Foreveryoung Discussions

If you are presenting these ideas here, we ought to find some of those cogent, coherent arguments, or at least references to them, in your posts. But apparently you are saying that we cannot find that information or a hint to where it might be from you. If you actually know about some of those arguments you ought to use them.Now that you acept the universe is billions of years old, do you still find the changing constants cosmology convincing and coherent? After all, isn't that stuff rather pointless now? Whymust it be that those posters who didn't find your posts convincing when you made them close-minded. Isn't it at least possible that they just did a better job of understanding things right from the start?It is absolutely the case that the more stuff you know, the harder it is to spend time on some preposterous idea. But that's because you know more quickly which areas to probe during your investigation. When you know next to nothing, its much easier to latch onto an idea that appeals to you for one reason or another.

You mentioned the three pelvises that were compared in slides in a lecture you attended.When I first taught Introduction to Physical Anthropology in 1975 I started the class by passing out three replica innominates to the students and asking them to divide them into two groups.After a while they agreed that the first two went together, while the third was very different.They innominates were 1) a modern human, 2) a fossil about 2.5 million years old, and 3) a chimpanzee.After that I didn't hear a single word from any creationists who might have been in that class!

They didn't have to say anything because you'd already conceded up front that all three were members of the innominate class. Sorry, couldn't help it - nice to have learned a new word, though.--Percy

Or innominate kind?

I have linked to articles about global warming. I have linked to articles about politics. As I remember, you guys blew them off as quickly as they were posted without due consideration in my opinion.

And how did you determine that they were not given due consideration?

We had given these arguments consideration, long before you posted them.Your mistake is to assume that we had never previously come across such arguments.

Well, what do you have in mind? Politics? Yes, I have read the writings and speeches of conservatives outside EvC forums, otherwise my knowledge of conservatism would be slim indeed. Also my sample would not really be representative.Again I might ask: do you really suppose that I only became interested in politics after joining these forums? Do you really suppose that my knowledge of conservative rhetoric is limited to what I read on these forums? If that was the case, then you would have grounds to criticize me, but why in the world would you ever suppose that that was the case?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

have you hear of the term PRATT?Why should we consider arguments that are not scientifically valid?Edited by Theodoric, : url

This is actually quite revealing - as well as funny.One thing to notice is that some of us are quite old. Some of us were born quite a while before the internet. People don't remain foreveryoung you know. So yes, you can assume that most, if not all, of our views originated elsewhere.The other big issue here is the presumption that no-one has ever had the thoughts you are having before. I suppose that's also a youth thing but it's also a common, almost universal trope of the creationist when attempting to talk science.Somehow they think that the hundreds of thousands of biologists that have studied evolution for 150 years have missed something that only they have seen about evolution - despite the fact that those same biologists would actually kill for a single piece of good evidence to show a flaw in it.It happens over and over; untrained, unread amateurs know more about the speed of light than Nobel physicists, anyone can have an opinion about climate warming, geologists have been wrong for a hundred years about the age of the earth and floods and physicists wrong about radioactive decay.It's the massive lack of humility combined with the enormous confidence that they, rather than the hard won scientific concensus, are correct - and all from reading bad information from bad sources whose sole purpose is to shore up a proven false religious position.How can all of that get so out of balance? You have to throw away almost the entirity of scientific knowledge to continue to believe the things they believe. Delusion isn't a big enough word for it, we need another.

From Message 131His jeers to me in the Where is the point? thread might mean a little more if I thought that he had actually read and comprehended whats been said. Maybe even show up with an argument.The hypocricy is almost painful to witness when FEY says things like Message 72and then in Message 97-Remember FEY, when it smells like shit everywhere that you go then it is time to check your shoes.

example...?

For a recent example see Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?). For a plentitude of examples see foreveryoung's thread list.--Percy

I see Foreveryoung has jeered virtually every post in the 'what is the point' thread overnight. He's just a child with a temper tantrum problem.

Well he certainly has some issues fermenting there.Panda says I was thinking about doing the same thing but then that takes away from the validity of my cheers as an expression of my opinion regarding the post in question.As a bonus, if my rating falls low enough then some of the creationists might get the impression that I have said something that they might actually want to read.Also, a jeer seems to carry more weight than a cheer and so it doesn't entirely counter his flailing around. I appreciate the sentiment but it seems to be stooping to his level and depreciates the value of a valid cheer.