Summations Only

quote:

---

As a marine biologist by training (a long time ago) who works in a related field, I'd be really interested.

---

There are some sort-of-wheel-shaped coral formation in the Gulf of Aqaba. It is claimed that these must be the remains of Pharoah's chariot forces from the Exodus. And that's really about it for marine biology. Buzsaw's preferred source (preferred because the original discoverer is so disreputable that even mainstream Creationists think that he's a dubious crank), Lennart Moller, supposedly has some qualifications in marine biology, but so far as I know he hasn't applied this knowledge to the coral at all. I would think that identifying the species and giving a decent estimate of the growth rate would be a decent check on whether these formations could possibly be old enough for the claims to be true.Contrary to the impression Buz tries to give here, he doesn't like his claims being investigated because they often turn out to be false. In fact that seems to be one of his complaints about the thread. Which - in my opinion is the reason that he won't give you the link.So here it is Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

quote:

---

I take it from this post that you consider Jon, Chuck and I all as bloomed childish idiots, being we all ascribed to most of Chucks points.

---

You'd certainly have to be ignorant and prejudiced to believe such obvious nonsense. And Jon didn't.

quote:

---

This prevailing attitude will surely stave off effective creationists from your lopsided cite.

---

I would think that an effective creationist debater would be embarrassed to be associated with such nonsense. It's not going to make their job easier. So maybe people like you and Chuck are the problem.But OK, let's say that an "effective" creationist needs an audience so strongly biased in his favour that he can get away with the most obvious falsehoods. If that's so then creationism literally has no rational case. Is that really what you mean ?A truly effective debater can deal with a critical audience. If they can't then they aren't effective. It's that simple.

The "gold" wheel may be a small brass valve wheel off of a steamship - I've seen a picture of a pile of them and one looked very similar. It would also be the right colour - and I've never seen a picture of it with a scale or anything else that would give us the size (something that seems to be pretty basic to real archaeology). Moller never saw it, and used one of Ron Wyatt's pictures - anyone who wants to gloss over the Wyatt connection certainly shouldn't be using that picture at all. The discovery story is also very suspect, indeed suggesting that Wyatt knew where the wheel would be found (the story is that he used a dowsing device, and dowsing is known to be controlled by the users expectations)

Buz, criticising messages is not a personal attack. If you choose to cheer a message or even nominate it for PotM (and you've nominated some real stinkers) it's still open to criticism. If you feel that it reflects on you, then maybe you should be more discriminating in the posts you choose to cheer.

I think that you're giving the list a bit too much credit, Percy.Item 7 is obviously an attempt to cover up the similarities between the two groups by painting a ridiculously biased picture. Much like putting forward the Spanish Inquisition as the exemplar of Christianity while quoting the most benign surahs of the Quran.Item 6 may be literally true but it's far from obviously foolish to prefer science over the literal interpretation of myths.Item 4 seems to be the common defence of bigots - that pointing out bigotry is just as bad as being a bigot.Item 3 seems to be just a confused version of the old false claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.The first sentence of Item 1 also seems to be false (or at least to rely on a very questionable philosophical view). The rest seems to be the usual egotistic refusal to accept that they could be insignificant on the cosmic scale.

I've been waiting for Buz or the other Wyatt supporters to produce evidence that there actually are chariot wheels in the coral for years - literally. All I've heard is a claim that there were signs of rust on the coral - and further claims that they meant some other form of corrosion after it was pointed out that Egyptian chariots didn't use iron.In the last thread (the one I linked to earlier) Buz said that he would produce evidence but that he had to repeat the claims that had already been rebutted first without addressing the objections (I can't think of any sensible reason why that could be anything other than a waste of time). He later admitted that he had no such evidence.

In addition to Subbie's point please show that the model used by Hoyle accurately reflects the requirements for life to originate.Anybody can do a calculation that produces an impressively low probability. Actually understanding how life might have originated to do a calculation that accurately estimates the probability of that event is a VERY different matter.A crankish scientist making some silly assumptions is a long way from a valid calculation of the probability of a natural origin of life.

quote:

---

In that Chuck, et al, agreed by cheers that it would be something depicting our list, we would be implied as childish idiots, believing falsehoods.

---

In fact Chuck's list was silly and childish - it was an attempt to "mirror" another list - and not a very good one (the second item is a notable failure that nobody's defending).We don't have to be silent on that fact just because you cheered it. Should the truth be silenced just because you made a silly mistake ?

quote:

---

No. I understand, after going on nine years, debating atheists, et al, that they often do blame God for some things.

---

After nine years debating atheists you still don't understand that atheists don't believe that God exists ?

quote:

---

I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution.

---

As others have pointed out, you're dead wrong here, too. (Do you really believe that God is incapable of creating life that could evolve ? because that's the implication of what you are saying).

quote:

---

It absolutely does. Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics, for the most part, apologize for Islam and submit negative posts about Christians, the Bible and Christianity.

---

That's not even what it says. Nor is it true. There is a difference between disagreeing with your false attacks on Islam and supporting it. If a Muslim Creationist came here we'd argue against him just as much as we argue against the Christian creationists.

quote:

---

I would cheer the whole thing.

---

In other words you write off well-established science as a fairy tale. I don't think that I need to point out the implications of that.

quote:

---

I believe that the odds would be scientifically, highly unlikely; what we observe in the Universe, all progressing from disorder to order, naturally, over the millenia.

