Frog Tirade

Adm-moose,Like to appoligize for posting tirade on Frog in the wrong place. Future problems I will bring here. I was kinda' getting the idea you were calling me ignorant and that my posts didn't have good content, did I mis-read your post to me?Joe

This topic is a follow up to this message.----------Everyone is ignorant. Of all there is to know, any individual can only know a tiny part.I'm not up to a detailed discussion right now. I'm sure others will be glad to chip in, in this topic.Right now, I just suggest you put more time and care into doing fewer but better messages. Hopefully Crashfrog will follow your lead, and do the same. Remember, this is a debate board, where hopefully things of substance and some lasting value will be said. This is NOT a chat room.I always stress to all, try to keep aware of what the theme of an individual topic is, and try to stay close to that theme.Everyone, be nice to each other,
Adminnemooseus

And if I think you show promice of me wanting you there, I'll invite you to my favorite "apparent age" related topic.Moose (aka minnemooseus, aka "the non-admin Moose")

I shall of course do my best to follow your suggestions. I intend in no way to be a problem child at all. As I've said before, I'd like us all to argue like cats and dogs in peace. Thank you for doing an admirable job of keeping things in order.Joe

[This is a reply to Message 51. --Admin]Hadn't seen this thread; I'm moving my response here: I don't understand the level of arrogance that allows someone with no scientific background to dictate the use of scientific terms like "theory" and "law". I don't understand how it apparently makes sense to you to do so.Maybe you can help me understand. What puts Messenjah in a position to dictate the use of scientific terms? Well, you've just kind of started, right? There's a bazillion threads here. Why don't you jump into a few more? Or if you like, I have many, many questions about discrepancies in the creationist/Noaic flood models. I'd be happy to shoot one your way if you like. Actually I've come up with better. If you stick around, and participate in more threads, you'll probably see it. Hrm, I much prefer "arrogant young atheist." It's shorter and more or less sums it up.But it's up to you to explain how my remarks were arrogant and Messenjah's was not. To me there's nothing more arrogant than dictating to a field precisely in what way they should use their terms, and it was that tone of young arrogance to which I responded in kind.I guess there's nothing more to say on the topic. I stand by my remarks. I imagine you won't back down from yours. Messenjah is free to explain how I'm way off base, or how I misinterpreted his remarks.(Added by edit: I mistook Jazzlover for Messenjah. I know that Jazzlover is considerably older than I made him out to be.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2004][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-14-2004][This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-16-2004]

Lil' Froggie,I got carried away. No, I don't think you should have attacked his age. The last few times I've talked to older people about this topic, they have written me off due to age.As far as new subjects, no worries, we'll get there. I really don't have the time (9 hours of class every day, plus the rest of the Military fun and games) to talk in more then a few threads at a time.And for clarification, yes, I was the one with the tirade, not you. You said some dumb crap, but the tirade part was all me.Now, I had considered you a fair dabator. I'm starting to notice a trend. You called Jazz arrogant, and you said I was "Holier than thou". Now, I know you don't know me in person, but that is almost funny, it's so off the mark.
I don't drink, ok? But if one of my Navy buds need a DD, I'm happy to help out.
I don't smoke, but I let people smoke in my car. And, havn't I said that that I'm just an average guy, nothing really special? I'm trying to see where I left the impression that I was more importent, intelligent, or better than anyone else?
I will admit, that I am much better looking then the average man, but you havn't seen my picture, so there is no reason for jealousy there.
At any rate, lets keep the personal characteristics to a minumum.As a final thought, I think we are well matched as far as abilities, intelligence, what have you. (You poor sucker). I think we should get a "Great Debate" thing going. Just you and me. Mr Moose dude would be a good mediator if he was willing.
You could even run it like a formal debate, with questions, rebuttles, etc. We would only be allowed like one post a day or something.
What do you think?Joe

I know the Moose would like to see me in a Great Debate. I guess I'd be up for it, but not quite yet... I guess I'd like to get to know you a bit better, see where your interests lie and what scientific evidence you feel comfortably able to assess (for instance, I find geology indescribably dull, and therefore I'm not much good in a discussion of it, as I simply don't have the training to assess geological claims). I guess I'd like to get a greater handle on what areas you feel comfortable exploring first, if that's cool...It's a good idea, though.

