Earth, and would have left a massive deposit for any survivors to contemplate. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1662 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let me start with my reply to Message 675
Reply to: Message 673 by RAZD: Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon Why on earth would I think I'm an expert, I merely know the basics of how meanders form from reading descriptions and watching videos and animations. It's not rocket science. I certainly said nothing about them "popping into existence" for pete's sake. This is the illusion of knowledge, a cursory sample and the feeling you know enough to make valid comments, this illusion is the basis of the Dunning -Kruger effect (where our "president" appears to be the poster child), the basis behind the old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."*
Water behaves chaotically, and indeed small random events can have ripple effects - a wiggle that becomes a meander, for instance. Hydraulic engineers have studied the behavior of water so that they can make useful approximations, but still can't predict when a wiggle becomes a meander, just what will probably happen after it starts. Every wiggle is a potential meander, if the conditions are right. There are many aspects of hydraulics, and the history can be read in the canyon walls, and they show that (a) the canyon does not follow a crack (it wiggles and waggles too much), and (b) that it was not formed by overflow from a mythical flood. This has been discussed in detail on this and other threads (along with multitudes of other evidence that the canyon is not a flood remnant), but faith, with her limited knowledge and overly high confidence in her ability to explain, soldiers on. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : * image from Dunning-Kruger linkby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024