Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
“No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.”
Who is this ‘we’?
That’s the problem I have with these posts.
This site as a whole isn’t going to get to the bottom of anything. Everyone is talking to each other with the full knowledge that no one is going to move an inch. Sure, maybe you’ll say everything you feel like saying and then say something like, “Oh, I’m tired of speaking with idiots,” but then the very same part of the debate will come up in a future thread and it’ll start all over again.
If creating one large crevo thread is impractical (and perhaps it is given the egos involved), then the subject should be handled in a manner similar to other ultra-sensitive topics.
I remember kevmo suggesting something like this before. His idea of treating science like religion on this forum is a smart one, but for the wrong reasons. Science is not a religion (and calling it ‘scientism’ was a rather rude way to put it), but it is something that relies on a method that is different from that of religion. To me, it makes sense to enforce clear boundaries on these threads for precisely this reason. Discuss science in science threads, religion in religion threads, and then have a thread (or several, if necessary) to debate issues like crevo, morality vs. scientific experimentation, etc. There is no reason why there can’t be threads for creationists to discuss their beliefs on creation without being criticized by nonbelievers and threads for scientists/enthusiasts to discuss theories without creationists disputing every point.
This, of course, would mean people on all sides of the issue respecting boundaries, suppressing the urge to make some snarky comment on a thread where it doesn’t belong, and being polite to each other . Would egos allow that? I have my doubts. But at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I realize variations of this have been tried before in the site’s history, but things are getting really, really bad with this current mixture, and there has got to be a solution.
[[No, we are going to get to the bottom of this one creationist claim, then we can move on to another.]]
We aint gonna get there with you denying the FACT that what you posted was a bunch of rubbish and lies
[[That is supposed to be proof that the radiocarbon dating technique is flawed.]]
Correct- What the article shows is that radiometric dating is wrong by hte fact that we were supposed to be in equilibrium in order for radiometric dating to be accurate, but subsequent tests prove that it certainly is not, and hterefore, radiometric dating is relying on ASSUMPTIONS that have been proven wrong- it ALSO shows that the more accurate AMS dating method shows previous dating methods were WRONG
[[Now the facts of the matter are that those skeletons were claimed to be old (as old as 70,000 years) on the basis of amino acid racemization. That technique has proven not to be very accurate.]]
Aha! Now we’re seeing a confession
[[But when creationists saw the article clearing up the antiquity of these skeletons they jumped right in — and got the facts exactly backwards!]]
You NEED reading comprehension classes I’m afraid- It’s been explained to you time and time gain- but evidnetly you can’t see your error
[[They claimed that the skeletons really were ancient, and that the AMS dating method was wrong.]]
Nope- WRONG! Sigh- one more time- What was claiemd was that the AAR method was wrong- NOT the AMS method- Read carefully- then mount a proper fact filled response, will ya?
[[They did this in an effort to discredit radiocarbon dating, and because they didn’t have a clue as to the actual science. Creation “science” as usual.]]
Stop- will ya? Your petty accusations are getting quite tiring- Argue the facts- leave the crap out eh? Let’s see if you’re capable of doing so!
[[You suggest that I rebut multiple points contained in the link Cottshop provided earlier today. I would really like him or some other creationist to admit that this standard creationist talking point is in error before I move on to the next point. Otherwise why bother.]]
When I’m in error I’ll gladly do so- but hte FACT is that you sir are the one in error- you haven’t honestly addressed any of hte points- prefering instead to confound hte issue by stating FALSE claims about what was written in the article linked to!
[[Cottshop will not admit that that point is incorrect in spite of the evidence I have provided.]]
You have provided no such hting! All you provided was a BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION of what the article states!
[[A standard creationist talking point concerning radiocarbon dating has been shown to be factually incorrect.]]
wow! You just don’t get it do you? It WAS shown to be factually wrong- and no amount of ad hominems will make it any better.
I don't know what else I can do. I have posted information from the original article, and still the facts are being twisted and distorted.
But I guess that's just creation "science" as usual. It just is unable to accept evidence that goes contrary to belief. In fact its whole reason for existence seems to be to advocate and defend beliefs that are contrary to evidence.
Maybe tomorrow I'll scan the article and post it so folks can see what the facts really are. In the meantime, there is only so much nonsense I can tolerate in one day, so its Miller time.
Some of you other creationists really should take a look at these issues and weigh in. Cottshop is making your side look really bad, and your silence is tacit agreement with what he claims.
[[Everyone is talking to each other with the full knowledge that no one is going to move an inch.]]
Why should the one with hte FACTS move anywhere? The link I listed shows that radiometric dating methods were wrong- that’s all I’ve claimed- IF you or anyone else can provide coutner evidence to show that ASM testing didn’t prove the old dating methods were wrong- then feel free to provide it, but the fact is that you won’t find any such evidence because the fact is, they were wrong- as are hte other methods of dating- these aren’t opinions, these are scientifically verifiable evidences which quite reasonably show them to be wrong.
[[Science is not a religion (and calling it ‘scientism’ was a rather rude way to put it), but it is something that relies on a method that is different from that of religion.]]
