A question for old earth believers

[Schneibster]

I'm going to rate Dustin's performance in this thread 4 Hovinds out of 5.

I'm going to make a wild guess that the "Hovind" is the SI unit of hypocrisy, and note that like all SI units it will accept the standard SI multiplier. I suggest that the symbol should be
Hd
which would mean that I would give Dustin approximately 3.8 kHd for this one.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm going to make a wild guess that the "Hovind" is the SI unit of hypocrisy, and note that like all SI units it will accept the standard SI multiplier. I suggest that the symbol should be
Hd
which would mean that I would give Dustin approximately 3.8 kHd for this one.

Is the Hovind a derived unit?

 

[wollery]

Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS. And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.

Sphenisc, it was bloody clear that Scheibster didn't get what you were saying, so why didn't you just tell him that he'd misunderstood and that you weren't actually disagreeing with him or supporting the OP, just adding a codicil that, not only was the OP writer's maths wrong, but the regression can't be treated that way anyway.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!

 

[athon]

Nicely said, honorary cousin. I also find it disappointing when people I respect here for their often intelligent responses can be, as you so eloquently put, 'asshats'.

Assclown is another personal favourite of mine.

Athon

 

[sphenisc]

Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS. And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.

Sphenisc, it was bloody clear that Scheibster didn't get what you were saying, so why didn't you just tell him that he'd misunderstood and that you weren't actually disagreeing with him or supporting the OP, just adding a codicil that, not only was the OP writer's maths wrong, but the regression can't be treated that way anyway.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!

Thanks for that wollery.

Though I think more words rather than fewer might have been more diplomatic, my initial post might have seemed rather curt.

Anyway, I have to go and look up the definition of the word "No".

Cheers

 

[Schneibster]

Wow, I always find it utterly amazing how two intelligent people can miscommunicate so badly!

Clarity is difficult for someone who does not bother to strive for it.

Schneibster, Sphenisc didn't didn't agree with the OP in any way shape or form. He simply pointed out, in far too many words, that the regression isn't linear, so the OP is BS.

Perhaps you missed the part where he said I was wrong. Oh, perhaps not:

And your estimate is incorrect, because it uses a linear regression, which doesn't apply, although the true model would probably be pretty involved and ugly. And no, I'm not even going to attempt to provide it.

But, you see, I never said it was correct as in being the right way to figure it out; I said it disproved the OP, which is an entirely different thing. Saying "you've used the wrong methodology" is one thing; taking the very same figures and methods someone used and proving they did it wrong is entirely another. The fact that they can't even use their own method correctly obviates the need to even discuss the fact that they used the wrong method, in other words, which was the point that I made, and as far as I could see the point sphenisc was arguing against. It's immaterial, in other words, whether the correct method was used, if the method used was not used correctly, if you see what I mean.

I even repeated my point to be sure we were clear, and according to sphenisc's reply, we were. At that point, I decided I was dealing either with a troll or a woo, and took the appropriate action. Sorry, if you see it differently you are entitled to your opinion. If sphenisc wants to consider clarifying the situation, someone can tell me about it and I'll reconsider. An apology would be a good beginning.

And the pair of you, stop being such confrontational asshats!

I call 'em like I see 'em. You have at least raised sufficient doubt in my mind that I'll accept an apology.

 

[sphenisc]

I apologise, I'm very sorry. I will attempt in future to strive for greater clarity.

 

[Schneibster]

Then I apologize for being nasty. I guess neither one of us can ask better than that.

 

[wollery]

Edited, never mind.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

[Tirdun]

Wait, where's question #2? What dusty old canard will JF pull from the deck of lame challenges?

And most importantly, are we taking bets on it?
Will JF stay lunar and go with the "moon dust" question (odds 1:18)
Will JF ease into tides and mineral leaching (odds 1:4)
Will JF throw us all for a loop with Bible Codes (1:80)
Could JF toss Darwin into an age of the Earth discussion (1:6)
Maybe dino + human footprints? (1:9)
Or a complete wildcard?

Place your bets!

 

[fls]

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 think I meant it as more of a reference to the role of equivocation in the Evolution/Creationism debate, than the insistence on proper scientific terminology. Although, I am also willing to play with insisting on proper scientific terminology.

Linda

 

[Taffer]

/me wonders why we are still in this thread. Dustin and JF are long gone...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, that can only improve the atmosphere.

Hans

 

[Flo]

* Taffer;2701877 wonders why we are still in this thread. Dustin and JF are long gone...

Dustin is busy composing a 187453 words essay (in 28 minutes) on a proof of the existence of pink invisible unicorns, following his sudden conversion after a boating incident, reinforced by his quick reading of half the collected works of C. Lewis.

JF is feverishly consulting Talkorigins for his next trick question to us pagans.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think I meant it as more of a reference to the role of equivocation in the Evolution/Creationism debate, than the insistence on proper scientific terminology. Although, I am also willing to play with insisting on proper scientific terminology.

Linda

It is the internet it is always safe to bet on someone being pedantic.

 

[Darat]

It is the internet it is always safe to bet on someone being pedantic.

Always?

 

[andyandy]

Always?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Wait, where's question #2? What dusty old canard will JF pull from the deck of lame challenges?

And most importantly, are we taking bets on it?
Will JF stay lunar and go with the "moon dust" question (odds 1:18)
Will JF ease into tides and mineral leaching (odds 1:4)
Will JF throw us all for a loop with Bible Codes (1:80)
Could JF toss Darwin into an age of the Earth discussion (1:6)
Maybe dino + human footprints? (1:9)
Or a complete wildcard?

Place your bets!

Personally, I was hoping he'd try to use the erosion rate of Niagra Falls to calculate the age of the Earth.

I've actually heard YECs (on the radio) try that one.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

edited: due to pointlessness repetition of things already covered.

 

[Cainkane1]

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.?.?.?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/index.htm