Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Ron

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    6,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ron

  1. This amateur burglar was on his first break-in. He cased the house out for a few days, and came to a determination that the house was empty, so tonight was the night. He slowly crept up to each window, one by one, in an attempt to find one unlocked. Fortunately, the owner of the house had left a side window open with one of those window fans between the jamb and the frame, so our young burglar shimmied the screen open, slid the widow up a bit, being careful not to allow the fan to fall and make a noise. Once he secured the fan, he (as silently as he could) slipped in the window, into the living room. It was a moonless night, so it was pretty dark in the house. As out burglar took two nervous steps forward, he heard a voice say “I can see you, and Jesus can to!” The burglar stopped in his tracks; trying not to make a noise, as he thought to himself “I know this house was empty, I wonder who could that be?” So he took another tentative step, and heard the voice again “I can see you, and Jesus can to!” Caught totally off guard, he got nervous, eased out his flashlight, trained it on the direction of the voice, and snapped the button to the ‘on’ position, only to reveal a Parrot in a cage. At that point the parrot repeated “I can see you, and Jesus can to!” At this point, the burglar, relived, lowered the flashlight a little, as he started to look around the room. And as he lowered the light beam, the light reflected off the gleaming white fangs of a huge snarling Rottweiler. At that same time, the parrot said “Sick ‘em Jesus”!
  2. I Just went back a checked one more time Gilbo, and you are incorrect. Calminian (not Sammy) indeed posted at least one comment per link, whereas Mars had wholesale copy-n-paste links. Further, it is inappropriate to complain about moderator actions on the open forum. Once again, a cursory reading of the forum rules would reveal the incorrect application above.
  3. I read through all the posts Mars; each and every one of them. And I read through the links YOU BOTH posted. And had YOU framed your arguments FOR EACH AND EVERY LINK with at least a modicum of understanding (as Calminian did for his), AND had you read the rules (as I suggested), we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because YOU would have known that you weren’t be chastised FOR your argument, but rather the LACK THERE OF. And at this point, you are not only using “Ad hominem attacks” against me, but you are “Complaining about board moderation” as well. Once again, YOU need to read the forum rules prior to coming here and misrepresenting what is going on.
  4. Could you please be specific as to what you do not agree with? I will then provide why I took that point and based on which sources I deemed accurate. I would like to direct your attention to the following websites that will shed more light on tektonics.org and Robert Turkel. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/024jph.html http://the-anointed-one.com/exintro.html Looking forward to hear what you disagree with. Could you please tell me where I can find the sources for Robert Turkel's opinions. After having read through Calminian’s rebuttal of your post, and your answer post, one thing gleans true; Calminian provided links and a brief description on his half of the argument; and you simply posted two links of Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive) by another individual (i.e. NOT YOU), then required Calminian to respond to those ad Hominem attacks. First – Simply posting links is against forum rules! Second - ad Hominem attacks are against the forum rules! Conclusion – Neither are conducive to “honest, educational, civil, and fun debate on the topic of origins”. You may want to re-read those forum rules (the one’s you agreed to abide by when being accepted to be a member of this forum).
  5. Have we not had innumerable conversations, and warnings about simply posting a link as your argument? Mars, read the forum rules about posting links, sans dialogue on your part, in description of said links.
  6. Exactly Reptoman. The consistent, measurable presence of C14 in dinosaur tissue and bones blows the millions of years ago scenario right out of the water. Of course, but our evolutionary friends will use a prevarication, convoluted rhetoric, or historical revisionism to side-step that issue as well. Where it really gets sticky (no pun intended) is in the soft tissue remains. You already know the answer to that, and yet the dancing always starts the “Evo” conversation. But, this statement from the link just makes me smirk: "As with most scientific dating schemes certain assumptions must be made for the method to be useful."
  7. Ron

    Only Questions...

