Two Scenarios: Only One Can Be Correct

Two Scenarios: Only One Can Be CorrectI learned the following argument from Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University These two scenarios are diametrically contraposition and cannot be reconciled.The facts of history confirms the Biblical scenario and falsifies the Evolutionary scenario based on the massive amount of worldwide physical evidence proving ancient men possessed ultra-intelligence and capabilities surpassing our own today. They knew the shape and EXACT dimensions of the Earth, how to locate and align any position with true polar north, were advanced mathematicians who employed pi in their geometrical and trigonometrical abilities, and could extract out of quarry, transport, cut with optical precision, dress, and lift blocks weighing up to 70 to 400 tons apiece without cranes or any modern equipment.The Evolutionary scenario has man emerging from the primitive Stone Age while the facts of history for the same time period exhibit him with extraordinary ultra-intelligence and ability conducive with the Biblical scenario of being suddenly created ultra-intelligent by God. The Evolutionary scenario cannot account for, nor does it have the room to accomodate this database of facts substantiating intelligence undulation from super smart to primitive and non-scientific, then rebounding back to the super intelligence of today. 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th century Europe rediscovered pi lost to history since Archimedes in the 3rd century BC, and for the most part prior to Columbus thought the Earth was flat. In between these revolutionary centuries of change into modernity and the Stone Age is the primitive times of pre-scientific history that lasted for thousands of years. But the Evolutionary scenario would have us ignore these facts of intelligence undulation because their ape-to-man story is irreversibly spoken up for.Through-out the 29 year Biblical teaching career of Dr. Scott he always treated the Theory of Evolution with scholarly respect. He self-admittedly assumed the proponents of Darwinism to be honest scientists producing legitimate facts. In response to their claims Dr. Scott would present the historical data outlined above: the physical evidence from around the globe that clearly points to ancient men possessing ultra-intelligence, knowledge, and technology that surpasses our own today. These historical facts fly directly in the face of one-way evolutionary improvement claims. If mankind gradually evolved then the ancients could not have had capabilities near our own today much less exceed them as was the case. But the facts of history, as championed by Dr. Scott and a host of other scholars, support the Biblical scenario that ancient men lived at least 10 times the average length of life today, and possessed a commensurate level of intelligence that a person living that long would expect to have.Ray MartinezThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-08-2005 09:46 PM

Ray, I will not promote Dr.Gene Scotts topic. I WILL promote your topic if you can find the concise words with which to frame it.
1) What is the central idea? (in under 30 words?
2)What is your position?
3)Which forum do you want your topic placed in?Once again, take care of that flu and DO get back to us.PB

Show me ANY OP in 30 words - TEist ?I would not want anyone to think I thought of this argument. Dr. Scott was my source. We must include our sources lest someone come along and accuse of plagiarism.Your reaction of me crediting my source is ad hom and baffling. The OP is not too long - now.Your tone has rejected the OP not for the illegitimate reasons of including my source, but because you cannot refute.Forget it - you are enraged arguing the man. Why do you promote topics based on Darwinian sources - hypocrite.Ray MartinezEdit:Where does the Rule exist saying it is not allowed to credit Dr.Scott as a source ?Your post makes no sense and your fellow Admins must join this nonsense to protect your ego.Your hatred of Dr. Scott being advocated under some silly invented personal Admin standard is unethical. My position is stated clearly in the OP - not a matter of opinion. Why don't you explain what you are talking about then lets have other Admins defend this nonsense.RMThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-07-2005 02:32 PM

and that can only lead to one conclusion.

Ad hom = the Darwinian way = inability to refute.Ray

http://EvC Forum: 1 Kings 6:1 can we harmonise it with other biblical info? -->EvC Forum: 1 Kings 6:1 can we harmonise it with other biblical info?But please remember I meant what I said to Admin Percy about the initial OP being too long - he was obviously correct and I accepted it.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-07-2005 03:06 PM

From Post # 1: Why are Dr. Scott produced arguments not promotable ?The only thing left for EvC to do is have another Admin pick up the groundless cause with a straight face.Where do you expect Creos to get their arguments from ?Answer: logic says from theist scholars.This is all about the inability to refute regardless of what nonsense you claim and whether anyone admits it or not we all know it.AdminPhat is a Darwinist - could anyone expect a Darwinist to have any other reaction to a Creationist with a Ph.D. from Stanford ?Ray

