Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 03-07-2002, 01:44 PM

In the 114 Piece of Evidence for a Global Flood thread, Randman wrote:
I don't know enough about YEC to argue all these points, but it strikes me as if some of you are engaging in a straw man type approach.

If you think that, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Who, specifically, made the strawman arguments, and which arguments, specifically, strike you as strawman arguments?. Please explain what you meant by that statement. Or were you just wanting to make vague allegations without being called to defend them?

I have read some of AIG recently, and personally, I think those that are bashing it are not actually tackling the best arguments by those guys.

Oh, really? Well we can sure fix that. Why don't you surf on over to the AiG website and pick out the one argument for a young-earth or for flood 'geology' that you think is their absolute "best." Then come back here and post a link so we can discuss the argument at length (as time permits). Let's see who is taking the straw-man approach, shall we?

And to reiterate, I dont want 50 different arguments, just the one you think is the very best argument for a young earth or for flood 'geology.'

This should be fun, and instructive. I'll be waiting.

Patrick

Vorkosigan · 03-07-2002, 01:48 PM

Randman will never do that. He's just a troll.

Mageth · 03-07-2002, 01:50 PM

I would have to think it would be one of their "moving target" arguments, like randman's "no transitional fossils" argument.

randman · 03-07-2002, 01:59 PM

I am not bringing anything up, hopefully, until I finish the fossil stuff.
For me, you guys are dodging the issue here. What does Gould mean when he speaks of species exhibiting "stasis" and "sudden appearance."
What data is he referring to in proposing his ideas on the mode of evolution? I ask because I think there is a wholesale willful blindness to what paleontologiists are stating on this board, and let's don't play semantics, I have already read Gould talking about "transitional" forms, but in what context? It is obvious he feels stasis is the dominant mode of existence due to what he has seen in the fossil record. The non-stasis events, according to him, are not seen, but rather a "sudden appearance" of the supposed transitional form. In other words, we don't actually see the species evolve into the next species into these transitional forms. All we see is the sudden appearance and the stasis effect.

ps418 · 03-07-2002, 02:03 PM

Just as I expected, you went off on a totally irrelevant tangent. Randman, this thread is not for discussing PE. It is for you to back up what you stated in the other thread. Post again when you're ready to discuss AiG's "best arguments" for YEC or flood geology, or to identify unambiguously the "strawman" arguments you were referring to.

Patrick

Late_Cretaceous · 03-07-2002, 02:08 PM

Randman wrote "What does Gould mean when he speaks of species exhibiting "stasis" and "sudden appearance.""

He is talking about EVOLUTION

Dr Rick · 03-07-2002, 02:17 PM

What an excellent idea. Yes, Randman: please post the one best argument from AiG that supports YEC and/or flood geology.

You don't have to "finish the fossil stuff" first if you're well versed in those "114" points. Just post the one argument that really caught your fancy after all of your self-study.

Vorkosigan · 03-07-2002, 05:45 PM

>bump< The Randman ducks, he bobs, he weaves. He asks a question already answered in the TO FAQ, in this thread, and many other places: "sudden" is a relative term, not a technical one, and can mean "4,000 years" in one spot, and "5 million" in another. "Sudden" does not mean "without precursors."

In randman's honor I've composed a song.

"Once In Love With AiG"

Once...you hear...from AiG
Misguided....evos...will surely see
Ever and ever
devastated by it
though evidence denies it who cares?

Once...you hear....of Noah
God's....very own....little Shoah
hydrodynamic sorting
not so very sporting
of a tricky de---i--ty!

Once...you see...a geofact
always...confused...with artifact
humans and dinos
together hunting rhinos
the bible says so why can't you s-e-e-e-e-e!?

Once...you hear....from randman
science...is just...so bland, man.
Gould is confusing
Mayr I'm refusing
I'll hide beneath a vapor can-o-py!

Once...you hear...from AiG
everything's...so clear...it's hard to see
why pesky evos
and the science ethos
still persist to dis my Gen--e--sis!

Michael

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

tgamble · 03-07-2002, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
What an excellent idea. Yes, Randman: please post the one best argument from AiG that supports YEC and/or flood geology.

How about "God said so"?

MrDarwin · 03-07-2002, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
What an excellent idea. Yes, Randman: please post the one best argument from AiG that supports YEC and/or flood geology.

