A question for old earth believers

Dustin Kesselberg said:
I already answered that.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, DK, not buying that one. There, you are the one weaseling out of an earlier statement. Note that the definition of "weasel out" is:
To back out of a situation or commitment in a sneaky or cowardly manner.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the deifinition that implies that using earlier work or someone else's explanation to be a form of "weaseling out".

As a matter of fact, using earlier work is the basis of a true scholarly work and is not viewed as a method of escaping an intelligent question, as you would have it.

Earlier, you and I exchanged views on whether or not lying to people was a justifiable tool to preserve the greater good. I warned you against it as lies are all too detectable, especially from a source who is not equipped with the intellectual tools necessary to make the lies believable. Let's make this episode a first warning of sorts, DK, that you are not a very good liar. IOW, don't trade on it, you lack the charm and intelligence.
 
Slimething said:
As a matter of fact, using earlier work is the basis of a true scholarly work and is not viewed as a method of escaping an intelligent question, as you would have it.
Click to expand...

But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.
Click to expand...


If someone else has answered a question thoroughly, understandably, and in such a manner so that my addition or translation would diminish the answer rather than enhance it, what's so unreasonable about simply linking to that answer? How is it any different than relying on Bible quotations to demonstrate a point?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
This is a misunderstanding. I never said I would commit any violence nor that I wished that any violence would befall that poster. I was stating that if they were as rude in person as they are online then they would probably be punched. Not by me, but by people who resort to violence from that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of your rather cowardly / naive nature, Dustin. And an example of you either not comprehening or intentionally not admitting to the subtext of your posts.

'Others would committ violence unto you for such an action. Not I, but others would' carries a subtext of implying violence against somebody. Absolving yourself of responsibility from the act, but still warning somebody of it in a context such as this, continues to have a subtext of acceptance of the act.

Much like stating 'watch them weasel out of this one' carries the connotation of supporting the statement and claiming others will only be able to subvert rationalisation through some sort of word play, and not directly answer it.

Regardless of whether you truly agree with JF's view or the scientific view, your response conveys smug arrogance which will of course make others think you side with the OP.

When challenged, you retreat from admission of intending the subtext, and claim only implying the literal meaning. If you honestly did not write those things with such implied subtext, you are incredibly naive to the impact such statements have. Effective communication relies on understanding this. How can you not foresee how such statements will be interpreted?


Athon
 
Glad I read this thread thouroughly; I always thought that "weaseling out" was a bizzare fraternity initiation.
As to the question of Dustin's "tone", text lacks a "tone" only if one is an especially incompetent writer. Dustin has shown a command of the English language that proves his equivocation on the matter of "tone" and "weaseling out" is, itself, an out-weaseling.
Yes, I coined it. It's mine.
But you may use it if you must.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
But posting another persons work without adding in any constructive input towards answering the question and simply referring the person asking the question to said work is.
Click to expand...

Is what? Weaseling? No. Sorry.

Suppose you wrote that a meter is a meter and I cited Einstein's paper on Special Relativity, would that be "weaseling"? I don't think so.

The phrase "A word to the wise is sufficient" comes to mind. It means that a hint is as good as a full explanation to an intelligent person. However, you seem to be immune to said hints. I'm not fooled and my guess is that not many here are.

DK, take Lincoln's words to heart:
You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.
Click to expand...

Lying is no way to go through life. You may want to believe that you can control others through manipulation but it isn't so. Much brighter people than you have tried this gambit through the ages only to wind up in prison or worse.
 
jesus_freak said:
I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?
Click to expand...

You have a very strange calculator. Using your figures, I make it the Moon would have been 213,000 miles closer, i.e. a centre to centre distance of a little under 26,000 miles.

Either that or you think miles and inches are interchangable units.
 
Last edited:
jf is long gone, I think. Being mathematically challenged on the science forum of the skeptics' web site could be a really disheartening experience, wouldn't you say?
 
Doubtless true, Schneibster. What gets me is that he's so eager to show an "inconsistancy" that he doesn't notice an elementary arithmetical error in his own calculation.
 
Schneibster said:
OK, then on what grounds do you assert it changed? It would seem that you have eliminated yourself as a source of sound arguments on the matter, since you yourself say you do not have the mathematical acumen to provide them.

No, it is not- it is necessary to characterize the appropriate non-linear model. If you wish to support the claim that is made by the OP, or even to show that my claim does not invalidate it, then you must show a decreasing rate, not an increasing rate; this you have failed to do, in the face of my evidence that the rate is in fact increasing.

My results therefore are a correct refutation of the assertion in the IP; whether you approve of the methodology or not is immaterial if you cannot show it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Great post, however as I don't say what you think I said, don't wish what you think I wish, haven't tried to do what you claim I've failed to and you've already shown your wrong in regard to what you claim I cannot show is wrong, you might like to try again.

Good luck!
 
sphenisc said:
Great post, however as I don't say what you think I said, don't wish what you think I wish, haven't tried to do what you claim I've failed to and you've already shown your wrong in regard to what you claim I cannot show is wrong, you might like to try again.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support your claims.

Good luck.
 
fls said:
<nitpick>

There is the fact of evolution (change in the traits of living organisms over generations) and there is the explanation of how/why this change occurs (the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection). But science isn't about the process of accepting theories as facts.

</nitpick>

ETA:

From Gould:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Linda
Click to expand...

Insisting on proper scientific terminology is a problem and causes people to think "well evolution is a theory and ID is a theory so they are equal" So in common usage, evolution is a fact. Limiting discussion to proper scientific terms is only helpful if both sides of a debate are doing it.
 
I've noticed that many posters here seem to be surprised that dustin would refer to siting someone else's research or well-thought-out arguments as "weasle"-ing. However, I think this really speaks to a well known phenomena within psychology wherein a person transfers their own traits (especially self loathed ones) onto others. How many times have we seen dustin site an article or term that he doesn't really understand? I can think of several and I'm sure those who frequent the boards more are even more familiar with this trait. Perhaps dustin isn't really as blind to his own ignorance as he lets on; perhaps he just wishes everyone else was in the same boat...
 
Schneibster said:
So, you're claiming you have the mathematical acumen to talk about how the rate has changed over time due to the changes in field strength from the change in distance, and the changes in the effect due to the movement of continents, and the changes due to "near field effect," because of the change in Earth's apparent angular size due to the change in distance, among many other factors?
Click to expand...
sphenisc said:
If you reread my post you will see that I make no mention of my mathematical acumen in any way, so the answer to your first point is 'No'.
Click to expand...
I understand "no;" "no" means no. You apparently do not. I don't think I care to talk to anyone who doesn't understand what "no" means. You are a sophist, so there is no point to talking to you even if I wanted to, because you don't believe you exist. Good bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom