(November 25, 2014 at 7:17 am)LastPoet Wrote: AKA in this forum: Edward, Edward The Theist, Egor, amongs alot of others.

Oh, we had EtT over at TAF too. He was fun for the whole family.

Was one of those guys

one who formatted

his posts like this?


I can't remember who that was, or if he was here and/or at TTA....

(November 25, 2014 at 10:35 am)Alex K Wrote: Or in other words: let's redefine words until the story fits

Pretty standard theist tactic really. How many threads have we had here recently that began "Okay, let me just take a minute to define atheism for you guys..."?

(November 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 10:35 am)Alex K Wrote: Or in other words: let's redefine words until the story fits

Pretty standard theist tactic really. How many threads have we had here recently that began "Okay, let me just take a minute to define atheism for you guys..."?

*raises hands* It's... it's people who really hate adorable little puppies! Shut up over there, I'm making an argument here! What is it you say, you don't hate adorable puppies? Impossible! You're either a hypocrite because atheism philosophically requires you to hate puppies and you deny it, or you're lying and you're no true atheist!

(November 25, 2014 at 11:52 am)LostLocke Wrote: Was one of those guys

one who formatted

his posts like this?


I can't remember who that was, or if he was here and/or at TTA....

No, not that
I remember. I remember
one of the guys who'd do that,
where therewas a sculpted shape to every
post he had, and I think that the particular shape depended on
his mood that day. Somedays his posts
were symmetrical, like this one,
and others, they would
rise or fall.

That guy was OCD and depressive as well, and I've seen that sort on a couple of other forums as well. I know who you're talking about, but I can't seem to remember his name. Edit: "Surreptitious57" was one of his two or three names, and he goes by that name on another board, Rationalia I think.

No, EtT was a brusque, bluff preacher sort who simply barged into Thinking Aloud and started yapping to everyone about his own peculiar take on Christianity. He did the "you're gonna ban me because you cannot take the Truth", so we changed his avatar and rolled him through the threads, plonking his incessant links to his own website, which he offered up as "evidence" for what he was asserting, because as any reasonable person knows, you're not begging the question if the evidence you're citing is your own words on another website.

It used to infuriate him to find his links changed to direct folks to Black Sabbath videos and whatnot.

(November 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 25, 2014 at 10:35 am)Alex K Wrote: Or in other words: let's redefine words until the story fits

Pretty standard theist tactic really. How many threads have we had here recently that began "Okay, let me just take a minute to define atheism for you guys..."?

Enough that the next one that says it is getting my crutch up his ass.

And so needless. Everyone knows atheism is where you hate God so much that you deny he exists.

I want to point out another objection here. Even if you can prove radiometric is somehow unusable, then it foes absolutely sweet shit to help creationists prove their god made the universe as the bible said. Infact you can't even prove the bible is a accurate representation of god if was to concede for the sake of argument that it does.
But I digress. Because you still have a lot of explaining to do, such as the genetic and species diversity in fish, trees that exhibit more then 6000 rings, why dinosaurs died, why we haven't found a Cambrian bunny, why we have no fossils of men and dinosaurs together, why we have proto human fossils, need I go on?

(November 25, 2014 at 11:00 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I want to point out another objection here. Even if you can prove radiometric is somehow unusable, then it foes absolutely sweet shit to help creationists prove their god made the universe as the bible said.

In addition, as you briefly allude to in the portion I didn't quote, there are other methods which depend not a whit on radiometric dating to determine a minimum age of the earth that invalidates creationist claims. Specifically (but not limited to) dendrochronology, a counts of varve and Loess deposit layers - not to mention more esoteric indirect evidence such as solar seismology.

...and indeed, refuting one thing does not support another thing unless they are the only possibilities.

In short, science has a hammerlock on young earth crackpots.

Lemon,

The cool thing is, as far as I understand, you don't even need 6000 yo trees (although those would be particularly convincing) - you can establish series of older and older trees with overlap