|
|
#51
05-23-2007, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something?
PairTheBoard 
|
|
#52
05-23-2007, 09:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something? PairTheBoard [/ QUOTE ] He was ranking my post. It doesn't make any sense, because I wasn't trying to be funny or anything, nor was I trying to be particularly profound. I just called him on the particular dishonest tactic he was using (and is continuing to use in the very post he is making fun of me for) and he decided to cop out. Its ok, I didn't expect much else. He will go to great lengths to avoid making any positive statements that could themselves be challenged...its the cowardly approach of the denier. Just review this thread: he was afraid of being lumped in with the YECs until I flat-out demanded he answer, and then when he did, he still hedged, and is now dancing around the point about carbon dating. I don't mind that he thinks his tactics are legitimate, I'm just trying to demonstrate to others why they aren't. They are used all the time by all flavors of deniers, and you really need to know what to look for. He's decent at it, but certainly no expert. I'd give him better than a 2/10, maybe more like a 4.
|
|
#53
05-23-2007, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
He's decent at it, but certainly no expert. I'd give him better than a 2/10, maybe more like a 4. [/ QUOTE ] Oh. So he was ranking your post 2 out of a possible 10. I was afraid it was a new meme or something. Carry on. PairTheBoard
|
|
#54
05-23-2007, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yes. But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails. [/ QUOTE ] So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating? [/ QUOTE ] Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k? I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see. [/ QUOTE ] No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now. [/ QUOTE ] lol 2/10 [/ QUOTE ] Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid?
|
|
#55
05-23-2007, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yes. But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails. [/ QUOTE ] So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating? [/ QUOTE ] Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k? I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see. [/ QUOTE ] No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now. [/ QUOTE ] lol 2/10 [/ QUOTE ] Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid? [/ QUOTE ] For someone as seemingly intelligent as you are, you sure need to work on your comprehension. Please point out where I said in SMP that I was going to stop posting here.
|
|
#56
05-23-2007, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yes. But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails. [/ QUOTE ] So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating? [/ QUOTE ] Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k? I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see. [/ QUOTE ] No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now. [/ QUOTE ] lol 2/10 [/ QUOTE ] Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid? [/ QUOTE ] For someone as seemingly intelligent as you are, you sure need to work on your comprehension. Please point out where I said in SMP that I was going to stop posting here. [/ QUOTE ] This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient. [ QUOTE ] Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable. Macro is not. Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution. I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals". [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm going to leave now. I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#57
05-23-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something? PairTheBoard [/ QUOTE ] I just called him on the particular dishonest tactic he was using (and is continuing to use in the very post he is making fun of me for) and he decided to cop out. He will go to great lengths to avoid making any positive statements that could themselves be challenged...its the cowardly approach of the denier. I don't mind that he thinks his tactics are legitimate, I'm just trying to demonstrate to others why they aren't. They are used all the time by all flavors of deniers, and you really need to know what to look for. [/ QUOTE ] I'm going to make sure this next part stands out, because I've said this to you before and you still don't seem to get it. [/ QUOTE ] I am not trying to persuade anyone to my side of the fence. I never have. If you're looking for 100% scientific proof for Creation or the existance of "God", you will be sorely disappointed. These proofs do not exist. I am merely pointing out that YOUR beliefs are nothing more than government funded religious indoctrination. Belief in Cosmic/Organic/Chemical/Macro Evolution was, is, and will remain to be a religion. Sadly, you clever little people are suceeding in passing your beliefs off as something more than that by hitching a ride on the coat tails of micro evolution which is undisputed fact. This is what I have a problem with. [/ QUOTE ] Why do I focus on pointing out the flaws in YOUR theory instead of providing proof for my own? Because I have absolutely no desire to change your thinking. If you want to think you evolved from wet rocks, that's your prerogative. I do, however, want you to stop teaching your religion in my public schools to unsuspecting heads full of mush and calling it scientific. Which it is not. Are we good now?
|
|
#58
05-23-2007, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.
|
|
#60
05-23-2007, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient. [ QUOTE ] Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable. Macro is not. Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution. I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals". [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Bold much? [ QUOTE ] I'm going to leave now. I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread. [/ QUOTE ] Context, my friend. Context. I said that after something like 3 hours of constant posts back and forth. I was at the office at the time and did in fact leave. Nice try though.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
