Summations Only

Seconded. I'm precisely here for this very reason.

I didn't say it, Crashfrog. Chuck said it. Whatever did he say in this short quote that would forbid a response?Nobody's arguing for exemption from forum guidelines either, frog. You're totally off the wall in this post.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I believe, unless I am mistaken as well, you have missed the point. If Percy had posted his version of the list (or someone else for that matter), would it be safe to assume you would disagree?Perhaps be offended? You would be justified in feeling offended, it is, after all, an overt bastardization of your beliefs used to attack your character and intelligence.How would you respond to such a post?For the record, this is an honest attempt to 'see things from your eyes', as it were.

Jon wasn't serious with his thumbs up.

Well, as Jon said in Message 70, his cheer was in jest.

Right, but you appear to be agreeing with it. Am I mistaken? I understood "being shot down" to refer to the firestorm of replies that creationists usually get, like as happened in this thread. In the post under discussion, after all, that's the first thing Chuck refers to:

quote:

---

Well, i'm not sure where to start. To many responces.

---

I mean, I'm not sure what else Chuck could possibly mean. There is, after all, not a single moderator post in this thread, so whatever aspect of the moderation Chuck is referring to - and it's by no means clear - it's something that the moderators didn't do, and I read his Message 49 as complaining about moderators not taking steps to prevent 14 different people from responding to his "copypasta" (that's a new Internet word the kids are using, it means "something that gets copied and pasted on different forums.)I'm just trying to get a handle on his perspective, and since you seem to share it (and you're still here to talk about it) I'm asking you. I'd love it if you could explain it to me. What actually is the creationist complaint about EvC? How are the moderators biased against creationists? It seems like inviting the creationists to become moderators dispels any notion of bias. Chuck was asked to moderate after a handful of posts - I've never been asked to moderate, after nearly 20,000 posts - and his moderation was warmly received by all. Including me.The only thing that Chuck could possibly be complaining about is that he was not insulated in any way from the reaction of board participants to the things he cut and pasted. But what kind of debate site would it be if nobody was allowed to reply?

No, I think the point was that Percy has posted a "top ten list" that as thoroughly misrepresents the Christian perspective as Chuck's list misrepresented that of atheists.It certainly doesn't take an idiot to accidentally misrepresent another's position. That happens because it's harder for us to understand something we don't agree with. But it does take an idiot to hear someone tell you how badly you've misunderstood another's position, and then completely ignore that and continue to assert that atheists are people who blame a God they don't believe exists for all the world's ills. LOLWUT?

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.

In case it wasn't clear, yes, that's what I was trying to do.--Percy

About Jon being "ascribed to most of Chuck's points," Jon posted this in Message 70: And in Jon's Message 55 he treated Chuck's list with sarcasm. In light of these messages from Jon, one posted just 8 messages before your own, by what rationale and logic do you reach the conclusion that Jon "ascribed to most of Chuck's points"?About Chuck's list, do you yourself even "ascribe" (I believe you really mean "subscribe") to all of Chuck's points? How about the first one: Do you really believe that atheists blame God for the evils in the world?--Percy

Perhaps you noticed that I nominated Frako to POM though I didn't agree to a thing in his message. It was the way he articulated and formulated the message to set the tone of the debate.Your question misses the point. Time and again, evolutionists make mistakes or fail to tell it as it is. You all correct one another in a kindly manner quite often. You don't go at attacking one another's character by labeling them as childish idiots.Being the owner, you should treat all alike and be an example. Personal attacks are against the forum guidelines and what our resident trolls often do.No, I don't subscribe to everything in the message. I know, for example, that primordial soup comes before evolution, etc. Likely Chuck knows that as well. Many often speak in generalities. I know also, as Chuck does that it is a prerequisite to evolution. Chuck is not at all childish and certainly not an idiot.
You owe him a public apology. You should have either said nothing or kindly corrected him.My cheer applied to the message at large. Cheers & jeers are not the about nitpicking. Jon had no business cheering with a unless he meant it. Imo, he was covering his ass due to all of the flack by the wink etc.This is the kind of treatment Biblical creationists receive from you and yours all too often.You who observe all of the complexity and order of the world and the Universe at large think it could happen from chaotic disorder into all of the complexity, life and order which we observe.
Nevertheless I don't regard you people, nor do I demean you in demeaning terms like childish or idiotic. I regard you intelligent educated folk as very deceived and as subscribing to what we would never expect to observe in real life. The orderly barn left to itself eventually leaks and falls. The pile of wood does not, in any amount of time assemble itself into stately orderly barns, etc.

Thanks PaulK. Found it. Took a while but I found it. The Buzsaw Archive links aren't here yet, so that was a great help. Google was quicker but I wanted to be sure I had the right info.Apologies in advance - this is probably completely off topic but the challenge was set... Couldn't resist.Yup. Great evidence.I have seen images of what look like typical growth forms of small a polyp stony coral - probably acropora. e.g. 1 and e.g. 2 I may be wrong about the genus as the images are atrocious.Only four spoked wheels are shown. My newly discovered fondness for looking it up myself (thanks for the tip Buz) suggests that the Hittites used four spoked wheels, not the Egyptians.One of the wheels is spotless because, apparently coral won't grow on gold. I'm not sure this is true but I do know what other metals can actually encourage coral growth, especially with a current. A quick search didn't find anything useful, so I'll have to try that myself I guess.Then there's what looks like a six spoke axle and hub. Strangely, there's no coral growth at all. even though axles weren't gold. I also have wonder how it has survived standing on end for 4000 years.As far as growth rates are concerned, have a look at this. Bear in mind that this is under optimal conditions but acropora is a fast growing reef building genus. Anything it grows on would be well and truly covered and effectively invisible after 4000 years. This says little about reef growth though - don't let 'em suck you in with that one.My favourite part of this fable is that nobody knows where the one wheel that was apparently recovered is. Nobody else has documented this site - at least nobody I have found.Of course my favourite part of this is that the Pharaoh had cannons mounted on his chariots too. No wonder the poor Israelites needed god on their side - it's only fair.

quote:

---

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

---

Well, I have just investigated this one, at least as presented here.Am I being unfair, Buz? Do you accept that I have falsified your claim or do you wish to counter my point of view?

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)

I object to people telling blatant untruths about everything being allowed to start a thread. For example, I'll start with the first point Chuck77 made.

quote:

---

10. You vigorously deny the existence of God, ....
  —Chuck77

---

I'm an atheist and I don't. I just don't believe that any kind of god exists, because there's absolutely no, verifiable, repeatable, empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods as described by theists.

quote:

---

....yet you frequently blame Him for all the "evils" in the world,...
  —Chuck77

---

Not true. Atheists don't blame the Thor for anything.

quote:

---

....all the natural disasters,.....
  —Chuck77

---

Not true. Atheists don't blame Thor for anything.

quote:

---

.....and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society.
  —Chuck77

---

Not true. Atheists don't blame Thor for anything.