My Lunar Challenge

[The Lady Kate]

If AV is willing to admit that there’s no evidence for what he believes, that’s the first step towards admitting that creationism isn’t science. (Since science is based on evidence). If he’s willing to admit that, that at least makes him more honest than a considerable portion of creationists.

Not really... this is an all-too-common creationist canard. The goal is to degenerate the meaning of "faith" by applying it to literally everything he can conceive, making the term itself meaningless.

If you can't keep up with the Joneses, then drag them down to your level... nothing honest about it.

 

[Thistlethorn]

You probably haven’t been here long enough to be aware of this, but one of my pet peeves at this forum is when newbies start acting like they can call all of the shots, despite lacking any understanding of this board’s history, or what sorts of things have been considered helpful or unhelpful over the past 5+ years. When threads end up getting derailed, it almost always seems to be newbies who cause it. Look at Tharumza’s reply in post #30—do you ever see that kind of thing from members who joined in 2005 or earlier?

Elitist tosh. Just because someone is new doesn't mean he's stumped by this boards "intricacies". A message board is a message board is a message board, and there's no reason for anyone to pull post-count-rank or sign-up-date-rank unless they can't make a proper argument. The guy made a pretty funny joke, playing on the old creationist canard that atheists have a set dogma, and you didn't get it. That's no reason to go all "old guard" on us.

Furthermore, in my short time here, most threads that have been derailed has been so because of AV. He's hardly a newbie.

In my opinion, this forum has really gone downhill. We’ve even got a n00b for a webmaster now—Pauler has been registered for less than a year, and as far as I’m concerned, has yet to demonstrate the kind of familiarity with this board’s needs that’s necessary in order to run it properly.

I wish we could have Erwin back.

Maybe Pauler is good at being a webmaster? Perhaps he has qualities that you don't see as you don't work alongside him?

 

[Freodin]

Of course, especially when you cant agree with what AV might say. Do you think it might work the other way too? From the attacks, belittling, mocking and out right rude and arrogant remarks constantly thrown AV's way he has truly held up better than any of his attackers. He is committed and uncompromised in his walk with God. He is a living example of many verses in the bible one being Ephesians 4:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men. and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Standing firm in his beliefs, unshaken, unmoved like a pillar for Gods Word. Knowing full well that if God is for him. WHO can be against him? Romans 8: 38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
He is also well aware that his battle is not against flesh and blood, he is planting seeds, most likely lots considering his post count, and one day God will cause them to grow. AV your a good man, well saturated in God's Word. Keep throwing those verses out brother. Isaiah 55:11

I don´t want to pull the "newbie" argument from the hat here... but experience does count for something.

Some people - and I think that you, Meshach, belong to them - simply look at the party button one is wearing and feel inclined to agree with the most absurd positions, simply because the one who makes the statement is "one of us".

"Standing firm in his beliefs, unshaken, unmoved like a pillar..." is, in your view, something good, when it is done "for God´s word". When unbelievers act like that, we are called stubborn, in refusal, hard-hearted or spiritual blind. If that isn´t a double standard, I don´t know any.

Well now we could say that such an approach... annoying and uncommunicative as it is... is justified if it "plants seeds".

"he is planting seeds, most likely lots considering his post count, and one day God will cause them to grow."

Well, a day ago or two I was searching for a post by AV - one he had made shortly before - because I wanted to compare it with another of his.


I didn´t find his post.


The forum software lists only the last 500 posts a user made.


His last 500 posts consisted of counting. Most of his posts consist of counting. That is where his inflated post count comes from.


Is that the seed you want to see planted?

You might want to consider... even a Christian can be wrong, in everything he does.

 

[Aggie]

Elitist tosh. Just because someone is new doesn't mean he's stumped by this boards "intricacies". A message board is a message board is a message board, and there's no reason for anyone to pull post-count-rank or sign-up-date-rank unless they can't make a proper argument. The guy made a pretty funny joke, playing on the old creationist canard that atheists have a set dogma, and you didn't get it. That's no reason to go all "old guard" on us.

Did you look at his post #30? This is what I’m talking about:

<staff edit>

Not all newbies here have this problem. You seem to be okay, and one of my closest friends here, Naraoia, has been registered for less than two years. But what I&#8217;m saying is that the longer someone has been registered, the less common this sort of behavior is. AV has it a little, but he&#8217;s only been registered since 2006, which (relatively speaking) is still kind of recent. For people who registered in 2005 or earlier, you generally don&#8217;t see this sort of behavior at all.

