Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Wow. I'm impressed! You were able to see through that evil hoax via a made-for-TV documentary from the comfort of your own living room. I wish I had that ability. Do you have any idea how ludicrous that statement is? You, techchristian, were able to discover that the scientists who study human evolution all their lives were completely wrong. Based on a TV program. Amazing.

---

Well, after all, he(?) is Techchristian. You can't be expected to understand...

Edge (off topic)Do you think my post on TalkOrigins was out-of-line or worth a ban? I am curious because of all the places I have been banned, I thought that was one of the least offensive posts ever.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE][b]NOw, that is a lie. Maybe inadvertent on your part, but no C-14 date would EVER give millions of years.[/QUOTE][/b]It must be inadvertant on his part because it is somewhat damaging to his credibility. I'm just going to briefly point out why what he claimed is impossible and leave it at that.After 50,000 years the concentration of C-14 falls to a level that is undetectable by instrumentation. Therefore an age of "millions of years" by C-14 is impossible. Also we know that it had to have been C-14 dating because of the information he gives us, that it was a pig bone. Can't use any other method I'm aware of on biologicals.

[QUOTE][b]I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones.[/QUOTE][/b]I guess that if you want to resort to something as weak as argument from personal incredulity, that's your business, but those bones could be different colors from some of them being eroded at the surface and bleached by sunlight, being near the water level during rainy season, or being stained from mineral leaching from nearby rocks. If you want to prove that it's a chimera you'll need a forensic anthropologist, and given the dog-eat-dog nature of the peer review system, I think it likely Lucy would have been sniped long ago if you were able to conclude it was a hoax through glimpsing it on television. The ridicule from other posts here was a little extreme but I think that it is not unfounded.

--I think that the opposing participants in this forum are bashing techristian a bit too harshly here, almost every one of his posts gets on average about 5-7 replies from the active OE's here. Though this may be because he shows a considerable amount of arrogance, and much too much convidence in each one of his assertions. I'd like to be part of this somewhat, my post #47 was a short enough question, anyone for some insite?-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
What about is the quantity of seemingly carnivorous Dinosaur fossils found?

---

JM: TC, do you mean, how many carnivorous Dinosaur fossils have been found? Your question is a bit vague. I also want to call your attention back to your flood model thread. Are you preparing an answer, or have you abandonded the topic?CheersJoe Meert

By TalkOrigins do you mean Terry's community over at MSN? If so, don't sweat it. The guy's not rational.But what's this about multiple bannings? Is there a side of you we haven't seen?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
By TalkOrigins do you mean Terry's community over at MSN? If so, don't sweat it. The guy's not rational.

​

But what's this about multiple bannings? Is there a side of you we haven't seen?

​

--Percy

---

JM: I've been banned repeatedly from CARM. It's sort of an on-again, off again thing and I finally just quit posting. The ruler of that site is also pretty heavy, if unevenly, handed about censorship. He also had one creationist pushing him to 'ban' me. I finally got so frustrated with the 'you're allowed' and 'you're not allowed' to and fro, that I gave up.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Edge (off topic)

​

Do you think my post on TalkOrigins was out-of-line or worth a ban? I am curious because of all the places I have been banned, I thought that was one of the least offensive posts ever.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Heck no. Calling the other side's work pseudoscience is routine stuff, especially when it's true. And it wasn't personal, anyway. The point is that he really had no valid response to any of your arguments and he became frustrated. I really think Terry wants to have a nice bible discussion group where we all sit around and make up stories and agree with one another. At the same time, Terry gets pretty offensive himself, but it's his board. I accept the fact that my next post may be my last.I think the problem is that in academia we discuss things pretty frankly and are accustomed to the intellectual roughness. I remember getting into vicious arguments with my fellow grad students and then going out for a beer. Terry can't think like that. To him it's all personal.As you may know Matt has banned a few more from CARM lately. Apparently, it makes things worse if you try to explain why something you said was not really uncivil.

"New" opponents usually get the most attention. When we get used to them it settles down a little bit. But often they vanish before that happens. First few weeks are probably very hard on them.As for your question, what do you mean? By species or by individual finds?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
First few weeks are probably very hard on them.

---

Yeah, but after those first few weeks, we're hardened into debating machines like myself.

I must confess that I have almost never heard the word "uncivil" before starting on Terry's board and I must confess that, after constant repetition, I am heartily sick of it.I was amused (or is that dumbstruck?) to see that a discussion on the issue of whether creationism demonstrated the characteristics of pseudoscience was "uncivil".Did you note the amazing double standard of "proof"?One error resulting from xenoliths, 2 cases of small errors due to retained argon (published by Dalrymple) completely invalidate the K-Ar method, but choose to ignore the 18 datings from the same paper which agreed with the historic record!One dubious analysis of the speed of light and postulation from Setterfield (sp?) which has never been published in a peer reviewed publication is sufficient evidence to invalidate all radiometric dating, including isochron methods and explain why the dates correlate! How do they then explain the anomolous dates if creationists have a young earth explanation for the standard radiometric dates?And after all the discussion on radiometric dating, Terry blandly states that it has been proven unreliable, as if nothing had happened. And he complains that points are not accepted by the opposition when it takes 3 postings of similar material to elucidate that two statements on moon rocks which he purports as being contradictory are, in fact, not contradictory because they are referring to different rocks, followed by silence on the point from Terry.And the preoccupation with personalities and motivations reminds one of a knitting circle.I think it ironic that Terry is leaving Joe's "offending" message on the board so that lurkers can see the evidence. lol. It could not be more damning, for Terry. And he avoided responding to me on whether he had taken a unilateral decision in banning Joe or done it in consultation with other managers.Maybe it was also ironic that the banning happened on a thread initiated by Joe which referred to the problems with a YE model of Pangea and their version of continental drift but the creationists chose not to address because they didn't feel qualified to discuss the detail. Amazing how their expertise seems to cover every other aspect of cosmology, geology and biology.Anyway, that's me rant.IDEA: Maybe Terry should take Truecreation on as an apprentice.

wja:Of course, I suspected it was coming. I am going to post a discussion about why creationism is called pseudoscience on my crefaqs forum and also a brief discussion of this ban in my 'other publication'. It's an excellent example of the dangers of letting creationists control dialogue (or education). First, it's equal time, then the equal timers will suggest that the uncivil and immoral 'parts' should be removed. Ultimately, equal time means 'anyone who agrees with me can teach it!'. Terry proves this point better than I could hope! PS: I love how they played up my brief re-entry as Rodinia and asserted that it was somehow devious. Devious would have been pretending to be someone else instead of signing my real name to the very first post.CheersJoe Meert

Joe - could you provide a link to your forum, or is it "by invitation only"?

To read my entire paper on "Lucy", I have now posted it at my http://etnot.com website, or you can go to it directly at http://musicinit.com/etnot/lucy.html