    Why; wouldn't that be Mark Hovekane???
  8. Ron

    Burden Of Proof

    That is a fact!
  9. Ron

    The Religion Of Evolution

    Ahhh, but that is a common evolutionists tactic; Claim it proves evolution, and "Wah-Lah" it proves evolution. And by evolution, they mean "MACRO" evolution of course.
  10. Ron

    Christianity's Place In The Universe

    Actually, the "Moring Star" is Jesus (amongst other names): "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." ~ Revelation 22:16 Isaiah 14:12 and the contextual verbiage around it, was speaking of the "Fall of Satan" , not the Morning Star.
  11. Ron

    Only Questions...

    Eroteme???
  12. Ron

    Evolution Did It

    Well, since yu didn't answer it when I asked before (See posts 105 and 110). When you say "Long Term evolution" are you reffering to "Macroevolution"? And if so, are you saying that "Macroevolution" is a fact? Please give a "Yes" or "No" answer, then an explanation (if you wish to give an explanation).
  13. Ron

    First Warning

    You're welcome, although it was just a brief encapsulation, and is not all-inclusive, it should be sufficient for the purposes.
  14. Ron

    First Warning

    If you take the time to read the forum rules, you’ll notice the following statement: “The primary goal of this forum is to provide a place for honest, educational, civil, and fun debate on the topic of origins. Given the heated nature of the creation vs. evolution debate, this is not an easy goal to achieve so we will require members to follow the stringent set of guidelines below. To make life easier for the moderators, our goal is to weed-out the troublemakers early, which should also lessen interaction from moderators. We want to have as little editing or deleting of posts as possible, so instead we will seek to edit “people” . As it states, the rules are stringent, yet there is latitude as to Banning. The warning system is used more for the moderators and admin, so that we can all view and understand what is going on with members that violate the forum rules. Some members receive no warning at all because of the severity of their violations; and some members are given more latitude because they may just misunderstand (a slight misunderstanding of the rules), or they rarely violate the rules. But sometimes it just boils down to their not taking the time to invest into reading the rules thoroughly. AS far as banning, its usually a corporate decision amongst admin and moderators. As an aside – I pointed out earlier; it doesn’t matter if you are a Christian, Atheist, agnostic, or whatever, if someone is a flaggrant rules violater, or is too abusive, they can be left go. And members of all walks have been banned.
  15. Ron

    Christianity's Place In The Universe

    The only other life forces mentioned in the Bible Would be God (the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit), Angels (various types) and Demons. Other than that, no…
  16. Ron

