Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,276 Year: 5,533/9,624 Month: 558/323 Week: 55/143 Day: 17/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 302 (303728)
04-12-2006 10:29 PM


invalidation.
http://EvC Forum: Intelligent Design explains many follies -->EvC Forum: Intelligent Design explains many follies
In this thread please stick to the topic and leave the assessments of how well or poorly anyone is doing to the readers.
But I not talking about "how well or poorly anyone is doing" - I'm saying the argument used had been invalidated.
What's the problem with stating that an invalidated argument is an invalidated argument?
It's not like {person X} is the source of the argument, it was borrowed from a book after all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 04-13-2006 8:39 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 302 (308415)
05-02-2006 7:29 AM


Age Correlations Step by Step
See http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step. -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.
Please move this thread back to coffeehouse

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 12:02 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 302 (308506)
05-02-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Adminnemooseus
05-02-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
What about in {Great Debate} then?
The idea was to discuss the issue in a non-science forum, as 'relative' requested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 12:02 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 1:32 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 196 of 302 (308572)
05-02-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Adminnemooseus
05-02-2006 1:32 PM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
Is the topic in questions some sort of "creation with apparent age" sort of thing? If so, perhaps the topic belongs in one of the "Social and Religious Issues" forums.
That would work. It appears to be the direction 'relative' is going.
This could also serve to open up the debate for others that don't like to 'play' on the science forums.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 1:32 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 6:11 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 302 (309235)
05-04-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Adminnemooseus
05-02-2006 1:32 PM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
First of all, I'll point out (as being discussed in the "Private Administration Forum") that "relative" is apparently another incarnation of "simple", who is currently of "full suspension" status. Thus his very presence here is highly problimatic. Do you want to do a "Great Debate" with "simple"?
Is there any doubt anymore? We have the same simple theory of light etc changing at some unexplained date in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-02-2006 1:32 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 05-05-2006 7:04 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 207 of 302 (309319)
05-05-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Admin
05-05-2006 7:04 AM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
Is there any doubt that it is 'simple'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 05-05-2006 7:04 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Admin, posted 05-05-2006 8:22 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 302 (309490)
05-05-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Admin
05-05-2006 8:22 AM


Re: Age Correlations Step by Step
If you're going into this with eyes open, and in particular if you have some discussion style/approach ideas you'd like to try out for bringing a problem poster closer to constructive discussion, then I lean toward being encouraging.
My biggest problem I see is that the thread started just to review age dating with 'relative'/simple is at 73 posts and counting, and very little of it has to do with the bristlecone pine data because 'relative'/simple is off and running on one of his pet illusions.
While a {great debate} format would not prevent him from introducing plethoras of imaginary scenarios, it would limit the divergence from the topic at hand as other posters take on those fantasies.
My original idea was to proceed similar to the grand canyon thread by jar (that I have yet to finish, as enjoyable as it is), though not necessarily in a strict linear fashion.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Admin, posted 05-05-2006 8:22 AM Admin has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1523 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 302 (309723)
05-06-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Adminnemooseus
05-06-2006 1:55 PM


Re: Simple/relative
It's not just relative. As you hint, if no one answered him there would be no problem ... it's more like:
diversion off topic = k*(evos*creos)*{number of responses}2
... where k is a constant dependant on the number of Dryas octopetala blooms at any time you chose.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-06-2006 1:55 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024