---

Which doesn't change the fact that the list item is dead wrong, since no valid calculation exists.

quote:

---

I would say a lot on the evolutionist side and relatively little from creationists, especially Biblical creationists.

---

Given that you seem to strongly object to any criticism of people on your side, no matter how true or justified, then I'd say that your assessment is more than a little biased.

quote:

---

I understand it and agree to it fully. Your side picks and chooses whatever scientific concepts fit the ticket at hand in the debates, ignoring the implications of thermodynamic laws, arguing abstract methodologies such as relativity quantum and string theory.

---

Of course that's nonsense. In the recent thermodynamic thread you were the only one arguing against the implications of any of the laws of thermodynamics. And your childish rants against science you don't even understand are not convincing to any rational person.

quote:

---

I see that statement as are some that all of us post on occasion, essentially ok but technically flawed.

---

Cosmology is so far outside the scope of the theory of evolution that it's not even remotely sensible to claim that it doesn't cover it.

quote:

---

I would wholeheartedly cheer it.

---

I bet that you can't offer a coherent argument in favour of the first sentence. I bet that you don't even understand the dubious philosophy behind it. The rest of it is simply irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which remains the truth no matter how much you might dislike it. It might be a blow to your pride to accept that you are merely human, but that does not mean that you are anything more.

Even if your point were true (and it had already been refuted) it would not address the question of whether the list item itself was true. Or even sensible. Do you not agree that the item from the list is just a lame attempt at parody that falls flat on it's face?

Yes, Buz we understand that "telling the truth instead of worshipping Creationists" is held to be foolish by you and your kind. It is, after all, a major theme of the list.However, in reality your failure to make claims without understanding the implications will often come back to bite you. As it has in this case:If abiogenesis is a prerequisite for evolutionAnd if evolution occurs, as even most creationists admit.Then it logically follows that abiogenesis is true.So who's the fool now ?

For a great example of this, Faith went haywire when I pointed out that she believed in macroevolution as it is defined in science. She just couldn't accept it, it had to be a trick.These people do not understand what they are talking about (quite literally in the above case) yet still can't accept that they could be wrong.

As far as I can see the only thing that Buz was right on was that he didn't confuse abiogenesis and evolution. Saying that abiogenesis occurs before evolution does make the distinction.But that hardly counts as "kicking ideological butt" - not given his utter failure to provide even a half-decent argument that the primordial soup was a prerequisite for evolution. Repeating assertions and flinging jeers at people who raise questions he can't answer is no victory at all. It's just a way of dragging out the discussion without making any progress. I suppose that Buz needs to exaggerate whatever small victories he can get to try to maintain the pretence that he is an effective debater.

I think that a more sensible Christian response would be "Sorry guys, we forgot about Poe's law".

quote:

---

Cheers and jeers do not designate between false and true statements. Likely other members may cheer a lengthy message or list that has some errors in it.

---

One assumes that if you cheer a post you find considerable merit in it. If it is false in it's major points - not just incidental details - one wonders what merit you see in the OP.

quote:

---

Members adverse to Biblical creation quite often cite Biblical data which is either totally erroneous, partially erroneous or not quite right.

---

Pointing out falsehoods is different from making false claims.

quote:

---

The fact is that I and many other Christians know that it was not technically factual. That has been born out in this debate, subsequent to when I cheered it. That is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

---

"Not technically factual" is seriously understating the issue, is it not ? Even "obvious falsehoods" would be better.

quote:

---

All atheists do not know Christians (perse) believe it is true. Some may know of some Christians who believe it is true. Some may think some Christians believe it is true. Some may know that some Christians consider it to be true in a broad sense. Any who have been aware of what I've debated over time regarding the bolt & nut specifics of primordial soup, abiogenesis and evolution know that I am aware that there is a difference between the three terms.

---

And you should also know that abiogenesis is a serious scientific proposal, with active and productive research going on - and circumstantial evidence that suggests that it is the most likely explanation of the origin of life on Earth.More importantly you should know that atheists don't feel demeaned simply by the suggestion that the first humans were create by God (even from dirt)

quote:

---

Pertaining to the list about foolish Christians, I rarely sense a "very sad" attitude in atheist's messages debating foolish Christians. More often I sense glee, mean spiritedness and sometimes hate.

---

ANd there's plenty of that in the list, too. Probably the reason that you cheered it.
(Although I will note yet again that you take truthful criticism as "mean spirited" while feeling free to make false attacks on others).

quote:

---

Yours and Subbie's posts are classic examples of what drags on threads with substanceless messages

---

If you make a claim that is - on the face of it - obviously false - then asking you to support it is reasonable and productive. Which is more than you managed to do in that little subthread. And it is obviously not just the question of topic that is at issue, since you jeered Subbies earlier message, posted before Admin intervened, while continuing to argue the point yourself.

quote:

---

This has been going on for years. Imo, it's high time to place the blame where it belongs. That's not saying that I'm squeaky clean. It's saying that I shouldn't get blamed for what others do most of in the long threads which I debate in.

---

By which you mean that people should not ask you to support your claims, because you can't and you feel forced to post substanceless messages in place of a real answer ?Buz, whether you like it or not you are the biggest part of the problem. In this case you couldn't support your claims, yet you blame people asking you to support your claims. In the Exodus thread you continually repeated debunked claims and strongly objected when Admin tried to make the thread more productive by taking a more detailed look at them. In the thermodynamics thread you were posting vague nonsense and refusing to explain it. And let us not forget that you claim that the same deadlocks that you blame others for are a sign of your success !Buz, man up and take responsibility for your own actions.