IF you’re talking about hte ‘science’ of Macroevolution, then you are wrong- it IS a religion that flies i nthe face of biological reality- again, this isn’t opinion, but scientifically valid facts. I’ve posted many many such evidences refuting the hypothesis of Macroevolution, and exposing the biological impossibility of it, but NEVER get any responses except for the same lame ‘ID isn’t science’ crap- Again, why should the TRUTH move an inch when confronted with bogus biology violating hypothesis’?
[[I don’t know what else I can do. I have posted information from the original article, and still the facts are being twisted and distorted.]]
Answer hte question Coyote- was AAR shown to be wrong? (You made hte admission earlier, but now apparently are tryign to cover it over with more false accusations)- Admit it, and we’ll ‘be at hte bottom of this’ in no time.
[[But I guess that’s just creation “science” as usual. It just is unable to accept evidence that goes contrary to belief. In fact its whole reason for existence seems to be to advocate and defend beliefs that are contrary to evidence.]]
You must live on another planet- How many more links do you want to ignore that show just hte opposite? I’ve got tons of em- Do you actually beleive what you state? Honestly?
[[Some of you other creationists really should take a look at these issues and weigh in. Cottshop is making your side look really bad, and your silence is tacit agreement with what he claims.]]
They’re looking, and they’re thinking that the lady doth protest too much Coyoteman- That lady being you. If your only defense is to project your own shortcomings onto the opposition, then your defense is in pretty bad shape-
[[Maybe tomorrow I’ll scan the article and post it so folks can see what the facts really are.]]
I see you completely ignored my last post to you- per usual- I already posted what the FACTS are, and exposed the blatant misrepresentations by both you and the feller who wrote that clueless ‘rebuttle’
[[Otherwise (by looking at only one, even tho’ it lines up the best with *your* specialization), you open yourself up to the cheap shot counterargument of “Who’s nitpicking NOW?!”]]
What? Since hwne is hte truth ‘nitpicking’ or claiming the other side is ‘nitpicking’?
[[Your point would be stronger if you were able to demonstrate similar errors/misunderstandings in his other examples.]]
‘other misunderstandings’? please do enlighten me where either I or the fella that wrote the article are ‘mistaken’ or in ‘error’? So far, all we’re been handed is some cock-n-bull story that blatantly misrepresents the actual FACTS abotu what was wrote.
Look, I wasn’t trying to get into the creationism vs. evolution (crevo) debate, but instead propose a solution that might make most people on all sides happy here. And I certainly wasn’t suggesting that only one side would have to cool it. In fact, I was really careful to make it clear that both sides would have to respect boundaries under such a plan, so I’m a little offended by your anger.
[[Only a few people on each side are really fighting it, and with all due respect to all involved, I think a lot of this is about ego more than anything else.]]
Then you are woefully mistaken- this is abotu truth- plain and simple-
[[And honestly, if I’m reading about the ‘discovery’ of a new supernova, I don’t want to read a religion vs. science debate about stellar evolution.]]
Despite hte fact that they contain objective truths? Interesting.
“Some of you other creationists really should take a look at these issues and weigh in. Cottshop is making your side look really bad, and your silence is tacit agreement with what he claims. “
No offense, but this sounds like you are egging people on. If it’s really so intolerable, one would think you’d avoid doing so.
Do you believe that “evolutionism” and “creationism” have been arrived at by use of different methods? If you do, then what’s your problem with my suggestion?
It is kind of depressing to think that creation science has become the face of conservatism.
10 years won’t be till next April?
[[It is kind of depressing to think that creation science has become the face of conservatism.]]
Yeah, I can see why objective TRUTHS and biological TRUTHS would be depressing to you
What? Since hwne is hte truth ‘nitpicking’ or claiming the other side is ‘nitpicking’?
In an earlier post, somewhere upthread, Coyote complained that Creationists tended to cherry-pick individual points to complain about, and then to use those to attack evolutionary theory as a whole. He called this "nitpicking".
Since his earlier post only went into detail about ONE of your points (the one closest to his own field of study), a casual observer might then accuse him of "nitpicking" and then by extension, hypocrisy.
‘other misunderstandings’? please do enlighten me where either I or the fella that wrote the article are ‘mistaken’ or in ‘error’? So far, all we’re been handed is some cock-n-bull story that blatantly misrepresents the actual FACTS abotu what was wrote.
I'm too lazy to review the thread and all of your posts in detail.
But--the impression left with me is that on the matter of the radiocarbon dating of the skeletons, the following happened:
1) Some skeletons were discovered and tentatively assigned an approximate date based on the kinetics of amino acid racemization. (I didn't see either a rough age estimate, nor error bars on said estimate. Nor did I see any independent tests as to the age, given contemporaneously with the racemization dating.)
2) Some form of radiometric dating was applied, which gave an age incommensurate with the racemization dating.