If you are allergic to geology...I'm cool with that. I've gotta say, looking at rocks doesn't light my world on fire.As I have thought about this for maybe 20 more seconds, I was considering we would submit questions to the Main Moose around here, and he could edit and pass them along if he so desired the part.Moose, you should love it cause we'd be putting fewer (one per day limit in the Great Debate part) posts up, and the quality of said posts should improve. We'd stop cluttering your threads so much.
Anyway,Joe

First of all, for your general amusement, you may wish to look at this topic:
"Proposal for Moose vs. Frog Great Debate"Any "Great Debate" format would largely be up to you and Crashfrog to decide. In general, you would alternate messages. I would suggest that editing be prohibited - Get it right before you post the message. It definitely would not be a moderator function to do any editing.I don't think I have the skills or the desire to be the moderator of a formal debate. Personally, I would prefer that they just be a more careful exchange of thoughts.

quote:

---

looking at rocks doesn't light my world on fire.

---

BTW, I have a B.S. degree in geology. Adminnemooseus

Why don't we bounce around our potential topics in this thread, for a couple days or so? I'll start with a few ideas, but they all more or less assume that you're a Young Earth Creationist, ala AiG or Kent Hovind, etc.Paleobotany falsifies a world-wide Noaic flood"Original Kinds" is not a meaningful biological categorizationCosmology falsifies a young EarthThat's about all I have so far.If you're not a YEC or any sort of Genesis literalist, I don't know exactly what we could debate about. I know we disagree on the existence of God but never in the history of the world has that been a fruitful debate. Thoughts?

Read me like a book so far. Biblical literalist (with some exceptions of prophecy and song), young earth (<10,000 years), noahs flood, tower of Babel etc. Original Kinds is something I believe in, but due to limited age/time have not studied it on a case by case basis.
Existance of God debates do seem to last a while, don't they. I have seen some very masterful techniques of reasoning in circles on both sides of that debate, however, have no wish to repeat them. Blah!Since what you believe is devided up among many names (Big Bang, Macro-Evolution etc) it may be easier to base the debate on what I believe: the Biblical Model. Of course that won't define all I believe in total, it'd be a place to start. Since you are a former Christian, you should be familiar enough with the Bible for us to be in good shape.In response to the good Moose, is there a reasonable and willing moderator that you know of? Or no? I would prefer one, but that is a wish, not a demand.What say ye all?Joe

I'm also open to the idea of you and I ganging up on Fried Froglegs.
You rock! (literally it appears)[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-16-2004]

Interesting. You know, that's not a topic that really comes up in creationism a lot. I'm not even sure if folks like AiG have any specific info on the Babel story except the general implication that, like the rest of Genesis, it's supposed to be a literal account.But when you think about it, it's like a kind of linguistic creationism. The linguistic view is that language evolves and adapts much like organisms do, and that new languages develop when groups are separated, like how speciation occurs in organisms. In a sense the lingusitic view is that all language decends from a common "ancestor" language.Whereas the creationist view is that all languages were specifically created by God during the Babel event, so that, in a sense, there's original language "kinds".Depending on your interest in the subject, and my ability to dig up some of my old lingusitic texts (and a few new ones), we might have a very interesting debate topic indeed. The Babel story doesn't get hit on very often, I suspect. That covers a lot of ground. I guess I'd prefer to narrow it down a bit. Since the Biblical model contradicts scientific theory from a variety of disciplines we can draw the line in any field we feel mutually comfortable in, though.Keep in mind that if you want me to pick a topic under the umbrella of Biblical literalism I'm almost certainly going to pick the weakest areas I'm familiar with - probably the Flood. I believe this to be the most strongly contradicted part of the usual YEC models.Great Debate topics are generally refereed, so we should figure out what it takes to score a point on the other guy. We can do that once we've picked the topic, though.

I feel quit comfortable with the flood. If you wish to debate one single topic like that, then this might be a good place to start.What are your suggestions for the rules of engagment?

As far as the Tower of Babel, yes there was an original language, God then "split up" the language into a unknown number of languages which have since changed, split, and melded together in to different languages. This topic would be near impossible to prove or disprove from either side, but as always, I'm open for discussion.