quote:Originally posted by edge: Actually, Terry just banned three more people including myself earlier today. It was really pretty comical. He had posted, "No one will say that Creation science is without scientific foundation either."
There were just too many of us that couldn't resist... It made an otherwise bad day quite bearable.
My doppelposter Senyor Llagosta lasted only three days and is absolutely baffled at being described as someone incapable of civil conversation. All he said was that those who respect the integrity of science should perhaps best describe creation "science" as "bad science."
He got into the issue, because Terry did not seem to object to someone describing cosmology as only "science" in quotes and really speculation and philosophy.
Terry seems determined to stifle any criticism of creation "science" under the guise of maintaining civility.
The guy may well be intelligent, charming and committed to free and open debate (!), but sometimes he seems to want to be an avuncular parabolist, whose stories gently tease scientists into recognising their own failings; at other times he reminds me of those ineffectual teachers we all had whose need to maintain discipline was in inverse proportion to their ability to command respect.
OK, this is going to be a little hard but I will try to be civil concerning your site. Your site is either crossing the line or dancing just on it to accusing Johnsons group of fixing the data which, amoung scientists, is about the worse possibe thing that you can do or be accused of. It is also obvious that you know little to nothing about comparative anatomy. I suggest that you read some books on the subject, and on the subject of how paleontology is performed. I would recommend some of Johnsons or Time Whites books on the actual finds. Another good one is called "Message of the Bones" about a H. habelis or H. erectus skeleton, I will try to find the actual reference later today. Anyway, your suggestions about the skeleton being "dwarf humans" is wrong on the face of it. Please input a search with the terms A. aferensis AND human AND morphology AND skeletal. There are a number of good sites out there that list the morphological differences. You can do the same for chimp. Some will also tell you WHY people who understand biomechanics can work in fractured or destroyed bones and put them together into the proper configuration.
As to your DNA comment, the odds of every bone in a skeleton of that age still containing sufficient DNA (if any at all) for a PCR analysis is small to non-existent. You need very special conditions for that.
You really need to learn the basis for the how these sciences work before you make comments like those on your site. Would you accuse a minister of stealing money from the collection plate or of molesting a parishner without evidence; well you have just accused Johnson of something as bad if not worse on your site . You really need to revise either your erroneous and false interpretation or your language or (my preference) both.
------------------ "Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
I've also pulled the plug after noticing the bannings, leaving benind a few comments. I think it will be a very quiet message board with very little difference of opinion - probably the way the manager prefers it. I invited him to come out of his haven and try a quality board such as this one. I won't hold my breath in anticipation.
"I've also pulled the plug after noticing the bannings, leaving benind a few comments. I think it will be a very quiet message board with very little difference of opinion - probably the way the manager prefers it. I invited him to come out of his haven and try a quality board such as this one. I won't hold my breath in anticipation." --That would be nice to have him over here, I do recall someone giving him credibility in intelligence. Though by other comments I would have to guess that he is very arrogant. Mabye If he tried this quallity board, I might be able to rub off on him --Also, is he more into the science, or biblical philosophy, or what catagory would you place him in as dominantly discussiong or showing knowledge of.
WJ: Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I finally got a chance to look over that board. I have to say I didn't see anything terribly offensive in Joe's comments. The only thing I can see that could be even slightly construed as offensive were the capitalization/emphasis of HOLY BIBLE and characterizing creationism as pseudoscience. Which, of course, it is.
I guess if you're the board owner, you can set your own rules. Seemed pretty arbitrary to me. BTW: I thought your response was beautiful. Terry really didn't seem to get the point.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzal: I guess if you're the board owner, you can set your own rules. Seemed pretty arbitrary to me. BTW: I thought your response was beautiful. Terry really didn't seem to get the point.
Quetzal, I think if you peruse some of the threads on that board you will find that Terry has a habit of missing the point. I'm pleased to see that my message had the desired effect on a lurker.
Sch, do you think this is a technology issue or a scientific one. I was reading the book titled The Garment of GOD and it is clear to me that if when moving into outspace we try to take as much of this planent with us as we as a CIVILIZED peaceful civilization can that millions and thousands of years can work side by side on this project for the simulation of time in TEMPORAL GIS could be either more profitable by lots of time or lots of space when distributed across all the information technoligies in the service of health and welfare of man's call to eco-just dominion?
It seems that before "peer-review" there has to be some pedagogic result, either less court action in the schools and more infrastructure targeting or more cohort co-operation across both sides??