I think there are three reasons for this:

1: The environment of this board was inherently different before 2006, so people who registered before then tended to be somewhat different than the type of person who registers nowadays. Specifically, this used to be a fairly intense science debate forum, so people only registered if they thought they had something to add to these debates. You can see this if you look at any of the old threads in the forum archives. Another way to measure the same thing is by seeing how many threads from each year are listed in the C & E thread archive&#8212;the rate at which people have posted threads worth adding there has clearly dropped off.

2: The longer a person has been here, the more of an opportunity they&#8217;ve had to learn from the other posters, both about science and about how to interact here. I remember what I was like in spring and summer of 2004, and I don&#8217;t think I learned how to really contribute here until sometime in 2005. My best contributions weren&#8217;t until 2007, so it took me around three years to learn how to reach my full potential on this forum. The same principle applies to most other people also.

3: Remaining active at this board for multiple years takes a certain amount of dedication. I guess this one&#8217;s kind of obvious: of any group of people who join the forum at a particular time, those of them who are still participating after 4 or 5 years are generally going to be those who care most about the topic being discussed there.

This isn&#8217;t normally worth bringing up, but it&#8217;s really been getting to be a problem lately. During the four days that he&#8217;s been registered, has Tharumza even read this board&#8217;s rules? Judging by his post that I quoted, I&#8217;d guess that he hasn&#8217;t.

Maybe Pauler is good at being a webmaster? Perhaps he has qualities that you don't see as you don't work alongside him?

I&#8217;ve read his posts (he doesn&#8217;t have very many), and he doesn&#8217;t appear to know how to do anything that Erwin wasn&#8217;t better at. I posted something more detailed about this here.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Did you look at his post #30? This is what I’m talking about:



Not all newbies here have this problem. You seem to be okay, and one of my closest friends here, Naraoia, has been registered for less than two years. But what I’m saying is that the longer someone has been registered, the less common this sort of behavior is. AV has it a little, but he’s only been registered since 2006, which (relatively speaking) is still kind of recent. For people who registered in 2005 or earlier, you generally don’t see this sort of behavior at all.

I think there are three reasons for this:

1: The environment of this board was inherently different before 2006, so people who registered before then tended to be somewhat different than the type of person who registers nowadays. Specifically, this used to be a fairly intense science debate forum, so people only registered if they thought they had something to add to these debates. You can see this if you look at any of the old threads in the forum archives. Another way to measure the same thing is by seeing how many threads from each year are listed in the C & E thread archive—the rate at which people have posted threads worth adding there has clearly dropped off.

2: The longer a person has been here, the more of an opportunity they’ve had to learn from the other posters, both about science and about how to interact here. I remember what I was like in spring and summer of 2004, and I don’t think I learned how to really contribute here until sometime in 2005. My best contributions weren’t until 2007, so it took me around three years to learn how to reach my full potential on this forum. The same principle applies to most other people also.

3: Remaining active at this board for multiple years takes a certain amount of dedication. I guess this one’s kind of obvious: of any group of people who join the forum at a particular time, those of them who are still participating after 4 or 5 years are generally going to be those who care most about the topic being discussed there.

This isn’t normally worth bringing up, but it’s really been getting to be a problem lately. During the four days that he’s been registered, has Tharumza even read this board’s rules? Judging by his post that I quoted, I’d guess that he hasn’t.

Sure, I agree that the post you quoted is out of line. Even he agrees with that. I can understand his frustration, though. It's a difficult topic to discuss for anyone not deeply intoctrinated in faith. The mental gymnastics he speaks of is of the most annoying kind you can find, and it's easy to get worked up over it. However, the original post, the one I was talking about, was rather funny, and I stand by what I said in defence of it.

I’ve read his posts (he doesn’t have very many), and he doesn’t appear to know how to do anything that Erwin wasn’t better at. I posted something more detailed about this here.

I don't much care about the staff of any board I'm posting on, unless they are horribly bad. I haven't noticed this guy doing anything horribly bad, but in this case I'll just defer to your experience.

 

[[serious]]

If AV is willing to admit that there’s no evidence for what he believes, that’s the first step towards admitting that creationism isn’t science. (Since science is based on evidence). If he’s willing to admit that, that at least makes him more honest than a considerable portion of creationists.



You probably haven’t been here long enough to be aware of this, but one of my pet peeves at this forum is when newbies start acting like they can call all of the shots, despite lacking any understanding of this board’s history, or what sorts of things have been considered helpful or unhelpful over the past 5+ years. When threads end up getting derailed, it almost always seems to be newbies who cause it. Look at Tharumza’s reply in post #30—do you ever see that kind of thing from members who joined in 2005 or earlier?

In my opinion, this forum has really gone downhill. We’ve even got a n00b for a webmaster now—Pauler has been registered for less than a year, and as far as I’m concerned, has yet to demonstrate the kind of familiarity with this board’s needs that’s necessary in order to run it properly.

I wish we could have Erwin back.

