So CTD, you are defending Ikester's decision to simply ignore what RAZD says, yes?
I didn't think it needed defending. Do you?
I've learned quite a few things from reading RAZD's posts and not just on this forum.
You could've just looked up logical fallacies. Granted, they don't give quite so many examples, and they don't generally show how to combine several at once, but it might have saved some time.
If you think he is instead just lying, it's up to you to show how the information he is presenting is erroneous.
No it isn't. Only if I communicate such thoughts do I undertake the burden of demonstrating. So long as I keep my opinions to myself, I have no obligation to expose all lies.
There's a big list of issues in this thread to which you have not responded, while you seem to want to play games with meanders. Meanders are not created by catastrophic floods, they are destroyed by them. I fail to see the ambiguity here.
But your position remains ambiguous. Do you invoke the special pleading that only the floods posited by the creationist model are expected to cut the meanders; or do you invoke the special pleading that there was no flooding during evotime? You have not made this clear.
What's more, in attempting to find some information about an obscure picture that was posted in another thread, I came across a few people who knew Ikester and one of them said that his posts had been deleted by him. Presumably you are simply assuming that this was deserved.
It is a conclusion based upon observation of patterns. It's not 100% firm, but unlike some beliefs, it's not based upon imagination & wishful thinking.
Your attempt to smear Ikester7579, on the other hand, assumes the deleted posts did not deserve to be removed.
Presumably you also feel that every post on this forum from an evolutionist also deserves to be wiped.
See, here is how our reasoning differs. Your presumption has no basis. It's common for folks to project their own patterns of thinking onto others; maybe that's your source?
All credit to Russ for allowing all opinions to be posted here. I thought at one point that he'd wiped one of my own posts but he hadn't, and I wouldn't expect him to do so now.
From your perspective, this must seem very generous indeed.
Why don't we get back to you explaining why the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood. Seems we're getting distracted again from the subject.
I wasn't distracted - I was waiting for an answer to my question.
Why don't you start by explaining how cosmogenic and uranium dating are erroneous,
Because evodates aren't the topic of the thread, and I prefer not to do as RAZD suggests and discuss multiple topics in the same paragraph (or sentence, if that's what he was getting at - from the context he could've meant either).
or how it's possible that there was a flood at all when there is no global flood layer in the geological record.
Again, this isn't the topic - it's just a lame attempt to trick creationists into adopting the ancient, long-falsified onion coat theory. Any takers out there?
I have never once called a creationist a liar on any forum,
Really? You've made a habit of making false accusations (a practice I consider cowardly in the extreme), but you claim there's a line you haven't crossed?
First of all, you ABSOLUTELY MUST be applying a double standard. In practically every thread you equate any disagreement with evolutionism with "calling all scientists liars". As you disagree with all creationists, this would amount to calling them all liars unless there's a double standard involved.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34059#Post34059 is the start of a few of posts where the evolutionists take turns trying to justify the accusation that creationists "call all scientists liars". Note the obvious flaws in these arguments.
Perhaps an evolutionist would like to try to improve on these? I'm always up for easy laughs.
You have a long history of putting words in creationists' mouths. But I guess you don't consider putting a lie in someone's mouth the same as "calling them a liar", huh? That's just
pretending and implying that they lied...
And the links you've posted to slander pages, they must not count either. I wonder if you'd care to back up the assertion that misspelling a word is lying. Would you?
I seem to recall you were also keen on Kuban's
easily-debunked slanders against Woodmorappe (or was it Glen Morton's slanders?), which failed to withstand scrutiny. Your clown who slandered Fred Williams was easily exposed too. No, you haven't had much to celebrate on any of the occasions I've caught you attempting your smear tactics.
Didn't even manage to sidetrack the discussions very long. Perhaps you need to learn more about this technique?
Speaking of lies & false accusations, I found
this typical post inaccurate.
Bex, you try debating with someone to whom you offer well-researched scientific links, and all you get in return is simply "I don't believe it," "evodates are nonsense," "it's all lies," etc, with no explanation as to why. I'm not sure why you think these are admirable debate tactics but as you said, you're welcome to your own opinion.
CTD isn't as blatantly insulting as some others I've come across, but his attitude is consistently derisive and distasteful. It's "Talk Deceptions" (you'll notice that no evolutionists are using pet names for creationists or their websites) and evo this, evo that, along with the usual response to awkward evidence that we're all simply liars. I hope that whatever I say in response to people who post here, they don't feel personally insulted by me. I sometimes find levels of scientific ignorance on which claims are based frustrating, as well as continual evasive techniques, but I try to deal gracefully.
But if it were accurate, I might not be able to apply the adjective 'typical'.
And finally, LindaLou
has written I've invited Russ several times to read Buddika's creationist lies index and discover the myriad ways that Hovind is an idiot and a fraud.
In this context, it'll be funny to see her equivocate on 'fraud', if she chooses to claim it doesn't mean 'liar'.
And so you also believe that snide remarks, personal attacks
So you deny that you have ever deleted anyone's posts?
Huh? Does anyone think there's a correspondence between Ikester7579's words and LindaLou's response. If you're going to succeed at all with this sort of ruse, you need to work harder than that.
But I'm also not the one who is refusing to engage with evidence presented and saying that I will instead completely ignore posts from any one person.
Don't have enough time to compile a list of things LindaLou completely ignores just now.
But one wonders what sort of double standard is involved.
Found this: My part in this discussion with you is at an end. Whatever Russ may say or believe, he at least knows how to conduct himself in a debate without slinging playground insults. I am not a masochist, I have some self-respect, and I am not going to repeatedly subject myself to personal insults here. If no moderators are here to give you a warning then I will restrict my posts to people who can conduct discussions without name-calling.
Okay, one doesn't really wonder. That was just a figure of speech.
