Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S2Focus · 03-06-2002, 03:46 PM

I just checked randman's profile -
Location: Florida
Occupation: real-estate.

Seems rather appropriate somehow... Creation-science... swampland in Florida... what's the difference?

randman · 03-06-2002, 03:48 PM

I don't know how much I want to reveal about myself on the web, but no, I am not a scientist. Nor am I impressed that much with those graduating from college or even grad school in science fields or elsewhere. Yes, I have a degree, some graduate work, and a wide range actually of study.
My HS wanted me to go to Harvard, and in retrospect I should have. At that time, I had excelled in a number of subjects including Russian, calculus, history and of course English.
I was interested in political science, but the funny thing is that in college, what I found most attracted to me, and I felt actually was educational was art, painting specifically, and that was my major. I graduated with a BFA degree, which is a little above a BA as far as art.
I also finished a non-accredited, but rigorous ministerial training program, and later seminary, and have not completed seminary, but am thinking of going on to doctoral work once completed.
As far as college science courses, I took the requirements and no more. I did not attend class but simply read the textbook and showed up for the exam and did fairly well, B range. I know that doesn't say much considering the level of intellect of colleges these days.
I don't know what else to say. I don't think it requires an a dvanced degree to learn to reason well, and examine an argument.
I once was a theistic evolutionists but once I actually checked into the data for myself, I found that most of what I was taught wasn't true.
Recapitulation didn't happen. The fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance. Basically, it appears to me that the only hard data, the fossils, do not actually show the transitions between species.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I don't know how much I want to reveal about myself on the web, but no, I am not a scientist. Nor am I impressed that much with those graduating from college or even grad school in science fields or elsewhere.

So you've got quite an ego then...or a chip
on your shoulder.

Quote:

Yes, I have a degree, some graduate work, and a wide range actually of study.
My HS wanted me to go to Harvard, and in retrospect I should have. At that time, I had excelled in a number of subjects including Russian, calculus, history and of course English.

Thanks for finally answering.

So let me ask you a question. You've had at least
one Physics class, right? Could you explain to
me exactly how the Space Shuttle works? All the
various systems, backups, how the fuel system
works, how they detect problems in real time,
how they keep such a complicated machine working
with the thousands of different subsystems,
etc?

John Solum · 03-06-2002, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]1. The critics of Gentry that I have read acknowledge that although Gentry doesn't state the implications of his claims outright that it is clear as to what they are. On this point, ther should be no debate. There is no way these journals would let him do that, and any honest obsever knows what is going on.

First of all, the fact that Gentry has been published indicates that your claim about bias in conventional peer-reviewed scientific journals is groundless. Secondly, if Gentry does not explicitly publish his creation model (6,000 year old earth, etc.), then it should not be claimed that his model has not been refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. Thirdly, peer-reviewed papers dealing with the research that Gentry has published in peer-reviewed literautre have been published (I realize you said you'd look through the link I provided, I'm not trying to rush you, I just want to make that point).

Quote:

2. I am not here to defend Gentry. I posted here because this somewhat disingenious, or dumb, proponent of evolution claimed Gentry never publshed anything on the subject, and it was kind of silly aftew awhile to hear his lame defense, but I thought ya'll might know a little more. As I mentioned, I have read critics of Gentry, many from the Creationist camp, but wanted to know what had been written in the same journals subsequent to Gentry. I admit that peer-reviewed journals do not make something so, but wanted the info for the other board.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't have been able to tell your motivation based on your first posts in this thread. It appeared that you were after peer-reviewed refuations of Gentry's work in conventional journals.

Quote:

3. BY the way, AIG links to articles from a peer-reviewed publication. To state the articles are not peer-reviewed is just false. Just because the majority of the Phds in the peer-reviewed process of those publications are Creationists or ID doesn't take away from the fact it is peer-reviewed by the same standards as the journals which are dominated by scientists who accept evolutionary dogma.

The problems with AiG's "peer review" process have already been pointed out, so I won't harp on that. AiG's standards aren't the same as conventional journals.

Troll Hunter · 03-06-2002, 04:52 PM

Crikey! How's a fella supposed to keep a show on the air when everyone keeps getting to the good bits before I do?

Anyway ...

[CUE manly theme music. Once again, we see the fossil-strewn grasslands of the E/C boards. STEVE sits, spread-kneed, in front of the same huge stack of peer-reviewed journals. A LAPTOP is open in front of him.]

Randman here made a comment about having "just finshed debating such trivialities ad nauseum for weeks on the Carolina off-topic fan web-site." Well, I'm nothin' if not curious, and with a bit of Google-handling, I think I tracked down the message board in question:

[STEVE taps a few keys, punching the last few loudly for effect. The screen brings up a WEBSITE.]

<a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7" target="_blank">The ZiggaZoomba Lounge.</a>

Odd litle bit is, it's a board also frequented by <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessage?topicID=1925.topic " target="_blank">luvluv</a> (say, doesn't the inital post there seem <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000351" target="_blank">kinda familiar?</a>). While I couldn't put my finger on the thread where randman argued "ad nauseum", I did find a most interesting thread: the one of luvluvs cited above, in fact. There, you'll find randman touting the whole "polonium halos" thing <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1925. topic&start=41&stop=60" target="_blank">on page three</a>. On <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1925. topic&start=61&stop=80" target="_blank">page four,</a> a user called "esoll" suggests coming here for answers, and <a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1925. topic&start=81&stop=100" target="_blank">on page five</a> of the same thread, they discuss us lovely bunch of Infidels:

Quote:

From randman:
I've been checking it out, but not overly impressed yet.
On one level, I don't really like the idea of talking to guys with monikers like Lord Valentine, but I will keep looking at it for awhile.

