Jump to content


Photo

Helium In Zircons Is Powerful Evidence For Young World


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 02:07 PM

Sorry, are you talking to me or Bonedigger?

 

Whose name is at the top of the post, sir?



#42 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 03 August 2014 - 03:37 PM

 

Whose name is at the top of the post, sir?

Cue the "whooshing" sound.



#43 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 04:40 PM

Cue the "whooshing" sound.

 

Are you going to do as I asked or are you just going to sit there blowing?



#44 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 26 September 2014 - 12:05 PM

In an avionics project in Boston this past spring/summer, we dealt with the issue of quoting functional requirements in analyses meant to specify a test... a different sort of document. The problem with summarizing text is that the summary process is error prone. So the text in a summary would be suspect. But, just reading copied text does get monotonous and can make and argument needlessly verbose.

Perhaps it does make sense to clip a section of a larger amount of material with a reference to the rest and post in order to discuss. I think some quotation is necessary, particularly if links to other sites are unacceptable/against the rules. It's going to be pretty hard to maintain a discussion if a whole site is labelled as propagandistic. I don't like what I saw in creation.com. But, it would be a weak argument to say the whole site is bad unless I did a monumental sampling of its posts. Even then, I could only speak in terms of percentages.

['just kicked out of the McDonald's due to a fire alarm, so I'm posting from the trunk of my car.]

This is hard because one cannot get away from the idea that a given publication has a reputation. And this idea does contradict the argument that publication in a creation journal is not the same as in a "scientific" journal.

I don't have a good defense against this contradiction, except that it is part of the established background with which we have to deal.

Hopefully, this meta post isn't seen as off topic.



#45 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 26 September 2014 - 12:37 PM

In an avionics project in Boston this past spring/summer, we dealt with the issue of quoting functional requirements in analyses meant to specify a test... a different sort of document. The problem with summarizing text is that the summary process is error prone. So the text in a summary would be suspect. But, just reading copied text does get monotonous and can make and argument needlessly verbose.

Perhaps it does make sense to clip a section of a larger amount of material with a reference to the rest and post in order to discuss. I think some quotation is necessary, particularly if links to other sites are unacceptable/against the rules. It's going to be pretty hard to maintain a discussion if a whole site is labelled as propagandistic. I don't like what I saw in creation.com. But, it would be a weak argument to say the whole site is bad unless I did a monumental sampling of its posts. Even then, I could only speak in terms of percentages.

['just kicked out of the McDonald's due to a fire alarm, so I'm posting from the trunk of my car.]

This is hard because one cannot get away from the idea that a given publication has a reputation. And this idea does contradict the argument that publication in a creation journal is not the same as in a "scientific" journal.

I don't have a good defense against this contradiction, except that it is part of the established background with which we have to deal.

Hopefully, this meta post isn't seen as off topic.

 

Well, I don't know if it is off topic but I am wondering just where you are going with this?



#46 svigil777

svigil777

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dayton, OH

Posted 26 September 2014 - 02:30 PM

I just read through the whole thread, and it seems like there is difficulty bringing in outside information without breaking rules and having submitters subjected to admonishments.

I think the process should be looked at. Perhaps some improvements in the process would facilitate more positive communication. I was starting to get interesed, but nobody was saying, "Look at x. Here is why x is wong." I wanted to see specific math that was wrong or alleged to be wrong. I never got anything I could sing my teeth into. And then posts were clipped to to breach of rules. Apparently tempers had flared. Somebody was frustrated.

As an avionics developer for commercial and defense systems, we try to create a process that will assure success. That's my put. If you want to frustrate and embarrass evolutionists, then keep the current process. But I think you are trying to reach out to people in a positive way...



#47 Elephant

Elephant

    Super Moderator

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Branson, MO

Posted 26 September 2014 - 03:06 PM

Svigil, stick to the topic, and cut back on the weed.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users