    Ontological Argument For God

    Making use of multiple meanings of the same word is "word magic". As it implies a violation of the Law of Identity, it is relevant to the laws of logic, because it is a violation. Fjuri, the word “Magic” in the context of the post is a pejorative against “logic” and/or the “Laws of Logic”. It was a sarcastic attempt to belittle the usage of logic, by GW, simply because he didn’t like the usage. This is simply NOT how honest discussion and civil conversation works. If GW has a problem with the ontological argument, then JUSTIFY the comment with dialogue as to WHY he doesn’t like it. Painting it, the way he did, with the following quote is anathema to dialogue, conversation and debate: Further, what he did, was NOT ‘relevant to the Laws of Logic’, it was simply a slanderous and spurious comment ABOUT the logic.
  17. WARNING: <Complaining about board moderation>
  18. Furji, you may want to cease the misrepresentations as to why I, or anyone else attempts to correct another member of this forum. You are painting with a wide brush, the prejudicial swath of ignorance. You don’t have to be atheist to be corrected at this forum, and you don’t have to be atheist to be warned, sanctioned, or banned from this forum. Many Christians, theists, atheists, agnostocs (etc...) have been removed from this forum. <It is against the forum rules to present “Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay.”> Consider this a warning. And I would further suggest that you re-read the forum rules that YOU agreed to prior to being accepted here as a member. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm
  19. 1. In the OP it wasn't presented as a fact. Later he indeed claimed it to be 99% fact, when he was already forced on the defensive by you. You had already created your strawman and forced him into defending that stance. Actually, it is indeed claimed as fact, or posted as authoritative, as it is not stated in any other fashion. This is what led me to ask the question that is begged by the OP... That is what I do when I'm not sure what the intent, and therefore the meaning behind the post is. No, it is nothing like number one. In number one, you are accusing me of positing a “Straw-Man” argument. When I was, in fact, firstly attempting to ascertain whether or not Mars was presenting opinions as facts; secondly correcting Mars AFTER he admitted that he thought they were facts! In number two, I fleshed out the actual problem and solution that Mars made, to make it more easily understandable for YOU, since you were misinterpreting BOTH Mars’s post, and MY rebuttal. 3. But it wasn't his initial claim that is was a fact. It was a representation of what research has shown to be a timeline. It was not until your post #4 that it was mentioned that it looked like facts to anyone. Once again, you are incorrect; it was indeed presented as fact. And that Is why I asked what I asked, and was proven correct in his response. It doesn’t really matter WHEN you caught on to it. What does matter, is that I gave Mars a chance to correct his mistake. You really shouldn't intentionally misrepresent what I said, or did Fjuri. It is dishonest and disrespectful. It is NOT “painting hostility” to correct the mistake someone else has made. AND, as I said, I asked questions to confirm, prior to making the correction (which was AFTER Mars corroborated what I suspected). If you don’t agree, that is fine, but if you simply want to reinforce bad behavior, you may want to post elsewhere. Yes, you were indeed wrong, and on more than one count. Further, Mars’s OP was not a thesis, it was nothing more than a series of dates he claimed to be the “timeline of religions on Earth”. AND, it wasn’t arguing of semantics on my part, it was my correcting (AFTER FIRST corroborating my suspicions) his error. If you personally don’t like being corrected for your errors, or when someone else gets corrected for their errors, you may want to refrain from reading or posting… Conclusion, No, I wasn't wrong. (and the not arguing on semantics alone was on the word 'thesis') Yes, you were indeed wrong, and on more than one count. Further, Mars’s OP was not a thesis, it was nothing more than a series of dates he claimed to be the “timeline of religions on Earth”. AND, it wasn’t arguing of semantics on my part, it was my correcting (AFTER FIRST corroborating my suspicions) his error. If you personally don’t like being corrected for your errors, or when someone else gets corrected for their errors, you may want to refrain from reading or posting…
  20. Why would you ask Fred a question directly relating to your personal autobiographical information?
  21. Ron

    Only Questions...

    Wouldn't the simplest way to do it, be something like 'copy-n-paste' one quote, inside the other, then post your comment at the end, outside the last quote bubble? Why didn't that work before? How come sometimes when I press enter twice inside a quote I end up outside the quote, while at other times I just create 2 blank lines? I'm not really sure, maybe Adam knows?
  22. Ron

    Only Questions...

    Do you think he can do it while only asking questions? Has anybody else noticed the rather poor questions that are really statements with question marks at the end? Do people actually do that Adam?
  23. Ron

    Only Questions...

    Wouldn't the simplest way to do it, be something like 'copy-n-paste' one quote, inside the other, then post your comment at the end, outside the last quote bubble?
  24. 1- It’s not a "straw-man" if the OP is presented as FACT, and the poster of the OP claims it as fact, and it is later PROVEN that it is NOT a fact all. You may want to look up the definition for "Straw-Man" argument. 2- If the person arguing that their position is Factual, and it is proven NOT to be Factual, than the semantic error is on that of the person making the initial claim. 3- If the initial argument FAILS at its premise, because of a semantic error of the person making the initial claim, then it is INDEED correct to dismantle the argument based upon that semantics error. 4- If the person making the egregious claim, and said claim is NOT corrected, that person is guilty of equivocation (see Forum rules). Conclusion... Yes, you are wrong.
  25. Ron

    Evolution Did It

    That's not what I asked, was it.
×

Important Information

Our Terms