Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

I'm not ashamed at all of my statement. I want credit for mine and mine alone, but would you be so kind as to cite the context message & thread to which it applies?You know, Larni we can isolate statements of others from many threads which, isolated from context, are not easily understood. The meaning and application are often only understood in context. BTW, it's "Buz," as in "Buzsaw."

I'd appreciate that. Thanks very much, Larni.

Thanks Larni. To be consistent, it would be great if you would attribute the other statements to their respective authors as well since it appears that those are from me to you.Perhaps by and by you'll think of something more inspirational for your readers whenever they read your messages.

Perhaps, due to the fact that most of the debating in the Buz/Moose thread is essentially Buz debating the PG, it would be wise to grant me a waiver from the Science ban so as to debate the Peanut Gallery on this topic.What's going on now is essentially just what I have been asserting, i.e. the creationist argument that they are using circular flawed dating methodology for supporting their false premise.Now the PG is merging into nothing but personal attacks on me leaving me with no recourse.
The following is their same ole circular argument.1st lap on the circular track - Dr Jones Message 44
date measured at time layer/strata deposited.The various radiometric dating methods produce the age of the igneous layers measured from the time that they were deposited.1st lap on the circular track - Dr Jones Message 44
date measured at time layer/strata deposited.2nd lap on the circular track - Coyote Message 42 layers/strata dated using direct dating methods.The current example is your "circular reasoning" argument--it's straight out of the creationists' Handbook.Here's how it works: scientists date volcanic layers using direct dating methods. That's pretty accurate. Even the RATE boys didn't put a dent in those methods.3rd lap on the circular track - Coyote Message 42
layer dated by fossil in layer/strataBut that sedimentary layer might have a particular fossil that is not found in any other layer. This would be called an "index fossil" -- this means it is confined to a relatively narrow time period and (hopefully) is widespread. That fossil, then, can be used as a dating method to date a layer in which it occurs without the need to do radiometric dating of volcanic layers above and below.But that sedimentary layer might have a particular fossil that is not found in any other layer. This would be called an "index fossil" -- this means it is confined to a relatively narrow time period and (hopefully) is widespread. That fossil, then, can be used as a dating method to date a layer in which it occurs without the need to do radiometric dating of volcanic layers above and below.4th lap on the circular dating track - Coyote date of layer/strata measured by time deposited. (In this strawman example, date foreknown before determination)An example you might be able to relate to: the pop-tops on beer cans were produced only between 1962 and 1975. They are widespread, nearly indestructible, have a narrow temporal range, and are easily identified. They are, like the index fossil, a time stratigraphic marker. You find a layer in a dump with a lot of pop-tops and you are looking at the 1962-1975 range.We have explained these things to you over and over, so stop trying to play dumb with these dating questions; you are succeeding all too well.After this circular track, a barrage of personal attacks on me ensued by several members, all, in chorus agreeing that the circular arguments aired by Jones and Coyote were spot on and Buz is the stubborn nucklehead refusing to espouse their circular arguments.This is what's going on without my ability to respond directly. Admin PD advised that no direct responses should be aired between PG and GD.Imo, the above is why it would be advisable to spin off this as a separate topic allowing me an exception from my ban from the Science Forums to debate this topic.

AdminModulous edited a pertinent portion of Message 414 from view. What was edited out can be seen by clicking the peek button of that message.The problem with editing a portion of the pertinent point of my message out is that what was left would leave the impression that I was blaming Admin alone for slowing the progress of threads.I also stated this so as to inform several responders why I did not respond to their individual messages, clicking the acknowledge button instead. My message was intended as a conclusive statement so as to, hopefully, put the matter to rest.

quote:

---

One size fits all, so far as the above responses.

---

I cited the reason for the message as follows.

quote:

---

I never claimed that I won any of the debates cited. My alluding to them was to show Dr Jones, who alleged my arrogant ignorance, that I was intelligent enough to keep the interest in the pack of educated science buffs for lengthy threads.

​

My point was that I was intelligent enough to post enough supportive evidence for robust, interesting and informative debates throughout long debates.

---

Finally, I cited both the trolls and Admin's actions for slowing the progress.

quote:

---

It was the likes of Jones et al trolls that required respones etc that slowed any forward movement in those debates.
Admin himself, ............

---

I hope this will not derail this thread by further discussion from members on that topic. AdminModulous PMed that I could air my problem here when I PMed a complaint to him.

Putting everything in context clarifies what Percy cherry picked so as to chastise Portillo for doing what it appears dwise1 did to me in context, i.e. a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate my position, lumping me in with others and falsely stating my position.What makes it worse is that dwise1 knows that I, being banned from the forum, can't respond. He apparantly thinks he can air his demeaning allegations with impunity, full well knowing that he won't be chastized by Percy as Portillow was.In context, it appears that Portillo's cherry picked response applied to what Trixie said below. At worst, perhaps Portillo applied a poor choice of words. Clearly his comment referenced Trixie's application of biological evolution relative to this thread topic. Message 84 Message 85Message 88Message 88