[ AND ... ]

Luvluv, I wasn't impressed, but I'll check it out another day.

At the very least, I think we all need'ta thank "esoll" for sending ol' randy and luv here. Also, assumin' I'm in the right place, I'd love to see the thread where randman debated "ad nauseum." 'cause it looks like he got nowhere fast with these polonium halos in the thread in question.

And next time, Infidels, leave me somethin' a little funnier to play with!

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Troll Hunter ]

randman · 03-06-2002, 05:22 PM

Keep going back, It's all there unless some of it dropped off the site. The stuff you mentioned was just the backwash, except the morality thread which was quite good.
By the way, the evolutionists got spanked bigtime.
LOL
Seriously, I like the quote of one individual who said he tuned in expecting to the critics of evolution totally humiliated, but the opposite was true. Before this debate beginning a few months ago, I had only studied YEC a little. My skepticism of evolution was based not on creationism, nor even the Bible.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll Hunter:
 of the same thread, they discuss us lovely bunch of Infidels:

So, it seems like the two of them decided to
come on over here and do some Trollin.

DNFTT

Quote:

Quote from Randman

...I'm not too impressed

Well afterall, his HS wanted him to go to Harvard...so he's got that going for him.

hezekiah jones · 03-06-2002, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
John actually has had the nerve to cite Jan as if he was a different person.

Good grief. How did this ever escape AiG's rigorous peer review?

faded_Glory · 03-07-2002, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance. Basically, it appears to me that the only hard data, the fossils, do not actually show the transitions between species.

randman,

How much do you know about the fossil record? Did you get this impression from reading popular books & websites or are you familiar with the technical literature? Have you ever collected/studied/described fossils yourself?

A non-technical link describing the continuous evolution of Foraminifera can be found <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/foram.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Why do you think we find continuous series like this in deep sea cores but not so often in sediments deposited in shallower and higher-energy (let alone terrestrial) environments?

fG

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]

Troll Hunter · 03-07-2002, 05:09 AM

[After a few commercials for CRELM Toothpaste with the miracle ingredient, Fraudulin ... ]

[RETURN TO: STEVE, stil camped out by the journals with his LAPTOP.]

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Keep going back, It's all there unless some of it dropped off the site. The stuff you mentioned was just the backwash, except the morality thread which was quite good.
By the way, the evolutionists got spanked bigtime.

By all means, provide a link, mate! I want to see what qualified, dedicated evolutionary scientists hang out on the off-topic U of NC fan boards!

Not that you'll be around here for long, eh?

Quote:

Posted by randman in the ZoobaZooga Lounge:
Luvluv, I concur. That board is more of a love-fest for evolutionists and tidbits of info they share among themselves. I is hard to get them to get down to foundational issues. I am going to finish my threads there and move on.

Quick, all, show of hands: who's afraid to "get down to foundational issues"? Or was it randman himself who showed up and right off started debating the question of "peer-reviewed" vs. "Creationist" jornals, instead of siccing some "foundatinal issues" on us?

Right then, randman: let's all drop the "peer-review" debate. You got science to debate? Offer some up. I'm sure my Infidel pals here will be more'n willing to have a go. Unless you're too eager to "move on" to spank more evolutionary butt on off-topic fan boards.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 03:46 PM	#31
S2Focus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 1162 easy freeway minutes from the new ICR in TX Posts: 896	I just checked randman's profile - Location: Florida Occupation: real-estate. Seems rather appropriate somehow... Creation-science... swampland in Florida... what's the difference?

03-06-2002, 03:48 PM	#32
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I don't know how much I want to reveal about myself on the web, but no, I am not a scientist. Nor am I impressed that much with those graduating from college or even grad school in science fields or elsewhere. Yes, I have a degree, some graduate work, and a wide range actually of study. My HS wanted me to go to Harvard, and in retrospect I should have. At that time, I had excelled in a number of subjects including Russian, calculus, history and of course English. I was interested in political science, but the funny thing is that in college, what I found most attracted to me, and I felt actually was educational was art, painting specifically, and that was my major. I graduated with a BFA degree, which is a little above a BA as far as art. I also finished a non-accredited, but rigorous ministerial training program, and later seminary, and have not completed seminary, but am thinking of going on to doctoral work once completed. As far as college science courses, I took the requirements and no more. I did not attend class but simply read the textbook and showed up for the exam and did fairly well, B range. I know that doesn't say much considering the level of intellect of colleges these days. I don't know what else to say. I don't think it requires an a dvanced degree to learn to reason well, and examine an argument. I once was a theistic evolutionists but once I actually checked into the data for myself, I found that most of what I was taught wasn't true. Recapitulation didn't happen. The fossil record shows stasis and sudden appearance. Basically, it appears to me that the only hard data, the fossils, do not actually show the transitions between species.

03-06-2002, 05:22 PM	#36
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Keep going back, It's all there unless some of it dropped off the site. The stuff you mentioned was just the backwash, except the morality thread which was quite good. By the way, the evolutionists got spanked bigtime. LOL Seriously, I like the quote of one individual who said he tuned in expecting to the critics of evolution totally humiliated, but the opposite was true. Before this debate beginning a few months ago, I had only studied YEC a little. My skepticism of evolution was based not on creationism, nor even the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.