3) You and Coyote offered different interpretations of what happened -- Coyote seemed to say that creationists had accepted the racemization date as more accurate, and used it to attack both the radiometric dates of those specimens, and (by extension) the relative efficacy and accuracy of radiometric methods in general. (He suggested in one of his posts that some other methods lent credence to the radiometric dates for those fossils). You appeared to say "no, that's not what the creationists did: in fact, they relied on the evolutionists' claims of the racemization dates, and the creationists relied on the radiometric dating for an accurate dating. And BTW, the quote you gave originally called the skeletons "the oldest in North America" and we *know* that's not true. So these anecdotal inaccuracies show the evolutionists tend to blow smoke".
Is that a roughly accurate synopsis of the argument so far? Did I leave anything important out from what either one of you had said?
Full Disclosure: signing off for the night now, I have some work-related programming to pursue and then household chores. (And Monday Night Football!!)
Cheers!
Together with the library/censorship claims and all the other trashing.
Cheers!
[[Only a few people on each side are really fighting it, and with all due respect to all involved, I think a lot of this is about ego more than anything else.]]
To be more precise- this is again, not abotu Ego on my part, but about objective truths- Coyoteman knows that most people simply take Macroevolution at face value, apparently because the majority of secular scientists have subscribed to the hypothesis, despite a lack of evidence, and he knows that most people will simply take his false accusations at face value, never bothering to look up the actual facts of the false claims. I’ve decided that objective truths have taken a back seat for far too long, and those hwo hold to objective truths have had to endure false accusations and ridicule for far too long, and that it’s time that the objective TRUTH be presented for anyone that cares to take a few minutes out of their time to investigate it for themselves.
[[Do you believe that “evolutionism” and “creationism” have been arrived at by use of different methods?]]
If you know my posts at all, then you know that I do- ID uses objective investigations that don’t violate biological truths, while Macroevolution uses subjective interpretations and subjective assumptions, and use far reaching predrawn conclusions that violate biological principles.
[[If you do, then what’s your problem with my suggestion?]]
Why should biological realities be relegated to religious threads only? Look- when people like Coyote make false claims, and contually deride ID in science threads- then I’ll respond with the FACTS and the TRUTH- which anyone can verify by following hte links I post and seeign just exactly how Macroevolution is being exposed for the intentional fraud that it is.
I don’t post opinions I post the scientific facts that do the refuting- I have no stake in this other than to simply post those facts and to expose the false accusations and false claims of Macroevolution- the facts are what stand- not me.
Sarah Palin was falsely accused of promoting the teaching of creation science in public schools. She isn’t, in fact, that stupid.
“If you know my posts at all, then you know that I do”
Yes, I knew that you did, which is why I didn’t place a question if you didn’t.
As for the rest of your post, I think you’re missing my point. I thought my proposal was fairly evenhanded, but whatever. You’re focusing on the labels when they’re not what is important. It’s the idea of keeping them separate so that “creationism” and “evolutionism” can each be discussed on their own with the occasional debate thread for you and others to present their views that is the core of what I was suggesting.
This would mean coyoteman would have to watch himself just as much as you. What’s the problem with that and why the anger at me?
[[Since his earlier post only went into detail about ONE of your points (the one closest to his own field of study), a casual observer might then accuse him of “nitpicking” and then by extension, hypocrisy.]]
Sorry- I misunderstood what you were infering.
[[3) You and Coyote offered different interpretations of what happened]]
You are correct up to this point- I offered the truth abotu what was said- Coyoteman posted some convoluted false claims about what was said and why.
[[You appeared to say “no, that’s not what the creationists did: in fact, they relied on the evolutionists’ claims of the racemization dates, and the creationists relied on the radiometric dating for an accurate dating.]]
Correct- somewhat- We aren’t relying on any of the dates- however, the fact that carbon was found in hte bones in amounts that are too great to be as old as once claimed shows that the earlier dating methods which were accepted without question based on Evo’s a priori beliefs abotu how old thiongs ‘should be’ (apparently to fit hte evidneces to the assumptions). We also rely on the fact that CO2 isn’t in equilibrium, and therefore, all the tests over 6000-10000 or so years that rely on carbon (remember, evos claim carbon can date things to over 15-30000, and hte non equilibrium would take at least 300000 years to gain equilibrium), simply are not accurate.
The fact is that these early bones were taught as scientific evidence for how old man was, and where he ‘might have evolved from’ and hte fact is that the dating methods used ot date them were just plain wrong- but you won’t find any retractions in the science books that our kids have to slosh htrough. Now, the evos are tryign to weasel out of this perdicament by claiming that they apparently knew all along they weren’t that old, because apparently they’ve tested the surrounding earth they were extracted from (When hte reality of hte situation is that they no doubt dated those surroundings before and came to hte long age dates then)
[[ So these anecdotal inaccuracies show the evolutionists tend to blow smoke”.]]
Ypu- see previous response- only hte ‘anectodotal innacuracies’ are more like objectively realized innacuracies.
[[It’s the idea of keeping them separate so that “creationism” and “evolutionism” can each be discussed on their own with the occasional debate thread for you and others to present their views that is the core of what I was suggesting.]]
Again, why should truth be relegated to certain threads when scientific discussions pop up in other forums?
[[This would mean coyoteman would have to watch himself just as much as you. What’s the problem with that and why the anger at me?]]
There’s no anger- just askign questions. I capitalize not to shout- but to stress key points only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.