You don't have to "finish the fossil stuff" first if you're well versed in those "114" points. Just post the one argument that really caught your fancy after all of your self-study.

I hereby absolve randman of the discussions regarding "transitional forms" so that he may devote more time to Patrick's questions. In fact, I would ask that a moderator lock the "Why creationists deny..." and "Some of you have complained..." discussions to free up randman to devote some time to this one.

03-07-2002, 01:44 PM	#1
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Randman says we've ignored AiG's "best arguments" In the 114 Piece of Evidence for a Global Flood thread, Randman wrote: I don't know enough about YEC to argue all these points, but it strikes me as if some of you are engaging in a straw man type approach. If you think that, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Who, specifically, made the strawman arguments, and which arguments, specifically, strike you as strawman arguments?. Please explain what you meant by that statement. Or were you just wanting to make vague allegations without being called to defend them? I have read some of AIG recently, and personally, I think those that are bashing it are not actually tackling the best arguments by those guys. Oh, really? Well we can sure fix that. Why don't you surf on over to the AiG website and pick out the one argument for a young-earth or for flood 'geology' that you think is their absolute "best." Then come back here and post a link so we can discuss the argument at length (as time permits). Let's see who is taking the straw-man approach, shall we? And to reiterate, I dont want 50 different arguments, just the one you think is the very best argument for a young earth or for flood 'geology.' This should be fun, and instructive. I'll be waiting. Patrick

03-07-2002, 05:45 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	>bump< The Randman ducks, he bobs, he weaves. He asks a question already answered in the TO FAQ, in this thread, and many other places: "sudden" is a relative term, not a technical one, and can mean "4,000 years" in one spot, and "5 million" in another. "Sudden" does not mean "without precursors." In randman's honor I've composed a song. "Once In Love With AiG" Once...you hear...from AiG Misguided....evos...will surely see Ever and ever devastated by it though evidence denies it who cares? Once...you hear....of Noah God's....very own....little Shoah hydrodynamic sorting not so very sporting of a tricky de---i--ty! Once...you see...a geofact always...confused...with artifact humans and dinos together hunting rhinos the bible says so why can't you s-e-e-e-e-e!? Once...you hear....from randman science...is just...so bland, man. Gould is confusing Mayr I'm refusing I'll hide beneath a vapor can-o-py! Once...you hear...from AiG everything's...so clear...it's hard to see why pesky evos and the science ethos still persist to dis my Gen--e--sis! Michael [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

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

03-07-2002, 01:48 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Randman will never do that. He's just a troll.

03-07-2002, 01:50 PM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I would have to think it would be one of their "moving target" arguments, like randman's "no transitional fossils" argument.

03-07-2002, 01:59 PM	#4
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I am not bringing anything up, hopefully, until I finish the fossil stuff. For me, you guys are dodging the issue here. What does Gould mean when he speaks of species exhibiting "stasis" and "sudden appearance." What data is he referring to in proposing his ideas on the mode of evolution? I ask because I think there is a wholesale willful blindness to what paleontologiists are stating on this board, and let's don't play semantics, I have already read Gould talking about "transitional" forms, but in what context? It is obvious he feels stasis is the dominant mode of existence due to what he has seen in the fossil record. The non-stasis events, according to him, are not seen, but rather a "sudden appearance" of the supposed transitional form. In other words, we don't actually see the species evolve into the next species into these transitional forms. All we see is the sudden appearance and the stasis effect.

03-07-2002, 02:03 PM	#5
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Just as I expected, you went off on a totally irrelevant tangent. Randman, this thread is not for discussing PE. It is for you to back up what you stated in the other thread. Post again when you're ready to discuss AiG's "best arguments" for YEC or flood geology, or to identify unambiguously the "strawman" arguments you were referring to. Patrick

03-07-2002, 02:08 PM	#6
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	Randman wrote "What does Gould mean when he speaks of species exhibiting "stasis" and "sudden appearance."" He is talking about EVOLUTION

03-07-2002, 02:17 PM	#7
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	What an excellent idea. Yes, Randman: please post the one best argument from AiG that supports YEC and/or flood geology. You don't have to "finish the fossil stuff" first if you're well versed in those "114" points. Just post the one argument that really caught your fancy after all of your self-study.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.