You know what one of my pet peeves is? people thinking that post count and join date merit special treatment. His opinion is as valid as yours.

 

[Aggie]

I don&#8217;t think they merit special treatment per se, but they do merit certain behavior. Specifically, someone like Tharumza doesn&#8217;t have the right to start bossing around and cursing off the other members less than a week after he joined.

The behavior itself is different. There have been times when USincognito acted as a sort of de facto moderator at this board, telling the other members what kind of conduct was and wasn&#8217;t acceptable, and I don&#8217;t think anybody had a problem with that. When he did this, most of the time he was right. But how likely is someone to know how to do this when they&#8217;ve been registered for less than a week? Even if you ignore the actual amount of experience that a person has, it isn&#8217;t possible to ignore the effects that it has on their behavior when they try to do this.

 

[azmurath]

Did you look at his post #30? This is what I’m talking about:



Not all newbies here have this problem. You seem to be okay, and one of my closest friends here, Naraoia, has been registered for less than two years. But what I’m saying is that the longer someone has been registered, the less common this sort of behavior is. AV has it a little, but he’s only been registered since 2006, which (relatively speaking) is still kind of recent. For people who registered in 2005 or earlier, you generally don’t see this sort of behavior at all.

I think there are three reasons for this:

1: The environment of this board was inherently different before 2006, so people who registered before then tended to be somewhat different than the type of person who registers nowadays. Specifically, this used to be a fairly intense science debate forum, so people only registered if they thought they had something to add to these debates. You can see this if you look at any of the old threads in the forum archives. Another way to measure the same thing is by seeing how many threads from each year are listed in the C & E thread archive—the rate at which people have posted threads worth adding there has clearly dropped off.

2: The longer a person has been here, the more of an opportunity they’ve had to learn from the other posters, both about science and about how to interact here. I remember what I was like in spring and summer of 2004, and I don’t think I learned how to really contribute here until sometime in 2005. My best contributions weren’t until 2007, so it took me around three years to learn how to reach my full potential on this forum. The same principle applies to most other people also.

3: Remaining active at this board for multiple years takes a certain amount of dedication. I guess this one’s kind of obvious: of any group of people who join the forum at a particular time, those of them who are still participating after 4 or 5 years are generally going to be those who care most about the topic being discussed there.

This isn’t normally worth bringing up, but it’s really been getting to be a problem lately. During the four days that he’s been registered, has Tharumza even read this board’s rules? Judging by his post that I quoted, I’d guess that he hasn’t.



I’ve read his posts (he doesn’t have very many), and he doesn’t appear to know how to do anything that Erwin wasn’t better at. I posted something more detailed about this here.

Or MAYBE, he had another account from before that was registered on, oh, say, Dec 2 2006, and before that he had an account that was permabanned for "posting in a Christian only forum" that was registered on January 12, 2002.

Ive been dealing with AV for as long as he has been here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don’t think they merit special treatment per se, but they do merit certain behavior. Specifically, someone like Tharumza doesn’t have the right to start bossing around and cursing off the other members less than a week after he joined.

The behavior itself is different. There have been times when USincognito acted as a sort of de facto moderator at this board, telling the other members what kind of conduct was and wasn’t acceptable, and I don’t think anybody had a problem with that. When he did this, most of the time he was right. But how likely is someone to know how to do this when they’ve been registered for less than a week? Even if you ignore the actual amount of experience that a person has, it isn’t possible to ignore the effects that it has on their behavior when they try to do this.

One thing that bothers me is when someone just joins and makes statements to me like:

• I've never seen you admit you're wrong.
• I've never seen you say anything right.
• You're the type of person that...
• All you do is...
• Why don't you ever...

That almost always draws my, "Do you want to plod through my more than 850,000 posts?" response.

One girl showed up out of nowhere and told me she has never seen me apologize or admit I'm wrong.

When I QV'd her to two of my posts from the past, she admitted she was wrong.

Even an "old-timer", who's been here longer than I, once called me out on something I said, and when I said it was a joke, he didn't believe me, until I showed him basically the same post from a year ago.

There are people here like Split Rock, Cabal, pgp_protector, and others that have 'put up with me' a lot longer than a newbie has, and displayed more tolerance for what I stand for.

 

[azmurath]

One thing that bothers me is when someone just joins and makes statements to me like:

• I've never seen you admit you're wrong.
• I've never seen you say anything right.
• You're the type of person that...
• All you do is...
• Why don't you ever...

That almost always draws my, "Do you want to plod through my more than 850,000 posts?" response.

One girl showed up out of nowhere and told me she has never seen me apologize or admit I'm wrong.

When I QV'd her to two of my posts from the past, she admitted she was wrong.

