Perhaps a better rule is that all forum members must respond to @gbrooks9 when he makes a post or risk suspensions.
@pevaquark, don’t be silly. You didn’t get my special stamp on this posting… and you aren’t in any risk of being suspended at all.
Maybe your karma takes a bump with your sarcasm… but that’s your call.
You seem to object to the idea that actions have consequences… so you would fit in quite well with the Moderators here. But you learned from the best …
the BioLogos moderators are even more rabbit-skitterish than the ones here!
It is good to do so, lest you get bolded!!
Bolded, AND Scolded!
And maybe a bit of smiting with the Sacred Mace of Office ?!?!?
[ Click on the image to enlarge for better viewing! ]
I think he was reacting to your implication that you’re a special person who must be answered, when @r_speir hasn’t responded in any real way to anyone, not just you.
Yes, I suppose that’s quite true. @pevaquark can have a pretty dry sense of humor.
But Speir’s response to the posting with the Egyptian timeline is pretty delicious, don’t you think?
Even @scd doesn’t have the attention to this kind of detail when REFUSING to answer a question substantively … this was a real masterpiece!
You or @John_Harshman can succeed, if you show me a non-responsive deflection by Speir as GORGEOUS as the one he gave me.
What I have seen in his posting history is responses that are in error, or ridiculous. But I don’t think I can find an instance where Speir simply is at a loss for words.
If you find one, I promise to slap myself around for @pevaquark’s specific amusement!
Yes, it’s approaching Robert Byers levels of incoherence.
Three quick questions:
- If the lava flows were mixed in with catastrophic burial… why do they still look like lava flows?
- If the lava flows erupted before the flood, and were mixed in with catastrophic burial… how did they stay in the order in which they erupted?
- If the lava flows erupted during the flood… why do they look like subaerial flows? Are you awre that submarine and subaerial flows are easily distinguishable?
Wait, is that the new rule? Crap, where do I need to respond…so I’m not suspended…
True. I’ve asked him about the Haymond Formation’s 15,000 alternating sedimentary layers of sandstone and shale, each layer complete with its own independent animal burrows/tunnels and plant root casts. I’m curious as to how the Noahic flood could have deposited all, or even some of those layers, in a single year. I’ve been asking that question for years but have never gotten any kind of answer from YECs or those with similar flood positions.
Why? The only thing they should be forced to face head-on is that soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years in the right conditions.
There is no reason to retain a correspondent who is non-responsive, is constantly in error, and doesn’t know how to read a geological paper.
But there IS reason to temporarily demote them… as a motivation to improve.
The problem is that these data are also what one would expect to find from background contamination. To distinguish between the YLC conjecture and standard biological theory, one would have to use other data.
Does that make sense?
Since you have not responded to the question, my provisional conclusion is that your YLC conjecture is unable to make any predictions regarding the outcome of radiometric studies of formations with known ages.
Should you be able to generate such predictions from the YLC conjecture, please come back, make a post, and tag me. I would like to see what you come up with.
I think he’s gone, folks. When some people flounce, they really mean it.
@r_speir’s last posting was about 20 hours ago… he said he had to do some research and ended with “Later…”
Thread bumped for r_speir who has left quite a few questions hanging.
Well he’s back now… and he ain’t slumming with us here on THIS thread…
Where is he?