OK, Ray. I'll give you one more chance--just to prove I am fair. You may use Dr.Scott as a source, provided that you quote from him and add your own position...all in the space of under 100 words.Get back to me with it. P.S. I am not necessarily a Darwinist! Phats reply was 69 words. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 10-07-2005 02:39 PM

This is a special, ad hoc, invented on the spot, insult of any level of intelligence. There are no rules about particular sources as everyone knows - only that you have them for disputed claims. The fact that you initially ***declared*** my source was somehow invalid betrayed your personal rage. The fact that you did it with your Admin hat on shows you attempted to abuse your Admin powers to pursue the personal issue.As I said I learned the argument from him, that is the basic pointing out of the contraposition of the two scenarios, and whatever facts that exist for the Biblical scenario in this context was derived from him.My position is his position, as a Darwinists position is whatever source they use for their establishment of facts. The 100 word rule is designed just for me and I could easily produce X amount of OP's way over this ad hoc rule.All the opposition to the 2nd OP revision, that is the invented ad hoc reasons are caused by the inability to refute or the perceived forseen difficulty to refute.The word limit is without precedent, the "quote from Dr. Scott" requirement is a non-sequitur as I plainly stated that I learned the argument from him, and if I learned it from him then it is my position. IOW, these silly non-sequiturs are nonsense and are being maintained and fronted because of the damning to evolution material.You Darwinists, by suddenly creating these silly senseless hoops are conceding, to deflect away from this fact = the hoops. I am comforted.The 2nd OP revision briefly lays out the position of both sides. Then I argue why the Biblical falsifies the Evolutionary. This OP is short overall - you have no case or issue except as noted above.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-07-2005 09:18 PM

If you insist on these silly rants you will not be carrying on this or any discussion. Just stay on the particular issues and stop playing martyr.

Ray,Let me join the fray. I think the concern here is that you're not using your own words to describe the position. If you can't use your words to describe the position, then how will you defend the position when others bring up questions or ask for clarifications? Quoted material is for supporting and clarifying your position, not as a substitute / crutch.Now, I actually can't tell from your post what is quoted from Dr. Gene Scott and what is your own. I'd ask you to:

Express the points you want to make in your own words

Try to be succinct when expressing your point.

clearly differentiate between what is your words and what are supporting words from Dr. Gene Scott.

I think this summarizes the concerns of the other admins, and I think you can see that it's a standard we hold for all posters. If you can pull together an OP in this way, I'd be happy to promote it for you.Thanks.

---

Where is there a link in the OP ?This is a veiled charge or plagiarism. I credited my source as to whom I learned the argument from and prevent this very predictable poison the well tactic.The OP was my own words.What makes you think it wasn't ?I should of plagiarized Dr. Scott and not credited him at all as he was the most plagiarized man in the history of the world. Where is ONE cut and paste ?It is my own original words, albeit I admitted the argument was derived from Dr. Scott.Where is your evidence of this plagiarism charge ? The OP is my own words and I credited my source. You are incoherent.I have accepted the invented impediments as inability to refute.Ray

Insult = inability to refute.Ray

Ray,I offered you my time and my viewpoint. You chose your own non-constructive interpretation. I'd advise you to search for a more constructive interpretation.Thanks.

You did what you were told - a Nuremberg rationale.You said the OP contained words from Dr. Scott but didn't paste an example because anyone can read and see I did not quote Dr. Scott - I credited him with teaching me the argument. If the OP contained what you said then you are charging plagiarism, yet I credited him. Acting like you don't understand this (or ignoring) is unethical - especially for an Admin. I have helped you as much as I can - the rest is up to you.Then you said something about the OP being non-succinct.Again, if this was true you would have pasted an excerpt plainly showing this.What is happening is obvious. Invented insults that have no correspondence to reality/what is actually written = the way EvC has decided to poison the well.The OP is short. It is written almost in prose - in my words. There is no ambiguity or confusion as to who wrote what - I am the author. There are no links or source mysteries as you know.The irony in all of this is how you Darwinists can deduce obscure fossil scraps (supposedly millions of years old) to be as your worldview needs them to be but my plain OP is chinese arithmetic.I expect you to correct your errors and refrain feigning ignorance.Ray