Even an "old-timer", who's been here longer than I, once called me out on something I said, and when I said it was a joke, he didn't believe me, until I showed him basically the same post from a year ago.

There are people here like Split Rock, Cabal, pgp_protector, and others that have 'put up with me' a lot more than a newbie has, and displayed more tolerance for what I stand for.

I will not tolerate ignorance anymore than my Commander-in-Chief will tolerate terrorism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will not tolerate ignorance anymore than my Commander-in-Chief will tolerate terrorism.

You must not tolerate anyone then --- including yourself.

QV please: 1 .

 

[azmurath]

You must not tolerate anyone then --- including yourself.

QV please: 1 .

And I am ignorant? Please assert that claim, using evidence.

Oh wait, you just have FAITH that I am ignorant. That's right, evidence is for chumps when you can just BELIEVE that snakes have the ability to speak and that physics will obey the commands of men if you have Bob, I mean God on your side.

 

[azmurath]

You must not tolerate anyone then --- including yourself.

QV please: 1 .

Also, isn't purposefully inflating your post count to absurdly high numbers fall under bearing false witness? I mean seriously, you are lying about your number of actual posts. Or is your God one of those "technically correct" guys that allows you to be a total dirt bag as long as you are "saved"?

 

[Aggie]

AV, do you agree that creationism is not science?

As has been pointed out here numerous times, science is based on examining the physical evidence, and coming to whatever conclusion is most consistent with that evidence. If you are acknowledging that there is no evidence for ex nihilo creation, then that means belief in ex nihilo creation cannot be considered science.

 

[Wedjat]

Of course AVET seems to think that the scientific view of the universe is ex nihilo which is of course, completely wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, do you agree that creationism is not science?

Yes --- I agree --- there is no science (or evidence) whatsoever supporting the Creation Week.

And there never was any.*

If you are acknowledging that there is no evidence for ex nihilo creation, then that means belief in ex nihilo creation cannot be considered science.

I agree --- qv please: 11 and 12.

* In actuality, I consider the Bible as evidence, but I forego It as such, since that would be another story altogether.

 

[Aggie]

From your linked post:

If you're going to teach Creationism, then teach it, but don't branch out into trying to "disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms", or you're going to [rightly] get sent packing.

OK, this is good to know. As I mentioned earlier, this attitude makes you more honest than Answers in Genesis, which claims that “creation science” is just as valid as “evolutionary science”.

Now, here’s a second question: do you agree that science is a useful and beneficial way of learning about the world? I’m using “science” here to include both the theory of evolution and the theory that the earth is billions of years old. I have a thread from last year in which I gave two examples of paleontologists having been able to use the theory of evolution to illustrate certain discoveries before they were made. (Incidentally, if you read the whole thread, you’ll see that no one was able to provide a similar example of a correct prediction in biology that was made by no theory except creationism.)

Glenn Morton talks here about how in order to know where to find oil deposits, petroleum geologists need to work under the assumption that the rock layers they examine were deposited over millions of years. And within the realm of biology, there’s a white paper here that outlines some of the real-world applications of evolutionary biology (with a summary available here). This includes the theory that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, which is used as the basis for developing new treatments for HIV.

I’m hoping you’ll also agree with me about the real-world benefits of science (including evolution), since I know these things have been pointed out before also. Do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, here’s a second question: do you agree that science is a useful and beneficial way of learning about the world?

Yes --- but I wish you would have tacked one more word on to your sentence: "today".

I’m using “science” here to include both the theory of evolution and the theory that the earth is billions of years old.

I agree with evolution, to a point; and I agree that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[Aggie]

Yes --- but I wish you would have tacked one more word on to your sentence: "today".

Well, science has been useful for this as long as it’s existed. Are you making the point that sometimes the conclusions reached by science are eventually shown to be incorrect?

Even though that’s true, I’m not using the word “science” here to refer to any particular set of knowledge. I’m just talking about the scientific method in general--that is, the process I described in post #54. The scientific method also demands that we continue to test any conclusion drawn by science, and if a conclusion is incorrect, that’s increasingly likely to be discovered the more tests are performed.

It’s a self-correcting process. Even though science doesn’t have all of the answers at any given point, it tends to get closer and closer to accurately describing reality as more tests are performed, and inaccurate theories are modified in light of the new results. And as I mentioned in the thread from 2008 that I linked to, how accurately any theory describes reality can be measured on the basis of how accurate its predictions are.

I agree with evolution, to a point; and I agree that the earth is billions of years old.

You do? I thought you were a YEC.

 

[MoonLancer]

He thinks that billions of years of age were embedded into the universe when it was created 6000 years ago.

basically he doesn't think age and time have correlation.

So if your confused, you should be.

its really all just semantic gymnastics so he can agree with science and take the bible literally.