PRATTs thread: ideas wanted

[Febble]

Mike PSS just pointed out (http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=22552&postcount=210) that some posts are complete refutation of certain YEC notions, and we need to be able to link to them.

I thought I'd start this thread for people to link to key posts that can then be assembled into a stickied thread for ready reference.

I'll copy those posts into a thread to start us off, and if people think it's a good idea, please keep adding links to this one. I'll lock the main thread, because the point will be that it should be a resource rather than a venue for discussion. If people want to discuss them, they can link to the source.

If people think it's a terrible idea, let me know. But right now, I'm having fun with these new mod buttons.

Short version:

Post links to key posts here, with reasons why they are important, then a mod will copy the post into the stickied thread.

(We might have to sticky this one too, I suppose).

[Mike PSS]

Febble,
Put your message first in that Sticky thread. My post just doesn't do justice for an OP to a Sticky (in my humble, user opinion of course).

"power to the mod buttons"f

ETA:
Add post #37 from that thread too.
http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=19049&postcount=37

[Febble]

Febble,
Put your message first in that Sticky thread. My post just doesn't do justice for an OP to a Sticky (in my humble, user opinion of course).

"power to the mod buttons"f

ETA:
Add post #37 from that thread too.
http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=19049&postcount=37

Haven't figured out how to do that yet (vbulletin stacks them in order of posting), although I think there's a trick - hang on.

ETA: done it.

[JonF]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.

[Febble]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.

Yep, he's run away from that one. But no, it's not a PRATT.

[Dave Hawkins]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.My treatment of Dr. Bertsche wasn't shameful. He rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations. You're one to talk about shameful treatment of scientists. You claim that Snelling is a fraud even though he clearly is not and why he is not has been explained to you quite thoroughly.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.My treatment of Dr. Bertsche wasn't shameful. He rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations. You're one to talk about shameful treatment of scientists. You claim that Snelling is a fraud even though he clearly is not and why he is not has been explained to you quite thoroughly.
Dave, you're a shameful liar. Everyone watched you bare-face lie about what Dr. Bertsche said, and here you're still doing it. Maybe you should just shut up about it and take your lumps like a man.

[JonF]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.My treatment of Dr. Bertsche wasn't shameful. He rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations.
Flat-out shameless unChristian lie, Davie. You want to claim you're right, reply to http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 and address the issues, you pond-scum coward. Dr. Bertsche did not discard results for not meeting his expectatins, and your claim was not "rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations" it was "results are routinely rejected if they are not close to the expected age". A very different and totally indefensible twisting of what Dr. Bertsche actually wrote.

You're one to talk about shameful treatment of scientists. You claim that Snelling is a fraud even though he clearly is not and why he is not has been explained to you quite thoroughly.
Another shameless lie.

You did make a few unsubstantiated and internally inconsistent claims. You never addressed the issues there eigtehr, you ran like a whipped dog with your tail tucked between your legs. I quote http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4906845#post4906845:


Snelling said he removed the xenoliths before testing
When? Yesterday you assumed he removed the xenoliths but today he said he removed the xenoliths. But you claimed Snelling had replied to you over a week ago. It's possible you had further communication with him between yesterday and today, but did you really wait till yesterday to ask if he removed the xenoliths? That would have been my first question. Very suspicious, Davie. Given the players I strongly suspect at least one person is lying.
So as of now we haven't even established whether or not there is such a claim by Snelling, much less how credible it is. Testimony by an alleged perpetrator is seldom if ever accepted without much questioning.

Which is far from being the only substantive issue raised in that post .. and you never addressed a one of them

And, Davie, since you bring it up, remember:

BTW ... I did contact a head of another geochronology lab and gave him the details of the Mt. Ngaruhoe paper and he said he would comment on it. This should shed more light on the actual facts surrounding this paper.

Since then you've refused to even ecknowledge the existence of that review ... just have been really terrrible for you. What did the head of another geochronology lab say?

Mods, feel free to split Davie's latest attempt to avoid the issues by posting unsubstantiated canards.

[David M]

My treatment of Dr. Bertsche wasn't shameful. He rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations. You're one to talk about shameful treatment of scientists. You claim that Snelling is a fraud even though he clearly is not and why he is not has been explained to you quite thoroughly.

No Dave, Dr Bertsche gave you an example of a sample that was declared undateable because no date could be determined for it (due to contamination). He specifically denied that samples were rejected because they did not conform to the expected age (which is what you claimed he said).

You lied then and are lying now, and stop trying to redefine how you misrespresented his words because your original claim was not about anything not fitting "his expectations" it related solely to not fitting the "expected age".

[deadman_932]

To be honest, I think that what might be of greater good to the overall "community "would be to comb through, organize, and select out what materials might be useful not just for here, but for an already-existing and well-used resource: Talk Origins.

I also think this makes for valuable work in lieu of having any meaningful "opposition" at the moment. The lifeblood of this sort of forum is debate/discussion. It can be generated from outside the forum or inside the forum. We can use current or past events in science, we can use opponents that wander in or are home-grown, or we can set to other tasks that can further the refinement and spread of information.

Talk Origins has a prexisting framework. It would be useful for a wider audience. We can do both tasks of creating a PRAAT resource here as well as add to TO, or we can streamline and add to TO. My preference is the latter.

Edit: I started doing this a while back...going through stuff at AtBC that incorporated new materials not found at TO. New studies, new perspectives, new points of view. There's a lot that can be done there. However, I can see keeping resources here for more site hits, too. *Wink*

[Dave Hawkins]

Here's a great PRATT ... the Global Flood of Noah is a myth.

[lao tzu]

Here's a great PRATT ... the Global Flood of Noah is a myth.

Figured out how those burrowers survived yet? Glenn's still waiting for your refutation of that one.

As are we all.

[Mike PSS]

Here's a great PRATT ... the Global Flood of Noah is a myth.

Don't you have an answer to the two posts I already have up on the PRATT sticky?

They've been hanging around your neck like a rotting albatross for days.

[deadman_932]

Here's a great PRATT ... the Global Flood of Noah is a myth.
Ah, thanks, I needed a laugh.

[Gojira]

Here's a great PRATT

Yes, I know quote-mining is eeevil, but after his behaviour in this thread, I can't resist!

All this lying in the face of the evidence, and he still has the balls to call himself a christian? :yuck:

[Autodidact]

Actually, Dave's inability to put two passages side by side and see that they entirely different is a dramatic example of what creationists do with reality in general. Their ability to look right at something and deny it's there is remarkable.

[Febble]

I really want to figure out how to hold Davie's feet to the fire on his shameful treatmaent of Dr. Bertsche ... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=20148&postcount=17 is apropos, but it's not a refutation of a PRATT.My treatment of Dr. Bertsche wasn't shameful. He rejected dates because they did not fit his expectations.

Do I take it, then, that you retract your claim here:

Given the admission by Dr. Kirk Bertsche at TWeb that results are routinely rejected if they are not close to the expected age, it seems obvious to me what's going on here, although I cannot prove it.


?

And in case you do not see the difference: do you understand the difference between:


The expectation that an uncontaminated small sample will yield a single, internally consistent date
The expectation that a given sample will yield a particular date


?
If not, would you like me to explain it to you again?

[Febble]

To be honest, I think that what might be of greater good to the overall "community "would be to comb through, organize, and select out what materials might be useful not just for here, but for an already-existing and well-used resource: Talk Origins.

I also think this makes for valuable work in lieu of having any meaningful "opposition" at the moment. The lifeblood of this sort of forum is debate/discussion. It can be generated from outside the forum or inside the forum. We can use current or past events in science, we can use opponents that wander in or are home-grown, or we can set to other tasks that can further the refinement and spread of information.

Talk Origins has a prexisting framework. It would be useful for a wider audience. We can do both tasks of creating a PRAAT resource here as well as add to TO, or we can streamline and add to TO. My preference is the latter.

Edit: I started doing this a while back...going through stuff at AtBC that incorporated new materials not found at TO. New studies, new perspectives, new points of view. There's a lot that can be done there. However, I can see keeping resources here for more site hits, too. *Wink*

Can you suggest a procedure we might follow? In the meantime, in lieu, I suggest we keep adding to the sticky here, and then perhaps, if it builds, we can get into some kind of format suitable for TO.

Or something else. My interest is in trying to harness some of the great debates that we are having here into some kind of easily accessible resource. I still like my idea of a flow-chart format, but I can't figure out how to make it happen.

[Don Alhambra]

I still like my idea of a flow-chart format, but I can't figure out how to make it happen.

It will have to be iterative, as we can't do it all at once. You'd also either have to have the answers to each part recorded, or there only being one possible path that didn't lead to contradictions.

You've probably seen Battleground God (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm), I was thinking something like that.

In terms of implementation, we could use PHP (or even HTML).

[Febble]

I still like my idea of a flow-chart format, but I can't figure out how to make it happen.

It will have to be iterative, as we can't do it all at once. You'd also either have to have the answers to each part recorded, or there only being one possible path that didn't lead to contradictions.

You've probably seen Battleground God (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm), I was thinking something like that.

In terms of implementation, we could use PHP (or even HTML).

LuisGarcia was making it work in Wiki. In the end the problem wasn't the implementation of the flowchart, it was the pipeline for content - getting it from inside posters' heads out into the wiki.

[Don Alhambra]

The trouble is that it can very easily snowball into something unmanageable. It's hard to limit oneself to only answering the questions that are already there, I think. Because the answer to a deceptively simple question like 'how old is the Earth' is supported, as we know, by huge amounts of convergent evidence from different fields.

[DMB]

I think Per's posts on ye great fludde are brilliant: they are so clear and succinct. Could they be added to the sticky?

[Febble]

I'll sticky this too, and then people can add nominations to this thread.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Over the years I've posted photos and descriptions of dozens of geological formations that couldn't possibly have been formed by DA FLUD - vertical folded strata, etc. Davie-doo has seen many already, but neither he nor any other YECkie has ever acknowledged or explained them. I can probably recreate many of the posts if need be. Maybe we can have a whole stickied thread just devoted to unusual geological formations.

[DMB]

Good idea.

[hecaterin]

Gladiatrix on Hitler:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=56766#post56766
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=56783#post56783

Tours de force!

[Febble]

Gladiatrix on Hitler:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=56766#post56766
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=56783#post56783

Tours de force!

Thanks! Done.